Responsibility to Represent

I want to talk a litle bit about how I feel student politicians, and politicians in general, should act. In particular I want to talk about the responsibility to listen to the general public and act on what they hear. I have given this issue a lot of thought since the Macleans debate and I will use that debate as an example of what I'm talking about.

The Macleans debate centred on whether the UVSS should do anything in response to the "Too Asian" article. The UVSS Board meeting that discussed this was the most well attended board meeting so far this term, and every attendee that spoke was in favour of boycotting Macleans. The board eventually voted in favour of the boycott, but there were some that voted against it. There were a couple reasons for the votes against: one was that because people thought the article was problematic, but a boycott would amount to censorship (I strongly disagree, and stated why at the board meeting, and won't get at that here as its not the true focus of this post), and the other is that the article didn't bother them combined with ideology of the first reason.

As for me, when I read the article, it didn't bother me. When the issue came before the board, I voted in favour of the boycott. Now why in the world would I choose to boycott something that didn't bother me? The simple reason is that I am on the board to represent the student body as a whole, not just myself and my viewpoint. I am not asian, so the article did not target me. However, many asian students, as well as other students, expressed to me that this was a racist article and that we should, as their representatives, do what we could to make their displeasure known to Macleans. As a student representative, it was my responsibility to listen to their concerns and act upon them. To do anything otherwise would be to not do my job.

The counter-argument to my reasoning is that it was simply a vocal minority and that the majority of students either don't care, or against the issue. I don't buy this argument for two reasons. The first reason is that the "vocal minority" in this case were the people directly affected by the article. Of course it didn't bother most people, they aren't asian. It was the asian community that stood up and said this bothered them. When a minority group says they have concerns that they are being targeted, they are the people you should be listening to.

The second reason is more what I want to focus on in this post as it steps away from the Macleans issue and addresses a problem I have seen in most governing bodies. The reason that I don't buy the whole "vocal minority" argument in this case and most cases is that by labelling a group a "vocal minority" you are delegitimizing what they have to say whether they represent a broader portion of the community or not. An important point here is that we don't know for sure whether they do represent the larger community or are just a vocal minority. The majority of people aren't vocal, that's why they aren't called the vocal majority, and we can't assume that we know what they want. All we can do as representatives is listen to the people that are talking to us, but who are these people?

In student government, as well as other governments, I am going to artificially narrow down who is talking to us into two general groups: our circle of friends that have access to us all the time (in other governments I equate this to the large business interests that always have access to the government) , and groups that campaign on a certain issue, the "vocal minorities". Often times these to groups conflict on how the government should address an issue (far less in student politics than at other levels). In this case, who should you listen to? Of course you should listen to both groups as they will both provide unique perspectives, but in the end, you have to make a decision to act one way or another, or make a compromise between the two. This is very difficult even for those with the best of intentions.

Sometimes there is no room for compromise, like if global temperatures rise by 2 degrees society as we know it will exist no more so every country has to do everything they can to reduce their impacts... wait, that's a really bad example. A better example is the Macleans motion that went before the board. It was either boycott Macleans or do nothing. There was a compromise amendment proposed that was to just write a letter, but in reality that would be to do nothing; Macleans would get that letter, say "how nice", and then throw it in the garbage. So really you have to make a decision to act or not to act.

When making the decision to act, or not to act, there are two key factors (note: I have noticed that I am incedibly binary in writing this post) that should go into deciding which group to side with. One factor is who is affected by this issue. I am far more inclined to listen to people who are genuinely effected "vocal minority" by an issue in a way that prevents them from participating in the community, effects their health, or effects their means of survival. Their arguments hold more weight for me than someone "friend" who not effected by an issue. It is for this reason that I weighed the point of view of the asian community in the Macleans debate over any other view.

The second factor is not related to the Macleans debate, and often not to student politics at all. This is who stands to gain financially or in power from a decision that has to be made. For example, if you have a tar sands company "business friend" that says there should be no regulation on them, and an environmental group "vocal minority" that says there should be, I am much more inclined to side with the environmental group because they have nothing to gain financially whereas the tar sands company does. Therefore, the tarsands company is far more likely to lie to you, or at least withhold the truth.

Now I want to talk about a third group that you should listen to that I neglected to mention earlier. This is your fellow representatives. So many times I get frustrated at board meetings and feel that discussion is pointless because people don't listen to each other. The purpose of government should not be to oppose and attempt to embarrass to other by trying to find flaws in an argument. The purpose should be to provide different points of view and really listen to each other and then come to a decision by addressing concerns. There are some people on the board that do this very well, but there are others that refuse to be swayed by others on the board no matter what the situation. I find this to be unacceptable and it defeats the purpose of even having meetings.

So in summary, we as student representatives have a responsibility to listen to students on campus when they come to us with an issue. We also have a responsibility to listen to each other. Once we have truly done these things, we then have the responsibility to take actions to represent the students as we said we would.

Rob McDonald

UVSS Representatives Meet with Minister Ida Chong

This morning Ben Johnson, Dylan Sherlock, James Coccola and myself from Uvic, and Matteus Clement from Camosun met with Provincial Cabinet Minister Ida Chong and Assistant Deputy Minister Victoria Thibault to discuss issues affecting students across the province. Even with a full hour of discussions, we still didn't have time to talk about everything we wanted to, but we were able to hit on some key issues.

The first issue discussed was that of interest rates on student loans. Clement made the case that the interest rates had an inhibiting effect on students choosing to enter post-secondary education, and Sherlock followed that up with the argument that saddling students with paying all this interest was bad for the economy as it left graduates unable to effectively participate in important economic activities due to the inability to get more credit once they graduate. Thibault responded that reducing interest rates has been looked at, but not acted upon because government didn't have the money to cover that cost. I take a bit of an issue with this statement as while it may be true that the ministry might not have the money in their budget to do this, the government as a whole seems to have plenty of money to spend on frivolous things such as a new roof for BC Place, a new conference centre, and the Olympics.

The second issue talked about was the issue of grants and non-repayable loans. Chong pointed to the current programs as a strength of our student aid system, but Sherlock pointed out that BC has the lowest rates of grants and non-repayable loans in the country. Much of this discussion hinged on whether grants should be up front or on the back end. Chong said the reasoning for the current back end grants program is to ensure that students complete their programs so that the government doesn't waste their money. Clement made the point that back end grants don't get students in the door, because they still have to put up the money up front to start school. Sherlock followed this up by saying that back end grants were income contingent because a student would still have to have a certain amount of money to start school and may not be able to wait until they are done their courses to get that money back.

Coccola then turned the conversation to university funding and asked about changes to the way universities to be funded to keep up with inflation, especially for schools that have maxed out their enrolments to try to keep up. Chong expressed concern about increasing funding for schools that have maxed out their enrolments as she didn't want to take money away from regional schools that had lower enrolments to fund the bigger schools. For me, this sent up a big alarm bell in that the way she framed her concern was that there would be no room for an overall rise in funding for education, just a shift of funding from one department to another, in fact this was the tone of the entire conversation of the day.

Coccola also asked about the government's throne speech commitment to remove universities from Government Reporting Entity status. Chong said that this was understandably running behind due to the uncertainties going forward with the leadership in flux. She also said that it was a complex issue that might have unintended consequences such as damaging the province's credit rating. Sherlock asked if an opt out option for some schools that took issue with the status might be in the offing, and Chong said that was a solution that might be looked at.

Finally Johnson asked what the rationale was for the splitting of colleges and universities into two different ministries (though at the moment Chong oversees both ministries). Chong responded by saying it allowed each institution to focus on what they did best. For colleges that would means training people within their regions and partnering with local skills training organizations to help local economies. For universities this means a more research focused funding and partnerships with business research bodies. After, the meeting Johnson mused that this does sound good in the colleges case, but we all agreed that for the universities it could lead to an increasing role of private interests in our universities which is a place we don't want to go. Further to this issue, Coccola asked whether the split of ministries would effect the 2% cap on tuition fee hikes on either colleges or universities. Chong responded that this was not on the table at this time, and expressed willingness to talk about the cap and whether it could be raised at all, but she indicated that bringing that cap down to 0% was a no go zone.

In all, it was a very useful meeting in which we gathered a solid amount of information from Chong and Thibault. They both committed to continuing the conversation, and Thibault was willing to set up another meeting in the near future. I was left with the impression that they are willing to look at several different policies to help improve access to post-secondary education, but also that it did not look like their would be any more funding than current levels. I realize that Chong is not in a position to make more funds available, but she is in a position to lobby strongly for increased funding for post-secondary education and that is something we sincerely hope she takes up.

Rob McDonald

The Medium is the Message: The Lost Medium

Here is something I thought up in the shower this morning and I thought I should write is down. I admit it's rough and would need to be developed more to stand up to scrutiny, but I want to know what people think. So please read, comment and poke holes in if you want.

The Medium is the Message: The Lost Medium

Marshall McLuhan's “The Medium is the Message” shifted focus from the content of media to the medium itself as what is important to how societies function. A key concept he brings forth is that one type of media contains other types. For example, written media is contained in tv in the form of a script, oral media is contained in written media in the form of speech and so on all the way back to thought.

In his analysis, McLuhan, and the rest of our society as wrapped up in our mode of thought as we are, forgot, or didn't notice one type of media that was contained in other media in our history. The medium I am referring to is spiritual communications, be they signs, visions, dreams or what have you. This medium has been described by cultures across the world, including our own, though in the more distant past than most. The Bible is a great example of this, for in the Bible, a written media, is contained oral media (indeed the First Testament at least came from oral tradition and wasn't written down until long after it came into being, hence all the psalms), and within the oral media lies spiritual media. The easiest example that comes to mind is when Moses sees a burning bush and hears the word of God speak to him through the bush.

It is the spiritual media that has provided the moral grounding of societies throughout the ages. Oral traditions were used to translate spiritual media to those who couldn't access that media. Over time, the oral traditions were overtaken by written media, and in that process the spiritual media that was encased within oral traditions then became encased in written media. This transition created a situation where spiritual media became far more inaccessible to the regular person, and the church became the translator of all spiritual media through control of the written media (remember that in the beginning, written media wasn't very accessible as not many people knew how to read or write, and papyrus or parchment, the key materials used for written media before the 1600's wasn't easy to acquire or mass produce). With the the ability to be the (at least self proclaimed) sole translator of spiritual media, came great power, and with great power came the potential for great abuse. And abuse that power, the church did. The Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, and the elimination of the Templars are only a few examples of the abuses of the church.

The frequent abuses of power caused for a movement to separate church and state. This is what happened over the period of a couple of centuries and with that move emerged a new set of problems. The church remained the interpreter of spiritual media and the state was left to look after the physical well-being of society, which usually simply meant the economic well-being of society. It is important to note that since the state was not supposed to interact with the church, it did not have the spiritual media as the foundation of their existence that the church had. This left the state to look after the economic interests of their society without the moral foundations that had grounded society in the past. Of course this did not happen overnight, and for a long time the state was influenced by the morals of the previous spiritual dominated society that created it. However, in modern times and especially in Western society, states have become completely secularized and tied to an economic orthodoxy. This leaves us in our present situation where our economically focused governments can see only problems related to economic issues because that is all it has the space to do. They cannot address spiritual problems because of the separation of church and state. Furthermore, they cannot even acknowledge the existence of spiritual media because it is buried within the oral traditions which are buried within the written religious texts which they are not supposed to interact with.

Our governments are not equipped to deal with the moral issues of our time, be they inequality, racism, lack of spirituality/compassion/empathy in our society, or environmental issues (yes, I view environmental degradation as partially a moral/spiritual problem). And herein lies the problem with our society, because it is the government we look to to deal with these problems. What this means is that we need to understand that governments are not going to be able to solve these problems and we have to start solving them by other means, or we have to change the basic premise of how our governments work. If we want governments to deal with the moral issues of out time, we must re-incorporate the state with spirituality and most of all with spiritual media in a world that desperately needs it.

Rob McDonald

UVSS Referendum This Week

Hey all,

James Coccola, chair of the UVSS, has asked me to post this on here. I think it is a good idea as I too have been campaigning on these issues. When I campaigned to get elected to the UVSS one my key issues was financial sustainability. Saying yes to these referendum questions will go the longest way to achieving that sustainability. I have been part of many discussions and plans to find creative ways to get more funds into the UVSS and keep costs down, and some of them will hopefully come to fruition. However, despite our best efforts, the effects of rising costs in the last 22 years has left us no room other than to do what we are asking for in the referendum this week.

So without further ado, here is James' letter:

As many of you know, the UVSS is conducting several referendums this week. The purpose behind the referendums is to save the Students’ Society. Over the past three years we have accumulated a debt of nearly $370,000 and this year we are projecting to go an additional $90,000 into the red.

The last increase to our fees was in 1988. There are students coming to campus this year for the first time who were born in 1992. Inflation alone has damaged our ability to pay for services and now we are left with a 22 year gap in funding that we simply are not able to deal with.

Many students have asked me why we don’t try to cut costs more. The simple answer is that we have and there really is nothing left to cut: our Grafix Department has been reduced to one part-time staff from two and-a-half staff; info booth hours have been reduced, including a closure in the summer; our committee budgets have been dramatically slashed; and the Student Union Building is now only open until 9:30 . Among many other projects, we are currently looking to cut down handbook costs.

There are four questions related to the UVSS that we encourage you to VOTE YES on. (Plus a question from UVic Pride that you should also VOTE YES on.)

The first question asks for 50 cents per semester for events. Whether it’s concerts, speakers, pancakes or beer gardens, the UVSS wants to make sure that there are events that you will remember for years to come. The money collected for this fee could only be used for events. This means that no matter what, our budget will always have the money to put on the great events that you expect and deserve.

The second question is asking for 90 cents per semester for elections. UVSS members recently voted to change our bylaws so that the UVSS board is removed from the process that adjudicates complaints between candidates. This means that external professionals will now be adjudicating our elections so that the process is as fair as possible. But impartiality comes at a price, which means our elections will be getting more expensive.

Many students don’t realize just how costly UVSS elections are. Last year, they cost the Society $27,000. This pays for an external Chief Electoral Officer, two deputy electoral officers, 40 pollsitters, 12 ballot counters, advertising, materials for candidates and legal costs for the complaints process.

The reasoning behind the dedicated fees for special events and elections is that no matter the state of UVSS finances, there will always be money to throw great events and to ensure fair and impartial elections. It will also free up money from our over-burdened operations fund which currently pays for these things so that we can pay down our considerable debt.

The third question doesn’t cost students any money at all and would benefit the Students’ Society tremendously. The question asks students to allow us to transfer $4 a semester from the Building and Capital fund (B&C Fund) and move it to the Operations Fund. This question is a little confusing and requires a bit of explanation.

The Building and Capital Fund is currently $13 per student per semester. It can only be used on large equipment purchases and on building renovations. When Bean There was upgraded last year, we used the B&C fund. Same thing for when we painted the SUB. This fund always has a healthy balance - so much so that it would be prudent to transfer a portion of it into operations. On the other hand, the operations fund is in rough shape. It pays for everything else: janitorial, campaigns, events, the wages of our student employees, etc.

Students always say things like: “If you have the money to spend $100,000 on a renovation, why don’t you use that money to pay for your operations?” The simple answer is that we can’t. When a student fee is decided by referendum and targeted for a specific purpose, it is essentially illegal to use that money for a purpose other than for which it was intended.

This third referendum question seeks to create a balance between the building and operations funds. This way, we don’t have to ask students to fund more than is asked in our fourth referendum question.

The fourth referendum question is directly related to the operations fund. We are asking to increase fees by 40 cents a semester, each semester for the next three years (a mere 10 cents per month). In total this represents an increase of $3.60 over the three years.

The purpose of gradually increasing fees is so that we can pull ourselves out of debt in the short-term and also so that the Society can make financial plans for the long-term. There is also the simple fact that basically no organization or government out there that can be expected to provide the same level of service over 22 years without an increase in its core funding.

As a bonus, if you graduate in the next year or two, you will not pay the full increase. This way, the fee increase takes place in the fairest way possible. Future students will pay for the services they use.

The Students’ Society is looking to pursue several projects: eliminating the health and dental administration fee and offering more services within the SUB are just a few. Unfortunately, we face severe financial restrictions until these referendums are passed. It’s only a few dollars out of your pocket, but it will put us on solid financial footing and allow us and future UVSS Boards to build the kind of students’ society that our members deserve.

On November 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th please vote YES and help bring a little change to the UVSS.

James Coccola

Wilderness Skills Club Survives Deluge.

On Sept 25-26, the UVic Wilderness Skills Club held their bi-annual camping trip. The goal of these camping trips is to learn how to make functional shelters out of natural materials that can keep a person warm and dry at night and make fire using only sticks while providing an opportunity for the group to have fun in the woods and get to know each other better. The trip is a unique experience in putting wilderness survival skills into practice that students would be hard pressed to find anywhere else.

On all but one of these counts, the camping trip was a success, just not in the way anyone expected. The trip started off wonderfully and innocuously. The sun was shining on the Saturday and the temperature was warm. Everyone was in great spirits, with a couple of people even wanting to sleep under the stars. The group improved upon the three pre-existing shelters and built a new one. There was not enough materials to build enough shelters for all eleven people so a tent was brought to fit the last couple people in. In hindsight, the group was very grateful for the tent. On Saturday evening, however, the shelters looked great, and everyone was keen to sleep in them. Mike Divell, a first time participant in the trip commented that “neat was the feeling that these shelters really fit in to nature - on first glance they didn't even register as something built by man. Very cool.” Since April Barry, co-president of the club, and I had slept in shelters before, we volunteered to sleep in the tent so as to allow everyone else to have the experience of sleeping in the shelters. The fire making was very smooth. Said Divell, “Watching fire started from almost nothing was very impressive and memorable... I'd never seen it work before.”

Just after dark, it started to rain and everyone scampered to their shelters. At first the shelters were very warm and dry. Cherie Lavoie, who was in a shelter with two other people said she was “surprised at how warm it was in the shelter, I didn't even need my long johns!” Then the rain got heavier... and heavier. During the building of the shelters I had stressed that the inside of the shelters should be lined with debris so that they would be more comfortable and so that if it rained, water would run underneath everyone so they would get wet. But by the time the group had gotten to this point, they had all been working for quite some time, and it was only a half-hearted attempt to do a good job at this. I also didn't push them hard to make sure it was good as I didn't completely realize the importance of this insulation. As the rain kept falling murmurs could be heard over the cacophony of the clouds dumping on the tent. April and I felt really bad; here we were, the leaders of the club, laying in our mostly dry tent, while everyone else was presumably drowning in their shelters. By 2:00am I decided I had to do something or there would be a revolt. So I got out of the tent and told everyone else to pile in. All but two people gratefully got out of their shelters and got into what was at this point a very leaky tent. The two guys that stayed in their shelter decided they were at least warm where they were, if not dry, so they would tough out the night in the shelter. We got as much dry clothes on people as possible, and managed to fit nine of us in a four person tent. It was like human jenga. There were layers of people. Body parts were all over the place. Nobody knew who's legs they were on top of and who's feet were on top of them. We all became quite close that night, not only physically, but we all bonded quite well. There was much laughter, and little sleep, except, incredibly, from the two guys out in their shelter snoring away.

After about an hour and a half, everyone had settled in as much as they could and was trying to get some sleep. Suddenly there was a loud crack and a corner of the tent collapsed. Some were worried that a tree had fallen on us, but everyone seemed to be okay. It turned out a tent pole had snapped due to the pressure of so many people being in the tent. I was able to fix it somewhat, and the tent stayed standing, though somewhat more leaky. Less than a half-hour later, a tree then proceeded to fall on our tent. It was even loud enough to wake up the snoring guys in their shelter. Nobody was hurt, but it did crumple the same corner some more and gave everybody a mini heart attack. By the time morning came, and everyone had shifted several times to avoid laying in the moat that had formed around the edge of the tent, we were all quite happy to be alive. We were even happier that, as it got light, the rain stopped. The two guys in the shelter crawled out slightly more pruny than they had been when the night started, but otherwise no worse for wear. They were even able to get a fire going even though everything was thoroughly soaked. Despite the ordeal of the night everyone was in high spirits, though understandably quite tired.

In the end it turned out to be an unforgettable experience. We survived. We all bonded in a way that only such extreme conditions could facilitate. We learned valuable lessons about what it takes to build a shelter in the woods that will actually protect you from the elements. Divell summed up his thoughts on it with this comment, “Of course the rain is unforgettable too. The feeling of 'wow we built some awesome shelters' quickly turning into 'ooops. needed more work'”. The following week our workshops focused around building shelters, and the people that went on the camping trip definitely had a few tips for those who had never done it before. As for me, I need to find a new tent.

Rob McDonald

Fraternities and Sororities Denied Recognition at UVSS AGM

I know I am a little bit behind in writing about this as it happened on Thursday and other bloggers have already writted about this at length, but I believe I can provide a little bit of a different viewpoint to what happened at the Annual General Meeting.

Many things were said at the meeting from both sides of the issue. I was impressed with the actual arguments from both groups. I also feel that both sides were stating the truth. This may seem to be a wierd thing to say, as the two sides of the issue were saying opposite things, but I feel that in most cases there is no black or white, just the grey middle ground of reality, and this was no exception.

So what was said, and why do I feel it was all true?

First the anti-frats/sors side that won the vote:

The basic claim is that faternites and sororities are, by their nature, exclusionary and hierarchical. Historically they have a negative reputation of brutal hazings and sexualized violence.
I agree with both of these arguments. They have a selective admission process, even if it is only by gender, and fees to join make it so only those who are economically able to join can do so. I have also heard both first hand and from newspapers about the issues of hazings and sexualized violence.

The arguments of the pro-frats/sors group was:

They are groups that are created to build communities, network with other student bodies, and have fun. The group that wanted to organize on campus said that they would include any self identified woman and not implement any hazings. The fraternity also claimed to not practice any discrimination.
Again, I agree with everything said above. I believe fraternities and sororities can be a lot of fun for many of those involved. I believe that members of fraternities and sororities become part a network of people that will last beyond their university careers. I also believe that the girls that wanted to start a sorority had nothing but the best of intentions and wanted to create a cool space to do their thing.

So how do I reconcile these competing arguments?

I believe that while there are some fraternities and sororities that exist that are good community citizens as described by the pro group, I also believe there are fraternities and sororities that are not. I also believe that if we were to allow fraternities and sororities on campus, it would be difficult to differentiate, at least initially, between groups that are problematic, and those who are not.

Therefore, it comes down to a benefit/cost analysis. The benefits of fraternities and sororities are as stated above: They build longterm networks, they can be fun, and they give those involved a sense of belonging to something.
The costs are: A feeling of exclusion by those who don't get admitted. Potential for psychological and physical hazings. Potential for sexualized violence. Perpetuation of unequal relations that exist in our society.

For me, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. One can say that we should give them a chance. Maybe they won't have brutal hazings. Maybe women wouldn't get raped. But how do you quantify when it isn't okay anymore?
How many people have to be excluded?
How many people have to be hazed?
Do we have to wait for an incident of sexualized violence to happen before we don't allow them? What do we say to the victims of these things?
Sorry, we had to let it happen to you before we decided we don't want these groups? I don't think that would be much consolation to these people. That is assuming these things would even be reported. It is well known that incidences like these are vastly underreported for a variety of reasons.
It is for these reasons that I am very happy that the students of UVic came out to not recognize fraternities and sororities. I feel that the atmosphere at UVic is great as it is, and I hope it stays that way.

On a related note. As frustrating as it was when a certain member tried to subvert the voting process everytime he went up to the mic (I can't remember the name, but I know every person who was at the meeting know who I am talking about). In the end I am happy to hear how people reacted to this guy. I talked to people that said they came to the meeting either undecided or in favour of frats and sors, but based on the conduct of this person, they changed their vote to against frats and sors.
This is a great reminder that no matter how well you know the rules and are able to manipulate them, in a forum that involves voting, and is therefore political, you can't go around being a first class jerk and using those rules to shield you. People don't like it very much.

Rob McDonald

New progressive blog! It is called UVic Underground, and it's a cool new progressive blog for UVic students. I have posted this post on there as well. Hopefully everyone can check it out and contribute.

I Abstain

I have been having conversations with fellow board members recently on the role of abstentions. There are two points of view on when to use abstentions.

One point of view is that they should only be used in cases of conflict of interest. The other point of view is that there are many times when an absention is ok beyond the mandatory conflict of interest abstentions. I will present the arguments of both sides as well as I can here and then I will say which point of view I prefer.

The first view is that abstentions should only be used in conflict of interest situations. The reasoning is that we are on the board to represent the students. We are obliged to vote on an issue one way or another for students. It is a cop out if we don't make a choice one way or another. Comparisons can be made to the parliament where they have to vote one way or another. If we don't make a vote on an issue, we are not fulfilling our duties as a director.

The other view is that there are a variety of situations in which an abstention can and should be used. The two most common situations when abstentions are used are as follows. The first is when you are torn by two sides of an argument. You are in favour of it in some aspects, but other parts of it dont' sit well with you. You don't really want to support it, but you also don't really want it to fail. People who say one should always have to vote would say this is a political cop out and that you should make a vote one way or another.
The other situation is if you don't really know enough or don't care one way or another about an issue. You feel it's not your place to sway the issue one way or the other. The always vote proponents would say that these are poor excuses for not voting. It is our responsiblility to care about all the issues on the students' behalf and to be well researched enough to make those votes, otherwise we are not doing our duty as directors.

I have abstained for both of the above reasons, more the former than the latter. I have felt that I don't want to sway the vote one way or another so I want the rest of the votes to sort out what was going to happen. However, if I feel a vote is going to be close and my vote will be important one way or another, I am much more hesitant to abstain from the voting. I can think of only one time where I chose to abstain on a close issue. In that case, it was a very grey area kind of vote and I was completely unsure as to which way I should vote, so I just didn't. In most cases however, if a person's vote (or non-vote) is likely to sway a decision on way or another, I am opposed to abstaining.

So what does everyone else think? Did I miss anything? Why should a director be able to abstain or not?

Rob McDonald