[r ’s a close decision, but
By Carolyn Ryan mm at the University . ce Edward Island have to become full ers of the Canadian tion of Students. voters, or 18.9% of 5 approximately 1700 e students, turned out bruary 8 to register a assent to the national 1 association, presents two-thirds of
1e 1, Number 11
which '
all Canadian post-secondary students outside Quebec.
The “yes ” vote came as a shock to pro-CFS cam- paigners, many of whom _had give up hope due to a late- starting “no” movement which quickly gained mo- mentum. .
Twenty minutes before.the results were announced, in fact, CFS Atlantic field- worker Mark Lenihan con- fessed, “I think we blew it.”
Shortly afterward, he was
student newspaper of the University of Prince
he getted Gem 1
saying, “I’m frankly sur- prised, but very pleased.”
. “That’s unbelievable!” Jack Keefe, SU president (and the only member of the executive who actively supported the Federation) said when told. “But it’s the smartest thing students at UPEI have ever done.”
The uncertainty ’began Monday, when a CFS information session ‘in the Robertson Library student lounge experienced a mild
Edward Island
explosion.
Student Senator Kent MacKay vehemently opposed the “pro” position advanced by Keefe, Lenihan, and CFS-Services chair Brian Chadwick. The discussion soon degenerated into what referendum scrutineer Mike Trajnor called a “a bear-pit session.”
“And that bear-pit session sounded like ‘no’,”_ he adds.
The controversy continued Tues day night during a
February 10, 1984
. Sharon Leighton
the Student Union ive were to drop out xistence tomorrow, on notice?”
question was one of. posed by Student S Director '. ~ Jim . who challenges the 1 Union Executive’s on campus. ‘7
he administration did llect student fees for dould you pay them?”
I the business of the Union Executive to ‘profit off its consti- ’ he continued, g to the effort to raise files at the Barn.
Intention behind the granting of a liquor {as to shelter students 13h off-campus ‘bar It was not according lth, intended as a way "13 money for the' Union. " ' v th thinks siudents'are
\SU executive 7.
being ripped off by the Student Union Executive. .
“At one time, he says, the focus of the Executive was on activity and involvement of students. UPEI became known as a friendly univer-‘ sity. Now the Executive con-
.centrates on making money.
The Student Union Execu- tive is elected by the majority of students, says Griffith, but once in office, it does not represent the majority views of the students.
If, in the course of his work in Student Services, he Wants feedback from stu- dents, Griffith does not go to the Student Union for it. A House Committee or a sub- organization, such as the Business Society or the Education Society, can give
him more accurate informa-
tion about the feelings of the
, majbrity of students.
One reason, in Griffith’s
achievement by the Student Union Executive, is a lack of continuity. Representatives make great plans before election. Then, once they’re in office, they discover they dislike most of what last year’s executive did, and set about changing it. By the time they’ve undone every- .thing that was done the year before, it’s time for a new election.
He points out that con- tinuity is not impossible. The Barn is One concrete example of a firm, long-term commit- ment made by one Executive and supported by its suc- cessors. ’ ‘
The general avoidance of long-term commitments by the Executive is one of Griffith’s pet peeves. ‘
If Student Services needs the .Student Union’s co- operation for a program, they are often blocked by the Executive’s protest that they‘ can’t make commit-
7 response,”
Griffith questions role of ,
ments for next year.
Griffith has .another pro- blem with the Executive in his work. “If you send some- one a letter requiring a he says, “you have a _right to expect a response.”
When he questions Execu- tive members about the lack of such response, he is told, “I have to go to a Council meeting in two weeks before I can give you a response.”
A two-week delay can
cause major difficulties.
Trying to work with the Executive has been one of the biggest problems in Griffith’s job.
“Our prime function, at Student Services, is to cater to the needs of the students,” says Griffith. “The prime function of the Student Union Executive is to .,cater to the needs of its consti- tuents. We should not be at loggerheads. ”
.UPEl students say “Yes”to CFS
phone—in talk show on CIMN,
_ the campus radio station.
In the heat of argument, hosts (and Student Union Council members) Ken Baker and Jim Mutter, who sup- ported the “no” side, were accused by one caller of “Deliberater giving a nega— tive impression of CFS.”
Both opposed CFS on the basis of its political branch, which they say is ineffectual, non-representative of Atlantic interests, and unfocussed.
140 voters agreed with them on Wednesday.
Despite the closeness of the vote, CFS—Services rep for P.E.l. Howard Beattie was happy. Holding that the “no” campaigners had “no real arguments”, he said. “The more we talked ration— ally to people, the more negative were being drowned out.”
He adds that membership cards enabling students to receive local discounts will arrive in a few weeks.
canadienne desétudiants
“Rocky
.The UPEI vote is the fourth pesitive one in four membership referenda this year, according to Canadian Federation of Students chair Graham Dowdell.
“The students at UPEi
are now part of a larger student voice. Their own political voice is stronger, and the collective voice of students across the country is stronger,” he said in a telephone interview. . Jim Mutter is resigned to the defeat, saying that he hopes the Federation Central Committee representatives and the delegates from UPEl will work in the future to make CFS a more worthwhile organization.
MacKay too isn’t taking the results too badly. He says simply, “They voted ‘ycs‘.
That must be what the} want.”
And Baker?
“It doesn’t bother me a bit. The students have spoken.”
Canadian
Federation CFS of Students
FOE
or‘ror”
a true riot
By Leah Parker
“The Rocky Horror ’ Picture Show” played Thurs- day night at the Barn. That in itself is not an earth- shattering event.
However, anyone who stuck with the movie until the abrupt end, after only 2 1/2 reels, deserved a Purple Heart
. or a medal for stamina.
We all know that “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” is a movie that all participate in, whether it be throwing rice, or toast, squirting water (during one scene only), and yelling a few choice words, but the students of UPEl created a scene that could only be compared to another film: ‘The Day After’.
It was literally a beer holocaust. Beer, pop, water, paper towels, toilet paper, newspaper, baby powder,
W beer cups and soggy toast/
bread were hurled through the air with a vengeance with no one, yet everyone, being the target.
A few comments were
On Senate Reform:-
lot of pages.
thrown about also.
For instance, one student said that she had waited three years to see this unparalleled film but instead witnessed an
unprecedent " (hopefully) madhouse.
Two other girls couldn’t ‘understand where the Campus Police got off stopping the film and
throwing people out. During the movie they had-not only been passing out the paper products to be thrown by others but they, the C.P’s, were also flinging the paper towels and toilet paper- around.
Perhaps it would have been more practical for the spon- sors to have shown the film at Duffy Amphitheatre ‘or closed the bar during show- time. ’
Will we see “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” again during our lifetime at JPEI? Will we understand it then? We sure couldn’t on Thurs- day night because there was too much noise and confusion.
It should be easy for the Senate to turn over a new leaf. After all, it“ has a
view, for the lack of practical
The Netted Gem
‘ . ARCHlVES U.P.E.L