Editorial
-
Why Boycott
Special
Chevron
Issue
persists...
University of Waterloo I Waterloo, Ontario volume 1, number 13 january I I, 7977
\
z
tate! Investigate! For more than three months, the ;hevron staff has insisted on reins.atement and investigation of the chev-on. That demand has only been ,trengthened by this week’s sham re‘erendum. But the demand may not be fully understood by many students, espeially those who have just returned to atipus from a co-op work term. Just vrhat does-reinstatement and investigaon mean? On October 17, faced with a council tubbornly clinging to its September 0 closure of the chevron, the chevron taff proposed a solution to cpuncil. -The statement said:“We believe lat the only way to achieve correct onclusions in any conflict among the eople is first to investigate the facts, Ear evidence from both sides, and nly then to judge the case. This is a sry basic principle of democratic pro:ss. “In the case 6f the chevron, this was 3t done. Instead, the opposite was 3ne.” The chevron staff proposed that juncil reverse its stand, reopen the iper and restore the editorial posiIns which had been eliminated, then unch an investigation into “the entire ‘fair from beginning to end, hearing )th sides in a public forum.”
Council received the submission without comment or action, and, except for continued harassment of the chevron, has steadfastly refused to begin the process of reinstatement and investigation. Due process iS fundamental’democratic right. Establishing the primacy of this principle -among students and in council -has been the guiding aim of the chevron staff. We do not insist on reinstatement and investigation for monetary reasons, but because it is a necessary part of due process. Due process demands that when the federation council levelled charges against the chevron of AIA takeover, driving away students, and lack of responsibility to students, it should have investigated and presented the facts of the case. The chevron was closed on what the federation executive admits were rumours and allegations. They held no investigation to determine the legitimacy of these charges. But the chevron was closed nonetheless. In effect, the chevron was executed without a trial, and without any discussion with chevron staff or among the students. Using the same principle, the chevron als.0 insists on an investigation to follow reinstatement. The chevron
staff acknowledges that the newspapet had deficiencies dating from previous i years. We believe these were being rectified in early September. In any investigation, objections from council, student societies and students about the first three issues of September should be specifically stated’ and the chevron should have the opportunity to reply to them. An investigation should also establish how the federation closed the chevron’, including the federation executive’s collaboration with the administration. The investigation must be an open inquiry, composed mainly of students, since it is the students who will be affected by the decision about their newspaper. Students are capable of making their own decisions, without from the legal and having “experts” journalistic professions making the rulings. l’he referendum does not even give the chevron’s position of reinstatement and investigation as an option. It is impossible for a student sympathetic to the chevron and its principled fight to express that support in the referendum. The referendum is a sham! Boycott the referendum! - larry hannant
Just before being recalled from office, federation president Shane Roberts, on his own authority, set up a referendum. We would like to draw your attention to several key features of this referendum, which will be held Thursday. 1) This referendum is one-sided. It presents only th‘e views of recalled president Shane Roberts, the federation executive and certain cbuncil members. It does not present the chevron staff’s position of Reinstate! Investigate! 2) This referendum is a deception, a fraud. It pretends to present.the chevron staff’s position- in question number seven, but it does not. The chevron staf?s position does not consist simply of reinstatement of the newspaper and the rehiring of the two full-time paid staff who were fired. It also consists of a full, student investigation into the charges, rumours and allegations made against the chevron as well as itito the federation council’s actions. The chevron staff’s position is that one should’investigate first and act on the basis. of facts. Locking the chevron doors on September 24, closing the chevron and firing the full-time paid staff, both on September 30, were arbitrary actions of the federation executive and council led by Roberts. They were actions taken without any public investigation and without-the prese’ntation of any hard evidence. The federation executive itself gdmitted that it acied on the basis of rumours and allegations and “suspicions” which-“may be mistaken and unfounded” in the statemeht to council accompanying the executive minutes on September 26, 1976. The chevron was never given a trial! These allegations, rumours and suspicions have yet to be proven. So, is the chevron staff’s position simply that it should be reinstated? No, it isn’t. It is that the chevron should not be punished before a trial has been held. 3) The referendum is a slanted referendum. The questions are completely slanted in favour of the positions of Roderts and the fedeiation executive. For example, question number seven on reinstatement of the chevron. Not only is the question of investigation completely left out, but also, the chevron’s staff position on reinstatement is perverted into an attempt to get more money out of the students, instead of a question of justice. The chevron was never given a fair trial, yet was convicted by federation council. So is reinstatement simply a question of “back pay” for two fired staff or “paying outstanding bills” of the free chevron? No, it isn’t. It is a question of justice! Innocent until proven guilty! Take question number three. Here it gets a bit complicated. First, the word “publish” is defined in a way that does not apply to the student newspaper. “The provision and administration of funds” and “assumption of all legal responsibilities” are in the main the responsibilities of the federation of students. But “the hiring and firing of staff” and the “rules by.which staff operates” are in the main the-responsibilities, acquired through practice, of the chevron staff. This concocted definition of “publish” destroys the line of demarcation between the responsibilities of the federation and those of the chevron staff, and jumbles the two together. Now, once you accept this novel interpretation of “publish”, you have five choices. If you choose any one of the first four (control by federation council, by another elected body, by the newspaper staff, or by the editor of the newspaper) you are immediately changing the nature of the way the chevron was published on September 24, 1976. For example, should.you want the chevron staff to control hiring and firing, with paid- staff subject to ratification by federation council, as it was on September 24, then you cannot consider them the publisher without at the same time calling on them to provide the funding for the paper. In other words, any of the first four answers to question number three would contradict an affirmative answer to question number seven for reinstatement of the paper as it was on September 24. Now, isn’t that interesting? What to do? Well, there is a fifth proposition entitled “other”, which enables you to write in your views. Good luck! 4) The referendum does not clarify what is at stake. It does not explain the effects of what is being voted on. Take question no. 2 on whether the student paper should belong to Canadian University Press (CUP), here the question of “membership fees” is raised without dealing with the CUP principles. Nowhere is it stated that the CUP papers across the country stand f0.r: a watchdog press, a student press free from the editorial control or interference of the student government. This is quite telling, for it is precisely the watchdog press that ex-president Roberts and certain federation councillors are out to destroy. Yet in all the questions of who is to “publish” or determine editorial policy of the paper it is not made clear that direct control by student’s council would fundamentally alter not only the way the paper is run, but the constitution of the federation of students itself, for it would convert the chevron into the house organ of the federation council. If this were to be carried out, we would be sentenced to a robot press. We have already seen the federation journalism of the “bullseye” and “real chevron” type in which investigative jpurnalism is dead as a doornail and ethical journalism is violated time after time. To sum up, this referendum is a piece of garbage. It is onesided, fraudulent and stacked. It mystifies issues instead’ of clarifying them. It deserves nothing but the contempt of students. WE CALL ON UW STUDENTS TO BOYCOTT THIS REFERENDUM! INSTEAD OF PARTlClPATlirlG IN THIS FRAUD, WE CALL ON UW STUDE’NTS TO INSIST THAT ALL CANDIDATES IN THE UPCOMING FEDERATION ELECTIONS COMMIT THEMSELVES TO THE POSITION OF REINSTATE! INVESTIGATE! AS THE ONLY JUST SOLUTION TO THE FEDERATION/CHEVRON CONFLICT! -the chevron staff
.
’
.
” .
2
the /free cheL:ron -./
.s
/
\
.
\
i 1
,
‘ - .
, \
.
..
j
tuesday,
january
7 7, 7977
.. ,
1
views and .editorials and ‘will be la’belled as such’.‘. The federations task force (the second federation investigation committee) Meets for the first time. One member of the force, a professibbal journalist, John Kessel, resigns within the fist hour of t.e meeting because there is no representation from the chevron. The chevron had previously resolved to boycott the meetings of the September 24 Adrian dodway resigns ’ task force because its mandate was not aS editor, saying,that he will be able to to investigate the chevron but to establish a new paper. function more kffectively as a normal Oc’tober 16 At an emergency meeting chevron staff member. After the news in Waterloo, ORCUP, the Ontario se& of this arrives at thi federation Ralph tor of the Canadian- University Press, Torrie, Board of Publications -Chairunanimously passes a resolution deman resigns, and the federation execunouncing the actions of the federation tive board meets in secret and decides to change the locks. This is the firit of council and calling.on council to reinsfjve lock changes which are to occur at tate the pap& as it was on September 24. I., the chevron offices in the intervening The federation task foi-ce meets for a months. The executive claims to be second time and resolves that a concerned that ‘freedom of the press’ thorough investigation of th’e chevron COULP BE BECOMING the freedom should be undertaken as soon as possiof a small group to dominate the chevble. ron and use‘ a student fupded newsOctober-17 The chevron takes to paper as a propaganda organ for their council the following three resolutions . own purposes. They name the Antiin the form of one motion: Imperialist-Alliance Bs that small -Reinstate the chevron as it was ‘group. They base tfieir charges on September 24. “rumours” and “allegations”. The October 29 general meeting was the iirst time.the federation was to “let the students decide” on the chevror -Reinstate‘the pisitions of produc-’ affair. Hundreds &students shdwed up to see members of the federation executive use stall tactics,%make motGns t Y September 25 The chevron sta’ff after tion manager and news editqr, instaladjourn the meeting, rule “out of order the chevron yeinstate-inv&tigate motions, and premature/y adjourn th learning accidently of the closing of ling Neil I)ocherty and”Henj; Hess in meeting wjthout a vote. The few votes that were allowed to occur were hea’vily in favour of the chevron positions. the pap&, begins to occupy their ofthese positions respectively, with back photo by gervasi fices ardund the clock. The occupation 1. . pay to September 30. * -j has continued to this day, includitig @ -Create an impartial committee to tweekends and the recent Christmas November 3 The thevron staff resci. Council *passes a motioQ to establish Decembei- 17 The ‘recatl committe investigate the en,tire chevron affair holidays. nds its November 2 motion. ‘In an a fourth “investigatory” committee submits its petition,taRoberts. A spe from beginning to end - federatidn September $6 Thk federation council \ editorial, the staff iejects and exposes composed of “experts”, to investigate executive actions included - hearing cial issue of the chevron is published meets in the evening and ratifies the bofh sides in’ a public forum and makRoberts disguised motion of October gharges made by both the chevron staff December 18 Seventy-two hours afte actions of the executive, but agrees to ing appropriate recommendations. and the federation. submission of the recall -petition . 31: “re-open” the chevron offices. For the October 18”The chevrdn holds a mass Larry Hannant is elect& by chevron Later, when asked,if the investigaRoberts meets Mark Wills to tell-hir skcond time (as far as the chevron meeting in which a discussion of the _staff as editor-in-chief of the chevron. tion is underway, Roberts replies “I’m that he rejects the recall on account o goes) it is a committee which never He is elected”unanimously over R.B. not certain”. Asked when it would 83 problem signatures, that he will a; issue by a representative of the federameets. Burton, who later becomes paid editor proceed, he replies “as soon as possition a&i a representative-of the ch&ron cept the recall if 25 more signature of the “real chevron”. ble”. Thisfourth committee also never can’be procuted, and that hewiil resig September 29 “The Other Voice”, a is to take place. No one from the fed&ation ever shows up. More than 70 N ovember 11 Council rescinds its momeets. b on January 1 in any case. The problen scandal sheet “published by the stuRecalled Arts councillof Franz stu’dents attend and a vote at the end tion to “reopen*’ signatures consist of 20 double signa , dents of the University of Waterloo”, the chevron. Council indicates virtually unanimous support Klingender ..throws a rock through a tures, 50 illegal signatures, 2 with appears from‘ federation officqs, with also reiects Hannant as editor. window of the chevron offices. He is drawals, and ‘11’ other assorted prob the backing of th,e Arts, Math, I&, and for the cheLron among those present. November 15 Three ___Cxecutive mem- apprehended and questioned by sec- lem signatures., . .October 20 The federation taskiforce Engineering societies. bers remove photographic equipment urity. December 21 The recall committe “The Other Voice” comes out ih passes a motion asking council,to postfrom the chevron offices. November 22. The’ federaiion -pub& support of th’e federation executive acpone a planned gdneral meeting of all obtains 40.signatures and begins wha lishescits first i’ssue of the “real chev16 A locksmiih from th’e will prove to be two-days ofcontinuou tions, and singles out AIA members in students sdheduled for October 29 or to Noveniber ron” complete with the typewriter reinstate the chevron in. the interim UW administration attempts to change attempts to find Roberts and deliver th - the cheyron for attack. murder pictures which hadhppeared in’ September 30 The chevron holds 3 Iuntil the decisions of the general meett-he locks on the chevron offices for the petition to him. mathNEWS on the previous Friday. second time. Roberts and Arts councilDecember 23 The recall committee of “free the chevron” mass meeting to ing cou,ld be implemented. lor B-rtice Leavens try to kemove a November 25’ Roberts posts “No ficially delivers _the additional signa openly discuss the chevron/federaiion’ October 23 The federation task force Trespassing” signs in the chevron of- It’ures and shows that 50 problem signa controversy. More than a 1,000 stuis cotisigered by one of its ex-officid typewriter from the chevron offices: fice, demanding that staff vacate the dissolved. Three membe’rs of the chevron staff, tures are in fai=t valid. A letter arrive dents attend. The beginning of this members as “unofficially” after having been advised by legal offices by noon November 26. This is from OFS calling for reinstatement ant meeting proves to be the .first and only October 28 The Bullseye publishes fpr tl$e second eviction notice Roberts ‘an OFS / CUP investigatioh. manifestation of any student support the last time, an issue full of anti- p counsel to hold on to all chevron communist tirade making the\AIA the equip’ment, struggle with Roberts and sends io the c’hevron staff. December 26 The 39th annual CU1 for the federation actions. successfully stop hiti from removing The National Union of Students conference opens and NUS makes In a/six hour evening meeting, the main i.sue in the chevron-federation telegrams the federation offering to dispute. the typewriter. statement calling for reinstatement. federation council votes. to suspend disOctober 24 The general meeting held , Three studenti (independent of mediate in the chevron-federation January’2 The CUP conferenc, operations of the chevron for four chevron staff) establish a committee to pute. . 1 closes, having expelled Brti& Burt01 weeks, -create a task force to build a in t&hePAC is attended by more than of the “real”- chevron, and havin: 300 students, most of them carrying -recall Roberts. new newspaper, and eliminate the pos, November 26 Approximately 100 stuproxy votes. Roberts submits a bylaw November 17 A petition of recall itions of editor, ne*ws editor, and prodents rally in the chevron offices ?t reiterated its support for the chevron signed by 366 Arts students is submitposition. no& in protest of +the “No Trespasduction manager. This,> follows the to impose close editorial control over ted to Shane Roberts/Dave McClellan failure, of a mot_iond td fire Neil- the chevron by council. It is defeated I sing” decree by Roberts. Rdberts did January 3 Dave McLellan is first see’ 372-l 18. Speaker Robert White de* orders the administration to cut off the in the president’s office acting as pres Dot herty , and Henry Hess, product ion ‘not come to campus that day. chevron’s .phone lihes. clares the meeting adjourned after rei November 29 Robei% and some fedident. manager and news editor, respecFederation fieldwo_rk& G&y DryJanuary 4 Roberts ii still checkin; tively; {t. passes only 11-8 and’ is ac- fusing‘to conSider a chevron motion eration people come to the chevron of,den adds two page< to-mathNEWS names at the registrar. Dave McLellal cepted in spite of its requiring a two and before other matters could be confices and in abscuffle. to change the with the title “Fed Prez A,ssaulted by thirds vote. During the meeting, e‘x- sidered, This was done withouta vote. locks (for the fourth time>!) managed to refuses to be interviewed by *the fret ~After the meeting Shane agrees to a Free Chevron Goons” and four pic. ecutive member Doug Antoine orders removit one of the doorknobs of the chevron. ‘tures giving the impression that Shane chevron doors. January 5 Roberts is contacted an numont‘ Press, the typesetters of the debate with Neil Docherty (represent._ Roberts is the victim of an att^empted will not deny that he may reclaim th . chevron, to stop production of the next ing chevron staff). At the meeting The chevron itaff hears for’ the first typewriter murder. , presidency; ahe states that i-t is now i day’s paper. The federation ends up Henry Hess‘ re\ieals that fed. trea&rer time of the NUS off$r fo mediate. November 19 Ed Knorr from .the UW Manny Brykman has tried to have him November 30 Roberts publishes his the hands of Dave McLellan. McLel p.aying more than half of what full prodenounce the AIA and the chevron. by administration, acFomp_anied by’ “swan song” in which he makes a lan says that the recall stands becaus . duction of that paper would have cost; the recall committee &as not notifie without the students receiving-any be- offering him hisjob if he makes such a twenty fedetiation people, came in to finial plea to students not to sign the , the Fhevron offices to change the recall petition to ,give him another denunciation. of rejection prior to the end of the)pre nefit. October 31 Robe@ introduces a mblocks. This marks the third federation scribed 72 hour period. October 8 The chevron staff publishes chance. .’ January 6 A council meeting fails fo its first issue of the free chevron. The . tion to ‘ ‘reopen ’ ’ the chevron with L attempt to change the locks of the Deceqber 1 A locksmith from the U!% couYii1 acting as an editorial -board chevron offices. ’ ‘ ’ administration, lack of quorum. McLellan was to hav federation officially notifies the chevaccompanied by November 21 Council allocates ron staff that they must vacate the over it which council accepts. Council Roberts and friends, came into the presentecl a report on the recall, th $3,480 to a new’ federation newspaper, referendum, and his priorities as presi chevron offices by 4:30 prh. This is to establishes a third investigatory corn- . chevron offices to change the locks i6r mittee of ten members divided equally -dent, *and ,several motiqns relating- tl be the first of two official notices. fhq “real” chevron. Council also in- the fifth time. structs the president and vice-president the chevron -were,& be presented, on bet&een the chevron and the federaKlingender goes to court and pieads October 13 The first issue of Bullsej%; to take posses&on of- the chevron guilty/to throwing a rock through the of which pkejudges the results of th an “interim temporary publication” of tion. Again, this committee never sees space. The votes are very close and one chevron office window. . referendum by calling for the direc the federation, is published. Its manthe light of day. requires the vote o,f the chair to break a December 7 Robe,rts formally rejects election of the chevron editor on, Feb 2 The chevrQn staff resol- date, as stated in its masthead, is to N&ember ruary , 2. ves to e-xclude from staff meetings tie. Robgrts has rejected the recall petithe recall petitions for Orth and Klingprovide “news to the’campus that will tion of Orth and Klingender and they ender, a monthafter they were htided take precedence over political, co?those people for ‘whom the& is clear heather.robertsot I both retain their vote for this council and sufficient evidencethat they supto him. The reason given ig that he ’ mentary” and promises that ,“political salah bachi meeting. didn’t sign the petition, commenta@ will be restricted to interport the acti&s of the federation. mart shafrotl , . Prior to September 24 In March, Adrian%odway becomes editor and on July 17 the #federation puts forth a committee to discuss the bylaws con-. cerning the chevron. It accomplishes nothing; in fact it never even meets. When the fall arrives, the ihevron _ attracts a record number’ of new recruits.‘In the week prior to September k 2fc, rumours of plans to change ,the lo&s of the chevron offices are flying .
.-
,
.
4
,
tuesday,
janudry
..
7 7, 1977
Recruit-merit meeting -this and
the free chevron
.
tues. jan.ll,+I pm fri.jan. 14 ,I0 am
*
.--._
’
Comment I .
The f&t& ab
The second question on the student newspaper referendum asks students’ opinions on the question of membership of the newspaper in the Canadian University Press (CUP). The question asks: “lf there is a student-funded U of W campus newspaper, should it belong to thecanadian University Press and pay the-compulsory CUP membership fees‘?” The question is subtly biased against CUP just as the report in the federation’s mouthpiece, the “real” chevron, is biased against CUP. The question highlights the costs of the CUP service but says nothing of the services involved. The “real” chevron does mention some of CUP’s services but uses the fed’s wellperfected technique of making allegations with a bare minimum of facts. The federation rag explains the role of CUP in the chevron aft‘air as being “seen by many as lessc‘than helpful at points, and has created some hostility towards CUP on this campus.” It also suggests not judging CUP prematurely because of its “apparently unqualified support of the free chevron”. Also, the rag supposedly explains the services that the students get for their $4,000 a year contribution to CUP. The “real” chevron’s coverage has two major flaws: It twists the truth beyond recognition and it lies through omission of certian key points of in-
Comment
3
formaf ion. The fed rag fails to say that CUP is a national co-operative organization of over 70 university- and college newspapers. Member papers of CUP and the CUP national office have supported the chevron and attacked the federation council by speaking out for the democratic right of a free press. As for the so-called “hostility toI wards CUP on this campus”, in fact it is the federation executive that has been hostile towards CUP, not the students at large. The question of the $4,000 annual membership fee for CUP is where the outright lies, by the omission of fact, come out. Allow me to explain. While they talk about the money we pay to CUP, they make absolutely no mentionL of the money we get back. The federation has not told students that the chevron, as a member of CUP, is eligible for Youthstream, a national student advertising network. Youthstream ads are the big national ads, like the beer ads, that make up a fair chunk of a university newspaper’s revenue. Before the chevron was closed by the federation, Youthstream ads provided an average of $12,000 to $15,000 a year. If we’re out of CUP we can kiss this revenue goodbye! Without Youthstream we’d have to approach each national account individually. This takes time and money, and is no easy matter. Why have the federation and its
/
“real” chevron never told’ you this‘? Why is it not discussed in the “real” chevron’s “analysis” of the referendum? Why are the financial costs of CUP mentioned while the large financial benefits passed over? Another problem the federation council knows about but seems unwilling to bring to anyone’s attention is the Youthstream penalties which must be paid because of the closure of the chevron. With the chevron closed, it no longer carries Youthstream ads. The Youthstream contract has been broken, and the UW students are paying the penalties for it. The total cost of the penalties is difficult to know, but it is certain that they could be several thousand dollars. So there you have it. The federation of students executive asks you to respond to a referendum on CUP and the funding of a student newspaper, but purposely avoids giving all the information you need for an informed decision. This’seems to be the pattern established by the federation executive and some councillors and supporters over the past four months. The referendum is just a continuation of that pattern. With this referendum the federation puts itself into the position of a gambler who has cheated his way through a poker game (and a losing one at that) and is finally being found out by the five aces up his sleeve. It’s a stacked referendum. Keep your eyes on their deck. -tom
cody
‘Referendum reeks ili!ifegaB~ With all due respects to the federation councillors, a ten year-old child can see that the January 13th referendum is purposely slanted to make it impossible to vote for reinstatement of the chevron and an investigation of the whole affair. And if that isn’t good enough, there are a nurnber of illegalities involved. In other words, it looks like they’ve broken the good old by-law aain. So what else is new‘? Let’s look things over and decide. The Federation of Students has advert ised an “informational General Meeting regarding the Student Newspaper Referendum” in the “Real Chevron”. The ad says that this is in * compliance with federation by-law 22. Have you ever taken a Ilook at that by-law? Well read it (if you can get hold of it) and you’ll see that it requires notification, in the student newspaper and through an informational general neeting, of the text of the referendum at least 72 hours prior to the opening of the polls. Well that’s fine, but in December Shane Roberts mailed out more than 2000 ballots to off-term coop students, effectively declaring the polls open. The ballots are already starting to come in. Opening the polls in this way is a direct violation of by-law 22. Needless to say, the chevron received no notification of the referendum. The referendum ‘by-law also requires that the judicial committee “be responsible for the conduct of a referendum’ ’ . But, surprise! There is no such committee! Well I’m not sure what happens now. At the aborted January 6 council meeting (aborted because so few cduncillors showed up) Dave McLellan, the acting president, reported that since no judicial committee had been set up, the responsibility for selecting a Chief Returning Officer would fall back onto council. McLellan recommended a student for the position and two people as assistants. Because of the lack of quorum these people weren’t even approved. The mailed ballot explains to students that “all ballots must be in the possession of the election committee” by January 13. But while the judicial . -
conimittee is only unofficial, this election committee is completely nonexistant. What is going on here? The real clincher is the lack of guarantee for the security of the mailed-out ballots. In other words, an on-campus voter has to show identification and have his/her name stricken from the voters list, but with the offcampus ballots there are no checks at all. There is a sim;le way of recording ID numbers from the mailed-out ballots and still preserving secrecy. It’s called the two envelope technique. Namely, the voter is sent two envelopes, one to return the ballot in, the other to carry the signature of the voter to indicate that he/she actually voted. The envelopes are separate, but returned together. Have the feds never heard-of this‘? It * is widely used to prevent tampering, so why didn’t they use it? And to top it off, the ballots are not even numbered. So let’s stop fooling around. They could easily be reproduced in quantity and used to bias the referendum whichever way the cheater decides. Why did the federation take no steps to prevent any possibility of this‘? When you take everything into consideration you’ve got a real rotten referendum being put on by the feds. Not only are the questions rigged to be confusing. contradictory, and slanted to make a pro-chevron vote (REINSTATE! INVESTIGATE!) entirely impossible, but the whole show is being run on a very questionable legal basis. Brian Iler, a former president of the UW Federation, now a practicing lawyer, will offer the chevron a legal opinion this week that the conduct of the referendum is invalid because of such dubious procedures. In fact, when ller first saw a sample referendum ballot, he literally slammed it on his desk and laughed at it. His written opinion will appear in this Friday’s chevron. In fact it appears that aqyone could have taken out an injunction out to stop this referendum dead, but it would cost a thousand dollars. The free chevron has purposely avoided such action for two reasons. In small part because of
the cost involved. We’re not going broke by any means, hut we don’t have the money to throw around that the feds do. (Guess who’s money!) Mainly, we want the students to decide - not a judge, nor a progessional journalist, nor an expert in administration. We want the students to see through this joke of a referendum; to see the sham it is, the students’ money it wastes. This referendum reeks of illegality. And look who’s breaking the rules. Maybe we ought to investigate this. Why is there no investigation question on the referendum? -tom
They told me it would be 6 PM for sure and here I am at 10 PM back again helping them layout and doing the masthead. Thanks goes to those who had the stamina to persist with this dream: larry, jules, salah, gerrard, dave, mart, tom, doug, jonathan, shih k’ang-ti, loris, randy, and a very special thank you to rosco and charlott&BOYCOTTTHE REFERENDUM! Best . . .hr
cody
The old gang in better times. federation execlltives and council/ors at the September 30 council meeting which closed the chevron. Front row, extreme left: Franz Klingender, executive and Arts council/or, recalled by 366 Arts students,‘a/ong with Don Orth fiar left). Chiei/ustice Shane Roberts refused to accept the petitions. Klingender later ran afoul of the /a w, pleading guilty to throwing a rock through a chevron ofiice window, and was forced to resign. To his right, then-federation’ president Shane Roberts, himself recalled by more thdn 2,000 UW students. To Roberts’ right, Doug Thompson, dormer federation executive member, and recent/y-resigned federation fieldworker, and editor oithe now-defunct federation tab/aid, “Bullseye”. At extreme right, Math rep).). Long, recent/y-resigned Chief Returning Officer. Second row, extreme right, Manny Brykman, treasurer and engineering rep. Third row, at extreme left, council/or Phil Marquis; in conference extreme right, Bruce Rorrison and, behind, Dave Daunt. photo by john jackson
4
the free chevron
tuesday,
- TtiE
january
7 7, 7977
-
THE SHANE ROBERTSJANUARY 13th REFERENDUMIS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO KILL THE CHEVRON. IT IS A STACKED REFERENDUM WHICH PRESENTS ROBERTS' VIEWPOINT ONLY. NOWHEREDOES IT CONSIDER.THE ONLY DEMOCRATICOPTION -- A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE A VERDICT. . FOR-THE CHEVRON,THAT MEANS -REINSTATEMENT, THEN INVESTIGATION.
.
STUDENTSMUST DISCUSS THESE ISSUES FULLY AND CALL UPON THE FEDERATION EXECUTIVE TO DEFEND ITS ACTION IN GOING THROUGHWITH THIS SHANE ROBERTS STACKED REFERENDUM. COMETO THE --
-
Informational L Meeting 1
January - 11 H,IGH .NOON! Campus Centre Great Hall
c