Before we start, this is important to note: Since this referendum proposes a bylaw change, the referendum needs 75% approval in order to pass.

Background

During the past year, a movement to get a non-voting seat on AMS council for students with disabilities had been slowly building. It was felt that there were barriers to participation by students with disabilities both in the structure of the AMS and the layout of the SUB. It was also felt that their councilors were not in touch enough with their issues, and because there was no one on council advocating for their issues, that change was not to come soon. It all came to a head on November 18, 2009 ^[1], when the question was put to council about whether they’d like to create this seat. After an emotionally-charged debate, council decided 21-10 against creating the seat, causing advocates of students with disabilities to leave the room in disgust ^[2]. Having been rebuffed by council, this set in motion a movement to bring this question to referendum, which brings us to where we are today.

For a bit of recent perspective on a similar initiative, the 2005 AMS elections also had two questions on the ballot to create new voting seats on council. It was proposed that one seat be for international students and the other seat be for aboriginal students. Both of these questions got a strong majority (73.0% and 67.3%, respectively) but ultimately failed because they did not reach the required 75% threshold. The Ubyssey has an article here, on Page 9 ^[3].

The Question

Much like the question about tuition policy ^[4], this is an extremely vague question. As Alex said earlier this week, “The question does not specify wording to modify the bylaws, but instead naively states the bylaws should be amended.”

Once again, it’s a great example of the need for proactive referendum validation ^[5].

For the record, the 2005 referenda were structured properly, providing specific wording of the proposed bylaw changes ^[6].

Practical Considerations

The question gives no details on very basic requirements, such as: who would be eligible to hold this seat? Who would be eligible to vote for it? The original presentation to council last November proposed that it would be done by self-identification. It’s not clear whether a self-identification system would be acceptable under the Society Act.

Double representation is a problem. As was pointed out in Matthew Naylor’s side ^[7] of the point/counterpoint regarding the non-voting seat, the structure of AMS council is a faculty-based proportional representation system. Faculties get a certain number of seats based on how many students they have. Under this system, almost everyone gets representation on council. The only truly under-represented groups are unclassified students, and those in the theological colleges.

If a disability seat were to be created, disabled students would then be doubly represented: once through their faculty and once through the disability rep. Although this is something that was brought up during the debate over the non-voting seat, it’s much more significant now that the new proposal is for a voting seat. Students with disabilities have said that their faculty representatives don’t represent them (although it’s questionable whether they have actually ever tried to contact their faculty reps, or are simply assuming a bias against them without factual basis). This has been a big issue within the AMS this year; who really represents students? Nobody can say for sure. But the argument that if your representative doesn’t hold the exact same views as you, you aren’t being represented is a dangerously solipsistic viewpoint to hold.

It brings up the extremely difficult tenor of this debate, summarized nicely in a profile of Natalie Swift that ran in yesterday’s Ubyssey. She said: “it’s hard, you get put in a position where if you vote no, you don’t care, but if you vote yes, it’s not necessarily the appropriate solution.” The people who have been bringing this issue forward have been leaning heavily on making this a divisive issue, accusing anyone who disagrees with being discriminatory and insensitive. This does not bode well for their ability to work with others, accept differences, and sometimes accept that things might not always go their way.

If this referendum ultimately fails but has a strong showing (60% < YES < 75%), it may give the movement for a non-voting seat the push it needs. It has certainly brought the sought-after attention to their issues. But that attention should be channeled in different ways other than being focused solely on a council seat.

Some examples of student societies across Canada with disability representatives were used as examples of why this seat is worthwhile. However, if you do the research (and of course we do), you'll find that basically none of the cited examples use a faculty-based council structure. For example, the University of Victoria Student Society Board has the following composition:
*4 executives
*10 directors-at-large
*5 constituency reps, representing Access, Aboriginal students, Anti-racism, Pride and Women's Centre

In the AMS, it's taken for granted that we have representatives for engineering students. What would happen if a bunch of students from engineering asked the UVSS board for a specific engineering rep, on the basis that no one was currently representing engineers on the Board? It would show a real lack of understanding of how their organization is structured. There's no judgment here on which council structure is more desirable, just to point out that making direct comparisons to other student societies is plainly misleading.

While removing barriers for students with disabilities is a needed and worthwhile cause, it's still not clear how creating a seat on council is a solution to the problem. What is worrying is that it appears there has been far more effort put into changing AMS structure than trying to understand it, then working within it. It's surprising frankly, given that there must have been people involved in bringing this referendum who could actually help them do work on the ground, through the back channels of the AMS. Most of the barriers faced by students with disabilities could probably be very effectively dealt with this way, without making the process completely bloated. Instead, by trying to create a council seat, what they are doing is creating something where they can pass the buck to, and have someone else do that work for them. It appears to be one of the less efficient ways of bringing about change.