drunk driving, Parliament, and LexisNexis: a morning mostly wasted

I was reading Geoff Costelloe’s blog, Geoff’s Place, mostly for Senate synopses (which you should all read), but I came across a post from earlier this summer that piqued my interest.  I was going to comment on it, but then (because I have been writing papers all night) I decided to have a little fun with LexisNexis, Al Franken style. As an aside, I know I sound like the biggest nerd in the world for combining ‘fun’ and ‘LexisNexis’ into the same activity. This pretty much sums that up:

Giles: “I’ll have you know that I have very, um, many relaxing hobbies.”
Buffy: “Such as?”
Giles: “Well, um…I enjoy cross-referencing.”

The charges leveled are as follows:

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 300 Employees and has the following statistics?

• 30 have been accused of spousal abuse.

• 9 have been arrested for fraud.
• 14 have been accused of writing bad cheques.
• 95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses.
• 4 have done time for assault.
• 55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit.
• 12 have been arrested on drug related charges.
• 4 have been arrested for shoplifting.
• 16 are currently defendants in lawsuits.
• 62 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year!

Can you guess which organization this is?

It is the 301 MP’s in the Canadian Parliament.

The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line!

Which one did you vote for?

TAKEN FROM THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

I would bet money that this is almost certainly false. I ran a LexisNexis search (my God, I love LexisNexis) for terms associated with this, and the only thing that came up was a reference in an Ohio newspaper that said it was taken from a newsletter on Pelee Island, ON, which itself said that it had been reprinted from the Ottawa Citizen. There is no record of it actually in the Ottawa Citizen from any period during the time when we had 301 MPs (1997-2004).

A couple of the points say ‘accused’, which is an easy way of getting out of anything. Dalton McGuinty was ‘accused’ of being “an evil reptilian kitten eater from another planet” by Ernie Eves’ campaign. Barack Obama was ‘accused’ of being a Secret Muslim Communist Fascist Black Nationalist Kenyan, and he is merely some of these things.

The phrase ‘indirectly bankrupted’ is unverifiable as well, and if they include their actions as MPs in that mix, it is almost certainly a low-ball estimate.

On a more esoteric level, being a reader of Canadian news obsessively, it seems like the media would have a fit if 62 MPs were arrested for drunk driving in the last year. They had a fit when one former MP (Rahim Jaffer) was arrested for drunk driving, and it made the news when Peter Mackay got his driver’s license suspended for speeding. In the last BC election, the speeding tickets of the Solicitor General got him kicked out of Cabinet, and the DUIs of sacrificial lamb candidates came to light. And who can forget this.

A search for “MP AND drunk driving AND arrested” for the entire period yielded only 52 results on Nexis, many of which were year in review articles that just happened to contain all the words. The actual crimes I found were:

1. Svend Robinson and the Ring
2. Quebec’s highest Judge stepping down over DUI charges
3. Gordon Campbell’s DUI
4. Rejean Lefebvre, Bloc MP, DUI

There was also an article titled “Politics and drinking; B.C. premier latest in long list of elected alcohol abusers” in the Hamilton Spectator on Jan 14, 2003, which covered some past cases, but they were nowhere near the levels suggested.

The numbers seem off to me. If only 16 MPs were being sued at any given time, I’d be VERY surprised. Lawsuits just happen – traffic accidents, people slipping in walkways, being involved peripherally in a business that has raised the ire of someone, or just being the legal lightening rod that is inherent in being a public figure.

Also, with a (then) $66,900 a year income, and further expense budgets of $34,100, I’d find it pretty hard to believe that one in six MPs would have been denied a credit card.

Finally, the similarities to an exemplar hoax on the BBC E-Hoaxes article, in which the exact same charges are leveled against members of the US Congress, makes me certain that this is fake.

western worries – Alberta, BC to doff their tuition caps?

There is a troubling wind blowing across the west. Like the Chinook, which melts the frozen prairies, this wind theatens to melt the the freeze on real tuition that exists in both BC and Alberta.

The caps – 2% in BC and 1.5% in Alberta – have kept the cost of tuititon from rising drastically during the course of a degree. These caps are good policy. If you want to see more of my thoughts on this, take a look at this, which I am delighted to have written, as it is (no joke) the lowest rated article on the Ubyssey, bottoming out at a -40, and this, which was a follow up.

However, this appears to be in jeopardy. According to the Calgary Herald, the provincial Tories, in what appears to be a concerted effort to alienate everyone, has reported that the government is “to consider lifting tuition cap“. Now, this doesn’t surprise me, as it appears that, if it is a bad decision, the Tories will make it, but I hope that the BC government shows a little more sense.

Pierre Oulette, the VP Finance of UBC, and someone whom I actually hired, is desperate to meet the funding shortfalls that are dogging the institution. The university is going to be actively lobbying the province to lift the soft cap and allow for more precipitious increases.

Across the west, the predictability of the cost of an education is being threatened. For those of you in Calgary, check out the SU’s “Recession Era Education” event. For those of you in Vancouver, I wouldn’t expect much, as the executive are apparently a bunch of war criminals.

Stirring the pot at the SLFS

As some or all of you know, the Student Legal Fund Society passed a motion to approve a grant application by the BC Civil Liberties Association. The vote was 5-2, with mine being one of the votes in favour. There is currently some controversy over whether this was or was not within the mandate of the SLFS.

First off, let’s get one thing clear, as I think that there is some confusion as to how “precedent” is being tossed around. If “precedent” refers to the actions of the board, I stand by my (in my opinion, fairly well grounded) belief that deliberative bodies cannot set precedent. No decision of any board, from Parliament down to the SLFS, is able to set precedent. These are political bodies, and their actions are based on politics. It would be courts that are guided by such decisions. The changing face of a board is going to make the behavior of a board look inconsistent, but the organization is entitled to change its mind.

My personal feeling is that the vote was a bit of a foregone conclusion, based on the composition of the board. While I have always been a defender of what would generally be characterized as a narrow interpretation of societal mandates, I do not think that that could be said of many others on the board. Spending $10000 on cameras would have been ridiculous, but I would guess that such a proposal would have passed the board as well, were it to have come to a vote. I am happy that such a total was reduced, and given the climate, it seemed prudent to support it.

The referral to litigation committee is something that presents with broader problems with the policies of the society. I feel that there is a distinction between applications for grant funding, and applications for case funding, but there are differences of opinion here that are significant and problematic, as there are merits on both sides of the argument. The projects to which the society disburses money, and the processes that such disbursements are authorized, need to be categorized and clarified. I hope to, by the end of the year, overhaul the policies of the SLFS to define how certain applications would be processed. As Prof. Ramsay said, there is an inconsistent application of such policies, and, since boards are not bound by precedent, but can be bound by internal governance documents, such regulations need to codified to ensure consistent application of rules.

Litigation committee, by name, would review litigation that the society might consider undertaking. There is not, in my mind, a way to characterize the grant application as a case that would go before the courts. Under the murky situation that existed, I feel that the board was within its rights to authorize the grant application.

The mandate of the society is to “provide advisory, legal, and financial assistance to fund, initiate and continue advocacy, lobbying and litigation to improve education and access to education at UBC and such other matters of law which set broad precedent and concern UBC Students”. This defines how the SLFS would execute its mandate (provide advisory, legal, and financial assistance to fund, initiate and continue advocacy, lobbying and litigation), and what ends those means should seek to accomplish (to improve education and access to education at UBC and such other matters of law which set broad precedent and concern UBC Students).

Going through this point by point, I read this as saying that an advisory role, which is what the KYR workshops are, and the financial assistance role, as presented in the grant of funding to the BCCLA, are both ways by which the society can fulfill its mandate. In determining whether or not this would meet the purpose of the society, I asked myself the following questions:

1. Would this improve education?
2. Would this improve access to education?
3. Does this pertain to other such matters of law which set broad precedent?
4. Does this concern UBC students?

The answer to the first two questions is an obvious “no”, and the fourth is a clear “yes”. The third is more tricky, but I believe that the current climate on campus, particularly as it pertains to the Olympics, makes a situation in which the free speech, freedom of association, right to due process, and right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure are precedent setting. The legal rights of our students are important, and clearly are “matters of law”. It is this part of the mandate from which I draw the impetus to vote in favour of such a proposal.

The actions of the police and campus security on campus are guided by trial and error. In the event that a police officer gets away with violating the legal rights of one of our students, this will establish a de facto precedent for the future actions of law enforcement and security professionals. This has been something that has been of long standing concern to many involved in the War on Fun. It is with this in mind that I approached the vote. The Olympic legacy on campus could be far more than a new arena – I am concerned that it could represent the opening of the floodgates in terms of the abuse of civil liberties on campus.

Clearly, the SLFS has a lot of work to do in terms of clarifying its procedures for funding applications, along with a whole host of other problems with its internal operations. However, without clear direction from governance documents, power would default to the board. In this case, I feel that the board acted within its mandate.

committee reform passes

Thank god.

It’s Finally Here

Committee reform is on the agenda for final approval tonight. Will post as soon as outcome is clear!

First Annual Suicide Awareness Day

Mental health is important, especially when you’re not making such a great go of things. I think this is a great event, despite the use of the “First Annual” term, which I detest. Helping people understand suicidality can help them recognize it in their friends and in themselves.

1st Annual Suicide Awareness Day

Tuesday, November 3

The Suicide Awareness Committee would like to invite you to the following events taking place on the Vancouver campus. All events are open to UBC students, faculty, staff and the community.

Guest Speaker: Lloyd Craig

Norm Theatre, Student Union Building 9:00‐10:30am

Lloyd Craig, one of our province’s most successful professionals and mental health advocates, will give a keynote address, followed by a Q&A, concerning the evolving state of depression and mental health in BC. In 2008, Mr. Craig was named National Champion of Mental Health, Private Sector by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health. He recently retired as President and CEO of Coast Capital Savings.

National Film Board Documentary, Drawing from Life

Norm Theatre, Student Union Building, Film 12:30‐1:15pm; Panel 1:15‐2:00pm

Evening screening at 7 pm, Shrum Lounge, Place Vanier commonsblock

This dynamic and edgy film follows a group therapy workshop for people who have attempted suicide at least twice. It shows the challenges that people face and how they can overcome them in order to reach out and choose life. A panel following the film will discuss various UBC and community resources available to you.

Don’t forget to stop by the Suicide Awareness Day information booth on the Main Concourse of the SUB! We encourage you to pass this notice along to others on your mailing lists.

For more information, please visit:

http://blog.students.ubc.ca/healthyminds/ubc-thrive/

See you there!

Regards,

UBC Suicide Awareness Committee

The UBC Suicide Awareness Committee is made up of students, staff and faculty at UBC as well as members from various organizations in the Lower Mainland region who are committed to working toward providing resources and information to all members of the UBC campus community. The committee aims to reduce the stigma surrounding suicide, increase awareness about warning signs, and make information about resources available to all campus members. The committee promotes the message of Reaching Out, both to those seeking support, and those who recognize someone in need. Suicide Awareness Day is an initiative of this campaign.

AMS to leave CASA on April 1, 2010

By a 2/3 vote, Canada’s largest student association has elected to withdraw from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations.

I was, in all honesty, one of the people referred to in the OnCampus article who was kind of indifferent towards CASA, but very anti CFS, mostly because of the troubling tactics that the latter used to force student associations into submission.

I was not happy to receive a threatening, legalese heavy letter from the National Director earlier today. This type of intimidation smacks of other organizations. I hope the relationship between the AMS and CASA doesn’t entirely end here, and I am happy to report that if there is to be some negotiation for future affiliation with a federal lobbying organization, it will first be with CASA.

pater noster, qui es in Old Admin

Today’s editorial, “UBC shows AMS  who’s daddy” in the Ubyssey is hogwash. Slop. A half formed Pavlova. A fallen soufflé. And it bothers me most because I can’t respond to it (and, actually, don’t know if I can actually tell you why I can’t respond, but I’m sure you can guess). It’s unfair to the subjects of the article, who operate in an obscured context, and to the writers, who couldn’t possibly know the full story.

I have never been a close ideological ally of our President – I’m sure that on that, everyone can agree. I’ve voted against him as much as not, and I’ve heard tell that the First Lady blames me for the whole disqualification debacle (which, by the way, was not a Naylor initiative). The same could be said of our VP Admin, of whom, as you may recall, I was not a proponent.

I respect and admire the job that Crystal and Blake have been doing on SUB negotiations. They should keep up the good work.

Tyson, Trassolini elections all but assured

BREAKING NEWS: The AUS elections got a little less exciting today, as AMS representative candidate Glen Sustanto withdrew. Remaining candidates Ryan Trasolini and Katherine Tyson are now facing a Yes/No vote on the ballot.

In my time at UBC, only one candidate has ever lost a Yes/No vote. Diana Diao, the former Science Senator, PRO and General Science rep ran for the latter position unopposed, but due to a quirk, was unable to vote for herself. Zero ballots were cast in that election, and in a Yes/No vote, that counts as a loss. Council ignored this and appointed her anyway.

Vacant AUS and SUS seats to be filled

The SUS elections concluded tonight, and despite what appears to be a minor hiccup in the first year race:

First-year Representative
Due to voting irregularities, there will be a by-election for this position.

everthing seems to have gone well. Interim rep and former VP External candidate Iggy Rodriduez was elected to fill the remainder of the term.

In Arts, the candidates will be debating tomorrow during the noon hour in MASS. I hope to be there LiveBlogging the event! The candidates are Katherine Tyson, Ryan Trassolini, and Glen Idontknowyourlastnamebecauseitsnotonline.