. --
ration to the students this bulletin
is published
Newspaper Commission called by Feds As part of the overall solution to the chevron problem, the Federation of Students is calling for the chevron staff to agree to a special commission whose role will be to determine long term permanent operating structures for the . U. W. student newspaper. Although the paper will be reopened as the official publication of the Federation, pending acceptance of the Federation’s offer by the free chevron, the formal relationship between the paper, the Federation, and the student body has to be put down on paper. Student Newspapers throughout the country operate under a wide variety of structural andenstitutional arrangements. The relationship between the old chevron and the Federation left a lot to be desired and was in no small way responsible for the original conflict last Fall. To establish the new constitutional arrangements, this commission will be composed of representatives of both the Federation of Students, the chevron staff and also the Ontario Federation, of Students (OF9 and the Canadian University Press (CUP ). Both of these groups (CUP & OFS) have considerable experience with student newspapers and student unions and similar problem> elsewhere in the country. I The chevron’s two reps will bc chosen by the staff of the chevron Of the Federation’s two reps one will be chosen by the Board of Di , rectors from among the Federa tion Executive and one will bt chosen by the Society presidents CUP and OFS will be called upor to nominate one member each The members of the Commissior shall choose the chairman fron amongst themselves. This commission is a vital ele ment in achieving any sort of solution since everyone is aware that the old structures were inadequate and that a new structure must grow out, of consultation and dialogue between all parties concerned and not simply be imposed by any one faction. / It is therefore vital that the commission begin its work as‘soon as possible, and that the outcome be fair, just and acceptable to all’ parties involved. The Federation has committed Jtself in advance to abide by the verdict of the commission because of confidence “that a commission with a composition so unquestionably just will come up with a good long term arrangement guaranteeing a press that is both fair and free” according to President Doug Thompson. The commission, which will provide the permanent and long term solution can begin its work on the day the chevron staff agrees to the reopening.
of UW JUNE 17 1977
by the Federation
of Students
as an attempt
by some
sane individuals
to
eradicate
Our Final
a lingering
problem
that has baffled
the minds
of women
I and men across
this campus
Offer
The Federation of Students, University of Waterloo makes this firm offer to the staff of the Free Chevron, by an act of its Board of Directors. JWe sincerely believe that the offer is fair and reasonable, and ask the students of the University to read this issue in total and embrace the offer as just.
1. We recognize the present staff of the Free Chevron as the legitimate staff of the official student newspaper of the’ students ~ofthe University of Waterloo.
2. We invite the Chevron staff to present the Federation with the persons in the positions of editor, production manager, and ad manager V so that they may receive the normal salaries assigned to these positions of $160/week, beginning immediately. ’ 3. We shall release the budget of the Chevron for use under the usual auspices of the Board of Publications, including the restoration of the position of Board of Publications Office Manager, with Sylvia Hannigan holding the job, if acceptable to the Chevron. 4. We shall instruct the University to restore the phone and mail services. 5. We shall drop all legal actions against the Free Chevron.
6. A binding commission shall be struck immediately to write a 1new Bylaw, governing the Chevron to guarantee an autonomous and responsible press. Back debts and back pay are pending the compleI tion of the Commission, as described elsewhere.
for months.
Speedy resolution more urgent than ever The leadership of the Federation of Students is now convinced that the chevrm conflict must be resolved, at all costs. This does not however, include breaking the law or opposing the will of the students who ‘elected us or who have expressed their views in council elections or the chevron referendum. We have recently returned from the Ontario Federation of Students (OFS) Annual General Meeting held in Hamilton. While there we were imbued with the urgency of the restoration of the legitimacy of the chevron. This was the result of realization that if immediate action is to be taken towards meeting student concerns then we require co-operation on campus. A student newspaper must therefore work in close harmony with the student union. Student cooperation and lead-. ership is required to address fully the multitudinous problems facing us. Immediate input must be made to the reorganization of the OSAP program now under way by the government. . Further tuition fee increases must be blocked by rational argument. The racist differential fees for foreign students must be rolled back. ’ The problem of simultaneous cutbacks in education spending with the increases of tuition and student enrolment is inexcusable. Establishment of a regional universities tour group is necessary in order to block-book rock concerts at an affordable price. We require united action as a student body. It is sincerely hoped that the chevron will accept our offer made with good faith, concern for the future of the student movement, and without pretense.
4
serious problems. First, it ,is nor in fact the staff of the Free The following is an excerpt couched -in either-or terms. You Chevron - can examine the situa>,from the Canadian University tion and propose other strategies. either support the slogan or you Press (CUP) abortive investigasupport the actions of the student For to examine the situation is to tion into the chevron affair some investigate before re-instatement months ago. The author is Tom federation in axing the paper. The - and therefore to oppose the Walkom of CUP who spent some s slogan allows no other ground. slogan and the Free Chevron. time on’ campus attempting to It confuses principle (do you support the right of a newspaper to 1 Third, the Free Chevron’s use investigate. Unfortunately beof the slogan confuses a necessary cause of obstruction by the free be free from student council interference? ) with strategy (do you condition of language that one chevron, the investigation was support the strategy of re-instate word must follow another - with never formally completed. investigate? ). A negative answer the way action occurs in the world. to the second question is assumAction - that is re-instatement As a slogan, “reinstate - invested to,be a negative answer to the cannot take place without actors igate” is effective. It is simple, first.. (be they the students of the U of W, catchy and p<ovides re-assuring the Federation of Students, The Second: because it is a slogan, touchstone for any staffer arguing’ Free Chevron or CUP) conceptuait locks the staff into one strategy the merits of the Free Chevron - out and out battle with the stulizing such action. case. dent council until the student counBut conceptualization demands cil capitulates. Following the loginvestigation of the facts. In other However, because “re-instate ic of the slogan, no one - neither words, if re-instatement is to take investigate” is a slogan, it has CUP, nor the students at U of W, ,place at Waterloo, it must be co-
terminous with an on-going process of investigation by the people who are doing the reinstating. Because we cannot say two words at the same time, we might use the term “re-instate investigate” to describe such a process. But it is only meaningful as shorthand for the interplay between thought and action - investigation and reinstatement. To say that thought may take place only after action that is, to deuy the possibility of any investigation before and during re-instatement, is to think mechanistically, linearly and undiqlectically. One Ii’ree Chevron staffer used the analogy of the trial to describe their situation. “We’ve been hang- I ed before tried,” he said, and continued
on page 4
’
.i
OFS tiddes
tion employees came to provide comments and also to learn how to better orientate their particular areas of work to current student demands and needs. The conference attempted to come to terms with several areas of interest to the students. Included in the workshop topics were OSAP, OLANG and OFS policy, university financing, guaranteed Annual Income, discussion around the role of women within the student movement, unemployment and of the strategies around the battle against the increases in tuition fees and deterioration of the quality of education.
Unexpected vitality emerged in the - Ontario Federation of Students/Federation Des Etudiants annual general De L’Ontario meeting this time. This year’s event was held at Mcmaster University in Hamilton from June 9 to 13. The delegates Waterloo sent were, Gord Swaters the OFS/ FE0 Liaison officer in the federation and Ron .Hipfner vice-president for the feds. The fed delegates also brought the researcherplanner of the Board of Education, Diana Clarke. Making the drive down to Hamilton each day were Erin McGooey, Cathy Huxtable and Morris Ilyniak. ‘These federa-
Subsequent and
Doug
education
to the
Board
of
Directors
(picturedhere,
Thompson,
meeting
Wednesday
left to right)
meet
REFERENDUM FEDERATION
OF STUDENTS
REFERENDUM
In the discussion surrounding OLANG and OSAP the workshop compared the two programs and noted the new proposal does have some positive features (ie OLANG would make it possible to qualify for a grant without having to apply for a loan ). While admitting to the new features, it was pointed out that this type of feature is outweighed by the very high parental contribution factor. This -factor in OLANG is 25% of their net income per child for each child’s education. In other words 50% of the net income for 2 postsecondary students in a family. Clearly this is unacceptable.
night
to discuss
Gord
Swaters.
the publication
STUDENT
ACTIVITYFEE
July
”
At the present time a Student Activity Fee (often called Federation fee) of $27.50 l per student per year is collected by the University of Waterloo and admjnistered by the Federation of Students. At its meeting April 3, 1977, Students’ Council voted to hold a referendum on the question of a refundable student activity fee. .I *The fee is distributed as follows: $25.00 to the Federation of Students $ 1.50 to the Ontario Federation of Students in Toronto $ 1 .OO to the National Union of Students in Ottawa ‘lease
consider
the ballot
below,
and indicate
your
preference
between
the appropriate
brackets:
BALLOT ‘Do you support making the entire Federation dersity of Waterloo on behalf of the Federation pefunds are to be returned within a three-week ‘ined by the- University of Waterloo calendar.)” I Eupport
the above
I do not support This
announcement
motion.
the above is made
of Students activity fees, as collected by the Uniof Students, refundable upon demand? (These period at the start of each academic term as de-
. motion.
In
accordance
with
the
by-laws
of
the
Federation
of
Students,
Doug
Thompson,
President
A significant change occurred in an organizational way concerning women’s role in the. student movement. Following the National Union of Students in the creation of a women’s commission OFS created a commission that would be re-
Ron Hipfner
Chris
Wheatley
Bulletin.
ricing 4
sponsible for research and dissemination of information in such a way that would encourage greater involvement by women in the student movement. The subject that got the most debate was the unemployment question. There was a broad variety of views and concepts argued as to the nature of the causes of unemployment and possible solutions arising to meet the crisis. One thing was resolved though: that OFS will not accept any policy that might reduce enrolment in a post-secondary institution for the sole purpose of ensuring jobs for graduates. In order that we as students understand the complexi ties around the unemployment question in a more complete fashion, a commission was set up to investigate this area of concern. It was also resolved that OFS! FE0 should take the lead and plan a fall conference on the subject. The conference it was felt should include a strong cross section of organization within our society to plan for a more complete strategy in our quest for a more just and equitable society. In a less political frame of reference, Waterloo as a result of discussions with other organizations will be developing a conference on entertainment to be held at Guelph in a couple of weeks. It was decided by the Federation of Students that what is necessary in Ontario at this time is the development of a concert circuit Twithin Ontario. The reasoning is clear. Individual federations cannot simply afford the popular rock bands. If we want large bands to play we can make it more profitable to play a series of concerts than any given one. Waterloo is committed to this proposal and see this as an important area to explore. The conference ended with more commissions set up than any definite plan of action. However, the ground work for the continuing effort needed to build a strong student movement in Ontario was started. Much more in the area of action will occur when these investigations reveal the findings, of this we are confident.
Concerned about the AIA influknce on 3 the Chevron?
G/77,
A REFERENDUM WILL BE HELDON JULY 6, AT THE USUAL POLLINGSTATIONS THE BALLOTWILL READAS2 FOLLOWS:
The requirements for independent status are tightened up. Under OLANG the only way we students can be independent is to be out of school 3 years, married or a parent. This would allow, for example, a 30 year old graduate student to be classified as still dependent on his/her parents.
of Federation
NOTICE
ON THE
Fin
It would appear that a considerable portion of the concerns that we, the students, have had about the Chevron involved CPC (ML) and their organization, the AIA. NaturalIy, this is an area which could be best described as touchy. We all are aware of the rationalization given by last year’s Federation executive for the closing of the paper. That the AIA had an overpowering influence in staff by virtue of the fact they held some staff positions. Sure, all students can agree that individuals from any organization should have the right both moral and legal to hold staff positions. To exclude’ membership on that basis is obviously un-democratic. The only criteria we must have is the quality of the final product, in this case, the Chevron. I think the feeling we students are ha&g about a student newspaper is generally in agreement. What we want is a paper that is orientated to student concerns and needs, but not the exclusion of a broad variety of issues that other forms media generally do not address themselves to. All of this brings us to the question of tactics involved in the re-
creation of this type of student press. The Free Chevron currently occupies the space the Federation has for the publication of the student press, subsequently the Federation has no place to provide students this service of their own press. With all these comments and promises before us and the unnatural opposition of student government versus the Free Chevron of Waterloo, we must find a pro- , gram for the resolution of the chaos. Any organization wiil find that they operate best in an atmosphere which is tense and at first glance, unworkable. When organized one is best able to offer a way out, substantially regardless of the correction of that group’s program when dealing in chaotic circumstances. So in a round about way, what we are saying is that the best method of minimizing the influence of the AIA on the paper is to open it up and not continue. the already over-tense situation. Create an open forum for debate,’ the incentive for new people and new ideas. GORD SWATERS OFS/FEO LIAISON NUS/UNE LIAISON
g
.\
So vou sav ‘nothing% d
nine the last During months, the Federation has been continually criticised for its ineffectiveness in finding a solution to the Federation/Chevron conf/ict. Few ho wevei, realise students, the complexity of the situation. Several legal resolutions have been discussed or put into action only to be bogged down in a frustrating s/o w court process or stalling on the part of the Free Chevron. More time has been devoted to the problem than most students realise. The following is a letter from our lawyer, whom we have been working with in trying to resolve the conflict:
Federation of Students Campus Centre University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Attention,
Mr. Doug Thompson
Dear Sirs: Re: The Free Chevron At the request of the president of the Federation of Students, Doug Thompson, we are reporting , to you on the progress of our legal services rendered to you in this matter from the date of our retainer to the present. We trust this lett& will be helpful in understanding what has been involved from the legal viewpoint during this- long struggle with The Free Chevron.
d
of the executive and of the students’ council, it was decided that petty trespass charges would probably not be as good a remedy. In addition, it was feared that a judge may not order the defendants to vacate the premises if he did find them guilty but might merely fine them. It is not mandatory for a judge to prder the defendant to leave the premises. Almost daily, we were in communication with Mr. Roberts or other officers of -the Federation, and on November 19th, we first cbntacted Brian Iler, a lawyer lawyers
barter
for position.
in Toronto who we were told might be acting for the Free Chevron. He stated that he was not, but on November 22nd, we were contacted by Mr. Lee Fitzpatrick, a local lawyer who informed us that he had been retained by at least two of the defendants. We immediately began negotiating to settle this matter, in that we met personally on November 22nd and we received a letter on November 24th setting out the d& fendants position. We immediately replied in the hope that we could persuade Mr. Fitzpatrick that his clients did not have a right to remain in possession of the premises.
would be. the best course of action, and negotiations continued with the defendants’ lawyer concerning the referendum. Mr. Fitzpatrick was provided with a draft copy of the referendum and with a draft agreement which would have required the defendants to vacate the Chevron offices and to abide by the results of the referendum, Although the Free Chevron input was invited into the referendum, a reply was not received until December 21. At this point, the executive had already prepared the referendum for circulation as they faced a deadline in mailing it to the off-campus students since the referendum was to be held on January 13, 1977. A representative of the National Union of Students had been on campus during the week and although he had spoken to the Free Chevron, he had not received any input from them concerning the referendum. Accordingly, the Free Chevron treated the referendum as being invalid, and refused to sign the agreement binding themselves to the result of the referendum. We were then instructed to proceed with the c,ivil action, and the writ of summons was issued on the 5th day of January, 1977. As some of the Free Chevron staff CHEVRON gentlemen’s _-
reneges on agreement
In the meantime, Shane Roberts was attempting to obtain some members had left and others had assistance from the University,come after Christmas, it was by having Security change the out- necessary to amend the writ by side locks to the Chevron offices. additional names, and adding Obviously, this was not a successthis was done with the consent of ful move. Mr. Fitzpatrick. The amended Mr. Fitzpatrick and I were trywrit and statement of claim were ing to work out some way of hav- served upon the defendants, and a Shane Roberts, then president of ing the matter resolved, and we motion for an injunction was heard the Federation of Students, first were discussing the possibility of in County Court in Kitchener on consulted -with Mr., David Cooke, a general meeting, of an investiFriday, Febr_uary 4, 1977. It should a partner in this law firm, and gation by a corporate-legal expert, be explained that it was agreed myself on November 4, 1976. At of an arbitration, and of a court upon between Mr. Fitzpatrick, the that time, Mr. Roberts outlined motion. Obviously, Mr. Roberts solicitor for the defendants and the problem to us, and asked us to was not in favour of a general - myself that -we would bring the advise him of the legal position meeting of members of the Fedmotion in County Court rather than of the Federation of Students in eration, as it appeared that the in Supreme Court in Toronto to the Free Chevron issue. At that issues were not such as could be avoid the necessity of travel. In decided upon at such a meeting. time, we discussed the possibilifact, on the return of the motion ties of criniinal charges, and of a After’ each such conversation for an injunction, Mr. Fitzpatrick civil action. We believe that it is with Mr. Fitzpatrick, he would assisted me in persuading His Honof importance to note that the then consult with his clients, who our, Judge Mossop that the County would then apparently have to hold Free Chevron issue first surfaced Court did have jurisdiction to a meeting of all staff members beon September 24, 1976, which was hear the motion for the injunction, approximately six weeks before fore they would respond to the and it was my opinion at that time discussed between Mr. we were first approached by Mr. matters and it is still my opinion that the Fitzpatrick and myself. We at- County Court does have the jurisRoberts. After our first meeting, we tempted to work out the terms diction to hear the injunction. An examined the Charter and By- upon which an arbitration could interim injunction was obtained be held, and of course, dealt tiith laws of the Federation of Students, on Monday, February 7th, requirthe Ontario Corporations Act, the difficult issue of’ whether or ing the defendants to vacate the and minutes of the meetings of not the members of the Free Chevpremises, and arrangements were the executive and of council to ron would vacate the space pending made to have the order served determine whether or not the Fed- the outcome of the arbitration ’ upon the defendants immediately. eration had acted properly and hearing. It appeared at this time At the same time, we began prelegally. We also researched the that several members *of council paring the necessary documents to law to &certain what remedies were not in favour of an arbitrahave the defendants committed were available to the Federation. tion and that the Free Chevron for contempt of court if they did On November 11, at the request was holding out for its own terms. not vacate the premises. However, of the president, the writer atbefore this could be done, we were tended a meeting of students’ On Saturday, December llth, served with a notice that the decouncil but the matter of the Free at the request of Mr. Roberts, fendants would be appealing the Chevron was never discussed at I attended at a meeting of the order, and the appeal was heard in Toronto on Wednesday, February the meeting. It ~8s obviously Board of Directors of the Federathe hope of Mr. Roberts that the tion called for the sole purpose of 9. On appeal, the interim injunca course of action to tion was overturned on several matter might be resolved in stu- determining resolve the Free Chevron matgrounds. We would like to note dents’ council with the assistance of legal advice, At this point, our ter. We specifically discussed a for the record that one of the grounds was that the County Court advice to Mr. Robertswas that the referendum, arbitration proceedlacked jurisdiction. As noted bebest course of action would be to ings, a civil action, petty tresthe defendants’ solicitor, bring a civil action to regain pos- pass, and bringing a motion in fore, session of the premises. After a court for interpretation of the by- Lee Fitzpatrick, had consented civil action was commenced, an laws. The consensus of the meetto the jurisdiction of the County was immediately ing was that the most expeditious Court judge and we do not r’eel application matter resolving the dispute would that this argument should have brought.;for qn injunction restrainbe to bring a motion in court to been successful. ing the defendants from entering on the premises of the Chevron interpret the by-laws. After this offices until the case was finalmeeting we researched this matWe were then consulted immedi; ly heard. Because of the complexter very carefully and came to the ately by Doug Thompsoh concernconclusion that ‘the rules of court ity of the issues, namely the ining the possibility of appealing terpretation of the Charter, the would not allow us ta apply for a the decision of Mr. Justice Craig. by-laws, the Corporations Act and motion of interpretation. It was Our advice was that because one the proceedings at the meetings then ‘decided that a referendum of the strongest arguriients against
be& us was the delay in bringing the motion for an injunction, it would not have been very advantageous to launch an appeal. Even if we had brought this motion the very first day that our firm was retained, we would have been met with the argument of delay, as six weeks had already passed from the date of the original incident. Having failed to remove the defendants from the premises by way of interim injunction, this meant that if we were to continue with the civil action, no decision will be made until the trial which will be six months to a year away. Accordingly, we attempted to negotiate with the defendants for an investigation or arbitration of the incident. Immediately, Doug Thompson and I worked out a proposal for an investigation and gave it to the defendants for their reaction. By this time, the defendants were insisting on reinstatement before an investigation, and we came to an impasse. On one occasion Mr. Thompson and I met personally with two members of the Free Chevron staff in an attempt to work out a solution to the problem, but we were unable to persuade the Free Chevron to agree to an investigation before reinstatement, and the Federation of Students would not give in to reinstatement. On February 28th, an assault trial was heard in Provincial Court in Waterloo concerning an incident in November when Shane Roberts had attempted to remove a typewriter from the Chevron offices. The charges against Shane Roberts and Bruce Leavens were defended by me and I prosecuted the case against Messrs. Docherty, Hannant and Hess. Roberts and Leavens were acquitted of their charges and Docherty, Hannant and Hess were pla”ced on a peace bond in’the penal sum of $200. I had made submissions to the judge requesting that these persons be required to vacate the Chevron offices but the judge would not accede to this request. We then advised the defendants” lawyers immediately that we required their statement of defence
d one
as quickly as possible. In the meantime, other attempts have also been made to resolve this matter through the University of Waterloo. We have communicated with the University solicitor both by letter and by telephone conversation and we have communicated with Doug Thompson concerning these disr cussions. We have been instructed by Doug Thompson to assist the Federation in laying petty trespass charges against the Free Chevron members who are occupying the Chevron offices, and if this is done immediately, it may be possible to have a trial by mid July, depending upon the availability of the court facilities and the tactics of the defendants’ lawyers. The argument will be raised that as we have already commenced a civil action. we are not entitled to lay criminal charges, but we believe that there is case law in our favour stating that the fact that we have brought a civil action cannot preclude us from using our criminal remedies. We realize that this whole experience has been at the very least a very frustrating one for everyone concerned. The m::mbers of the Free Chevron are adept at making use of any tactics which are available to them in the court process to their advantage to delay proceedings. A very good analysis of the situation is found in the CUP HOUSE ORGAN, No. 7, Feb. 4, 1977 in an article by Tom Walkom entitled “A Non-Report on a Non-Investigation”. In that article, Mr. Walkom discusses the Free Chevron slogan, “Re-instate Investigate”’ ;Ind he discusses the three serious problems in which the slogan results. He then sums up the problem in words which I think are very apropos: “In short, % I -think the staff of the Free Chevron is getting itself boxed into a corner by its literal mechanistic use of the slogan ‘re-instate - investigate’.‘”
Throughout the course of our representation of the Federation of Students in this action, most of the actual legal work was performed by the writer of this letter. CHEVRON lawyer stalls However, at various points court action. throughout the case, I consulted with Mr. David Cooke, with Mr. Richard Van Buskirk, a lawyer in order that we could get on with who is experienced in civil litigathe civil action. We allowed their tion, and with Mr. David Whitlawyer until the 21st of March, and field, a partner in this firm, coninstead of serving upon us a state- cerning -various aspects of the ment of defence, he served us with case. At other times, I sought out a notice of motion seeking to strike from the Crown Attorney’s out certain paragraphs of our advice office and from the office of the statement of claim. This was Justice of the Peace in Waterloo, clearly a delaying tactic, and when I discussed this matter with we attended upon the motion be- and the University solicitor, Mr. Regfore His Honour Judge Costello, inald Haney, QC If there are any the defendants were unsuccessful questions arising out of this letter, in having any of the paragraphs I would be very willing to make stricken out from the statement myself available at a meeting of of claim, but they were successthe student’s council or of the exeful in gaining additional time to cutive to answer any questions serve their statement of defence which you may have. upon us. We arranged for an apYours very truly, pointment for the examinations ARTINDALE, COOKE & for discovery at the earliest posWHITFIELD sible date, which is June 20. Per: Gary E. Flaxbard Doug Thompson again began inquiring about the possibility of This conflict has gone on petty trespass charges, and we and unless were informed by the Crown At- for nine months we come: about some reatorney that he would not pre’secute and co-operative the charges. Our advice to Doug sonable Thompson approximately two agreement, it will only conweeks ago was to contact the Jus- sume more valuable time tice of the Peace concerning the and energy in the areas of laying of charges, and these journalism and student govcharges have not yet been laid. ernment operations, to the As soon as the examinatiqns of both. for discovery are held, on June detriment We hope that the proposal 20th, if we are instructed to conbe considered without tinue with the civil action, we will will suspicion or closebring a motion for a speedy trial prejudice, so that the matter may be heard mindedness.
. Board Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held in Toronto June 15,1977. Present: Martha Coutts, Eric Higgs, Ron Hipfner, Bruce Leavens, Doug Thompson. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. in the Residence of Martha Coutts at 310 Bloor . St. West by the. chairman Ron Hipfner. 2. VACANCY ’ Hipfner explained the retirement of Brian Burke from the Board, due to failure to remain in good academic standing. THOMPSON/HIPFNER move to\ appoint Eric Higgs to the Board of Directors. Discussion ensued on Higgs’ qualifications, and the possibility of increasing the Board’s membership to include other candidates. Motion passed unanimous 3. COUNCIL ELECTIONS Thompson gave a report on the recent Students’ Council elections. HIPFNER/HIGGS move that the following persons acclaimed and elected recently be ratified in order that they may proceed to Students’ Council : Gerard Kimmons (acclaimed Science Co-op) ; Mark McGuire (acclaimed E.S.S. Co-op); Herb Malcolmson (acclaimed H.K.L.S. Co. op) ; Joe Crncick (acclaimed Engineering) ; Brian Stevens (acclaimed Engineering) ; Doug McDougall (re-elected Math Coop). The Board wished its Unanimous displeasure with the number of acclamations noted for the record. Original motion passed 3-O-2. ’ 4. BOARD OF EDUCATION COUTTS/HIPFNER move to ratify the President’s appointment of Doug McDougall as the Board of Education chairperson. Motion passed 4-O-l. 5. BOARD OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS HIPFNER/THOMPSON move to appoint Gord Swaters the OFS/ NUS Liaison Officer under the Board of External Relations. It was noted for the Board that Swaters has been carrying out those duties in an exemplary manner of late. Motion passed unanimously. 6. REFERENDUM Contrary to numerous published reports,the Bylaw iedef ining membership in the Federation of Students does not deny any voting privileges to full-time undergraduates of the University of Waterloo, , in the Opinion of Federation lawyer Gary Flaxbard - reported Thompson.
Reinstate Investigate continued
from front
Pointed out the paper should be restofed to its previous condition and then tried, or as he put it, “re-instate - investigate”. It is true perhaps that the paper was not given a fair trial but if the Free Chevron wants to get cut down from white old oak, the people doing the cutting are going to have to know why they should; bother ; they are going to have to investigate. What’s more, The Chevron can only stay strung up so long before it dies. In short, I think the staff of the Free Chevron is getting itself boxed into a corner by its literal mechanistic use of the slogan “reinstate - investigate”.
of Directors
.MinLHes
J’
THOMPSON/HIPFNER move that the refundable fee referendum designated for July 6, 1977 be conducted only for those on-campus; and that the ballot boxes be sealed until after the second part of the referendum is conducted in the Fall among the remaining members of the Federation. It was noted that the split referendum will save several thousand dollars and avoid the problem of dis-enfranchising some 6500 odd members who cannot be located in time for July 6. Motion passed unanimously. 7. BOARD GF PUBLICATIONS LEAVENS/COUTTS move that the Board of Publications Bylaws be rescinded July 15, 1977 and that any reference to the Board of Publications be deleted from any other Bylaw on that date. Motion passed unanimously. 8. FREE CHEVRON HIPFNER/THOMPSON move that the Board of Directors endorse the offer to the Free Chevron as below: a) We recognize the present staff of the Free Chevron as the legitimate staff of the official student newspaper of the students of the University of Waterloo. b) We invite the Chevron staff to present the Federation with the persons in the positions of editor, production manager, and ad manager - so that they may receive the normal salaries assigned to these positions of $16O/week, beginning immediately . c) We shall release the budget of’ the Chevron for use under the usual auspices of the Board of Publications , including the restoration of the position of Board of Publications Office Manager with Sylvia Hannigan holding the job, if acceptable to the Chevron. d) We shall instruct the University to restore the phone and mail services. e) We shall drop all legal actions
against the Free Chevron. _ f) A binding commission * shall be struck immediately to write a new Bylaw governing the Chevron to guarantee an autonomous and responsible press. Back debts and back pay will be awarded pending the successful completion of the Commission, and acceptance of the results of the Canmission by a referendum. * two members appointed by the Chevron staff, one member appointed by the Board of Directors, one member appointed by the Committee of Presidents; one member appointed by the Executive of the Ontario Federation of Students, one member appointed by the Executive of the C nadian University Press. Motion passed unanimously 9. CONTINGENCY MOTIONS a) LEAVENSIHIGGS Should the Free Chevron not accept unconditionally the offer by June 27, 1977 then the Board of Publications budget subsidy shall be reallocated to Media Waterloo (see motion below), excepting the necessary funds to hire a professional firm to clear and secure CC140 as the new Media Waterloo headquarters. Motion passed unanimously b) COUTTSHIPFNER: Should the Free Chevron accept the offer by June 27, 1977 then the Commission shall be struck immediately and all members named within two days of acceptance. The Commission is required -to complete its recommendations by July 31, 1977. These recommendations will be presented to the students in a referendum, including off-campus mailout to co-op students, on October 6,1977. Motion passed unanimously. c) HIGGS/THOMPSON : Should the Free Chevron not accept unconditionally the offer by June 27, 1977 then a new organization called Media Waterloo shall
be instituted with the following guidelines : 1) it will provide support funding for a wide variety of student publications. 2) it will allocate space to these publications. 3) disbursement of funds shall be under the jurisdiction of Media Waterloo which shall include representatives from the Societies and Federation Executive. I Motion passed unanimously.
py prospect. I will seek here to explain why that is so and what such a move would imply. The Federation is seeking honestly and fairly to resolve the chevron controversy which has drained so much energy from both the Federation and the news-
paper. Unless a settlement is achieved soon it is quite likely that the Federation will cease to exist for any one of several reasons. Achieving a settlement is therefore most urgent. This offer should, by all accounts of the free chevron position be acceptable to them because it in-
Masthead The Federation Bulletin has been brought to you by Doug Thompson. Prez., Ron Hipfner, Vice, Gord Swaters, OFS/NUS Liaison, and Chris Wheatly, the only ‘Joe kicking around the Fed office with newsprint on his mind this week. This publication has been funded by the Federation of Students at a cost of some 337 dollars or about .1 per cent of the Federation Fee income. The purpose of this one shot publication is to provide a vehicle for a proposal arising out of the OFS - (Ontario Federation of Students) conference in Hamilton last week. The proposal was devised by delegates Ron Hipfner and Gord Swaters after lengthy discussion on the Chevron/Federation conflict. The interests, concern and contributions provided by those involved with those discussions were invaluable; despite what the results may be, we think that this offer is the only way out of this mess. We hope that the students will be able to examine the conditions from which it arose, and relevant matters revolving around it as a result of this publication. Too many times in the past, the issues themselves have become obscured in an ensuing wave of confusion, rhetoric and insinuation. We invite response to this proposal/publication from students, OFS, NUS, CUP’, yniversities and newspapers across the countw . Address any comments to: Hermphley Burmphley, Federation of Students, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. For better or for worse, thanx. .
,
Publicati6ns Office Manager’s position could- be continued Last week, the staff committee of the Federation of Students which consists of the President (Doug Thompson ) , the Vice-president (Ron Hipfner ), the Treasurer (Martha Coutts) and the Business Manager (Peter Yates), released Sylvia Hannigan who is the present Board of Publications Office Manager, from the Federation payroll, effective July 6. Since September, when the free chevron occupation of the Board of Publications offices began, the particular job for which she was hired, ie. off ice manager, has been redundant, except for occasional work on the Real Chevron. Sylvia was transferred to the Federation office by then president Shane Roberts. Since then, Sylvia has been a part of the Federation General office staff. Lately,
however,
AmI if th,e chevron The possibility of the free chevron rejecting our offer is not a hap-
10. LEAVENSCOUTTS move that Doug Thompson be granted a leave of absence for an unspecified period not exceeding six weeks, at half pay to allow full attengon to pressing personal He will be matters. available by telephone no less than two days a week. Motion passed unanimously 11. HIPFNERCOUTTS move to adjourn. Adiournment came at 10: 16 n.m.
the workload
for the office low, and the decided that stand, Sylvia’s There is just her to do.
staff has been very staff committee has as things presently job is redundant. not enough work for
When questioned on the matter of Sylvia’s future if the chevron returns to some semblance of normalcy. Federation Vice-president Ron Hipfner said “that Sylvia would obviously not be redundant in such a situation and would continue on the Federation payroll. ” Hipfner also pointed out that all Federation employees in the classification ‘permanent’, such as Ms. Hannigan are really employees of the university and that even if the Federation didn’t need Sylvia, the chances were very good that the university would find her employment with another department.
rejects?%
If the free chevron refuses to eludes all of their demands as we accept reason and justice then it understand them, tempered only by certain guarantees that the is obvious that their interests are from those of UW principles are lived up to by the very divergent students generally. Such a rejecnewspaper. They have demanded lead to the back pay and back debts, and we tion will undoubtedly most dire of consequences. UW are offering this contingent only upon the free chevron agreeing to students want and need a healthy and strong central student organparticipate in a multi-party comization. There is no way that one mission (see story on the comcan be built so long as the chevmission) which would set out new ron controversy continues. operating structures for the$paper. The Federation is soon to be fatIt is in effect a post-dated cheque, ing a referendum on the question requiring only that they, the free fees. There is curchevron move sincerely towards a of refundable long term resolution - hardly an rently only one student union in Canada operating on refundable unreasonable demand on our part. fees, that is in Lethbridge Alberta. There has been the suggestion, In the words of Dan O’Connor of however, that the free chevron the National Union of Students leadership is not really interested ’ “It is not operating. It cannot in a solution to the problem, but even pay CUP and NUS fees.” would rather like to see it stretch Closer to home, the students at out as long as possible. There qre Guelph had a union that attempted reasons why some people believe operating on refundable fees for this to be the case. Hopefully it is 18 months - and then went into renot - hopefully sane heads will ceivership. prevail and the offer will be acRefundable fees are the death cepted. kiss. That is the message. If the offer is accepted a speedy The leadership of the free chevresolution to the problem will ron know these facts. occur. It took’ years for a viable stuIf the offer is not accepted, the, dent union at Guelph to rise from Federation of Students may not continue to exist for long. It is the ashes. Should the free chevron reject our offer then those impossible to conceive of terms of settlement more reasonable to who ‘are of the belief that the free chevron has no interest in stuthe free chevron which at the dent unionism in any organized same time provide certain miniform will have been proven cormum guarantees to the student rect, and lamentably so. A rebody at large that the agreement jection will vindicate those who will signify a real long-term solubelieve that the free chevron is tion, and not just a capitulation seeking chaos as a situation more to the free chevron, which would amenable to its growth and inflube in no one’s interest and would ence. accomplish nothing lasting.
’