Council rejects UNB Students for Life based on lack of information
Andrew Meade / The Brunswickan
Council decided not to recognize the UNB Students for Life club.
December 7, 2011 6:00 AM ADT
After weeks of fruitless debate, the UNB student union has decided not to recognize the UNB Students for Life club due to insufficient information from the club.
If Andrew Martel, vice-president finance and operations, receives enough information from the club, they will be brought forward for discussion again.
“If we receive enough information or if I feel that it’s enough information to bring back to council then I will bring it forward and try to recognize the group again,” Martel said. Clubs and societies fall under Martel’s portfolio. He stressed that he doesn’t take a stance on groups, but brings them forward for discussion if they meet criteria outlined in the bylaws.
“That was the basis that they weren’t recognized was the lack of information.” Martel says the information they are looking for is where the resources are coming from and where they will be directing students.
“This is one of the first groups that could deal with important health issues and as a student union, if we’re recognizing them, we are giving them a venue to present themselves, which is great. We just want to make sure that if they are giving out information concerning health-related issues that they are accurate so we don’t have issues down the road.”
Prior to the Nov. 26 council meeting Martel attempted to reach the group, without any response. He received answers to his questions, but councillors still did not believe there was enough information to make a decision.
After a few comments on whether or not to recognize the group, engineering representative Chris Pelkey recommended the group move directly to voting saying, “I think we’ve heard all these arguments before.”
Council voted to move straight to the vote of the approval of the club, not approving the club.
Council quickly moved on to voting whether or not to recognize the club, shooting it down.
This ends the discussion for now, but should the recognition of the group be brought to council again, the debate will be as to whether the information is sufficient and not whether the group should be allowed on campus.
“Seeing as we’ve already debated on the previous topics, it will come down to the new information to recognize them and that will be the general debate around it,” Martel said.
Council also passed a motion to send a report on liaison voting rights to the policy committee. The committee, comprised of a liaison, general councillors and an executive member compiled the report with two recommendations.
“Our recommendation is two-fold I guess,” said Jordan Thompson, president of the UNBSU. “One is to extend liaison voting rights, renaming them representatives and the other is to add two members-at-large to address some concerns that were laid out in the report, specifically concerns around double representation or over representation.”
The next UNB Student Council meeting will take place in the new year.
3 comments
Shane Westin on Dec 10, 2011 at 2:12pm
Lack of information? We responded to EVERY question (the numerous questions) the Council put to us, including naming, and providing addresses and links, to counselling centers we could refer women, who were seeking alternatives, to. We even asked to attend this past meeting, but received no response to more than one email asking what TIME that meeting was at. Also, Council didn't even have the decency to let us know we were DENIED status, despite our email inquiries asking about the decision. We had to find out from a third party, friend of a friend of a friend TODAY, 5 days after the decision was made. THAT is "lack of information"! "Health issues"? Why can't someone just say the word "abortion"? That's what we're talking about. We're talking about members of the Council being opposed to our group's views on abortion. "Accuracy" of our information? So we need Council to "protect" students from information they "deem" is "inaccurate"? Now there's a word for that...hmmm.... oh ya, CENSORSHIP!!
Concerned Students on Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06am
The Student Union’s recent decision to avoid recognizing UNB Students for Life has been “seemingly” couched in reasons of a sophomoric nature, which displays an ironic disregard for the union’s very own mandate: “to provide a unified representation on matters relating to the diverse interests of its members.” In our minds, this raises four concerns regarding decision-making.
First, the Council’s "criteria" for the sufficiency of information is shamefully inadequate for a University's Council at a Canadian university. To say that a matter will be discussed further when "Martel" receives enough information reflects a purely subjective standard, not capable of articulation. In other words, “Martel will know it when he sees it.” What the council ought to do is adopt an objective standard, capable of clear articulation, so that parties involved know the level of disclosure required. As it stands, the UNB Student’s for Life’s expectation and right to know the case to meet has been denied. This is neither fair nor reasonable.
Second, the council says that the information they require from the UNB Students for Life must be accurate information. An accurate opinion is an opinion that correctly reflects a standard. The standard is what is being reflected. Accuracy, however, is not a standard. Therefore, what does the council mean in requiring accuracy? Does it mean that UNB Students for Life’s information does not accurately reflect Pro Life opinion? Or does it mean that UNB Students for Life’s information does not accurately reflect the council’s opinion? It boils down to the fact they don’t like Pro Life groups, but they cannot say that. So, they couch their dismissal in “inaccuracy.” How sophomoric.
Third, how can a council debate for weeks when there is a clear lack of information? Either the council can’t reason itself out of a paper bag, or there was surely enough information to consider. A quick read of the minutes of November reveals this. "Well, I just, I don't know if we need to know anything more. We should not be in the business of recognizing clubs of political will or intention, or single issue clubs like this." Really? So, councilors don’t want any more information, but ratification depends on providing more information? Stalemate? Besides, the group actually responded on numerous occasions disclosing requested information. The lack of information argument is a “veil”, a “lie”, covering the real motivations for refusal. Council minutes reveal this.
But, finally, the November 20th minutes reveal something far more disturbing. An issue was raised during the discussion regarding the presence of the phrase “defend life” in the group’s preamble. The word “defend” was deemed problematic because councilors were worried that it meant the group would be confrontational. Council decided that more information was required. But why? As one councilor saw, “unless they attack someone”, there is no reason to dismiss the group on this point. So, either there was an actual threat posed by the group’s ratification or the council was searching for reasons to dismiss.
These concerns show a flagrant disregard for the expectations of the applicant, a failure to meet the standards of the Union’s own mandate, and conduct that is neither fair nor reasonable.
Student on Dec 11, 2011 at 5:02pm
Shame on you Student Union! Lack of information? What a cover up for your own biased beliefs! You would only "feel that it's enough information" if it was pro-choice information or at least indifferent information. They're so afraid that a group of students actually believe in something that goes against the grain. Keep up the good work Students for Life!
Add a comment