As of this Monday, students at UBC are voting on a referendum proposal that would put several UBC funds to a three-year referendum cycle. While the AMS has been claiming that the fee restructuring that they are proposing would increase transparency and democracy in AMS operations; the handling of the entire referendum process, as well as the specifics of the referendum itself, run counter to the AMS’ rhetoric. We urge UBC students to reject the AMS referendum and vote NO on the fee proposal, and to do so to protect one of the few direct-democratic structures at UBC and to protest the lack of transparency and communication the AMS has repeatedly shown.
Who are the Resource Groups
The Resource Groups are consensus based organizations operating under a framework of direct democracy open to the entire student body. The Resource Groups Collaborative is composed of the Social Justice Centre (SJC), the Pride Collective, UBC Colour Connected Against Racism (CCAR), the Women’s Centre, The Student Environment Centre, and Pathfinders: UBC Neurodiversity. The Resource Groups also fund and run the Out on the Shelves Queer Library, the Talon Alternative Student Press, and the Free Store.
Under the current structure of the Resource Groups, every UBC student is a member and can request and vote on funding. The Resource Groups employ no staff; and our chairs and treasurers are voted in by the student body every year at each Resource Group’s Annual General Meeting. Every decision made, whether that be funding decisions, decisions on activities, and stances taken, are voted on directly by students in attendance. As such, the Resource Groups empower students by allowing them direct, easy, and democratic access to large amounts of funds to spend on initiatives important to them.
In terms of funding, every UBC student pays $1.64 towards the Resource Groups, which are then allocated by the Resource Groups Allocation Committee (RGAC), a collective formed by student representatives from each Resource Group. Every student retains the right to opt out of paying this $1.64. Every funding decision made by the students still goes through official AMS channels, and is ultimately approved by the AMS. Ultimately, the Resource Groups function as an alternative democratic body allowing students at UBC to pursue projects that the AMS would not or could not otherwise engage in.
The impact UBC students have had both on- and off-campus due to these funds has been incredible. One of the most recent examples would be the SJC’s support of the Single Room Occupancy Collaborative Society (SROC). Operating in the Downtown Eastside, the SROC is an organization that advocates for impoverished SRO residents, organizes and empowers the homeless, provides Naloxone training, and has launched the Vancouver Tenants’ Union to advocate for tenant rights, as well as being an instrumental force behind the Jean Swanson Campaign in local elections. Funded by the SJC for years due to student desire to advocate for the DTES, it was the SROC that last summer, due to Resource Group funding, was able to help the residents of the Balmoral Hotel in demanding and finding fair housing when the Balmoral was slated to be demolished. At the end of a long campaign, the SROC was instrumental in finding shelter for all the residents of the Balmoral who would have otherwise been left out in the streets, and this is just one example of the incredible impact UBC students are having in this city thanks to the Resource Groups. This stands in stark contrast to the heavily criticized Expulsion Policy the AMS revealed in the last weeks targeting homeless students. While the AMS has been using its time, energy, and funds to further marginalize UBC students and the homeless; UBC students themselves, due to the availability of the Resource Group funds, have been able to make concrete and lasting change in Vancouver and have been fighting for the marginalized and the homeless here, on campus, in the DTES, and all over the city.
The Referendum
The AMS has cited four main arguments for the proposed change to funding allocation:
- Increased transparency for students
- Students are entitled to a say about where their money is spent, and should be able to vote accordingly–– increase the democratic character of AMS funding
- Enhance the flexibility of year-to-year funding decisions
- Lowering the financial burden of the student fees
However, as the Resource Groups Collaborative, we believe that the referendum as its stands actually runs counter to these stated goals. Our reasons, listed and detailed in depth below, revolve primarily around concerns that the AMS has been operating with a lack of complete transparency, and the proposed referendum would in fact strangle one of the most democratic institutions currently in place for students at UBC.
Transparency
The AMS has operated with a complete lack of transparency when it comes to the Resource Groups for years. We are willing to consult and communicate with the AMS as to how we could conduct our operations in full transparency and within a framework of democracy, and would be more than happy to publicize our budgets – budgets that have to be pre-approved by the AMS – not only for the sake of transparency, but also to underline the important and direct impact that the Resource Groups have had in the UBC and wider Vancouver community.
As it stands, we are utterly disappointed that the AMS failed to conduct itself with transparency regarding this referendum. Namely: the AMS did not seek Resource Group consultation and failed to inform the Resource Groups of its plans with the fee restructuring ––to the point that it was only after the referendum was decided upon that Resource Groups were informed, because the friend of a member that sits on council mentioned it to us.
As we stated, this is not unusual AMS behavior. The prime example would be the reserve fund – one of the stated reasons, in fact, for the fee restructuring. In one of the colourful but ultimately unsubstantiated tables in the fee restructuring proposal, one of the disadvantages of the current fee is listed as “left over capital in funds that sits over time and remains under-utilized year over year.” While a major issue, this is a problem that is not caused due to the current fee structure, at least not for the Resource Groups; but rather, due to the AMS’ own refusal to communicate the existence of this holdover fund.
For instance, until this prior year, the Resource Groups were always told by the AMS that they operated under a deficit budget, that anything that was not spent by the year end would return to the AMS. We were told this year after year, and every treasurer was trained with this understanding. It was only by chance, last year, that the Resource Groups discovered that this was entirely untrue. In fact, the unspent money was sitting in a reserve fund, concealed by the AMS, allowed to accumulate to an amount of a quarter of a million dollars! The fact that the AMS utterly failed to communicate this to the Resource Groups is a shame, as the Resource Groups have the means to put these funds to incredible use. Unfortunately, under the current situation, the AMS makes it extremely difficult for the Resource Groups to access these funds to the point that their total lack of cooperation in this matter begs motive. The lack of communication and transparency from the AMS has affected Resource Group operations before, in their failure to communicate the nature of our funds to us, and is set to affect us again without our say and consultation. Thus, while the AMS is framing this referendum as an attempt to increase transparency, their approach so far has been anything but transparent.
Moreover, we have concerns that most voters will be ill-informed about the specifics of different fees, but very informed about the costs to them as individuals, and thus reject fees that a representative and ideally deliberative body should decide, without even considering the option that they as individuals can choose to opt out of any fee too burdensome for them. The proposal seems designed to promote the removal of many fees because the status-quo will be no fee unless renewed. Combined with the AMS’ complete lack of effort to communicate and discuss the referendum with the wider student body, to the point that eyebrows have been raised at how the referendum almost appears to be snuck into this general election, again raises glaring concerns as to the transparency of AMS operations.
Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that every funding decision made, every invoice or cheque, every single aspect of the operation of the Resource Groups goes through the AMS and the AMS budget review; the AMS receives and confirms our yearly budget, and in past years have even tried to use their power to block Resource Group funding, which we would like to remind readers, is directly voted upon by students. Should the AMS want students to know what the Resource Groups are spending their money on, they are in a position to work with us and publicize it to the wider student body ––the Resource Groups would not only support this, but we would welcome it, as it is essential that every student at UBC be made aware of these funds and participate in Resource Group organizing.
Democracy
We would like to reiterate that the Resource Groups are consensus-based, and operate under a framework of direct democracy. The Resource Group funds currently allow students to have a direct say in the spending of funds on projects that do not necessarily fall under the AMS portfolio. What the AMS is proposing, while framed as being aimed to democratize operations, would in effect add an extra bureaucratic step (or ten, based in how the AMS has conducted itself in the past) for students looking to access these funds. By aiming to move these directly-democratic funds under the AMS’ rigid structure and bureaucracy, the AMS referendum would result in a far less democratic structure than stands today.
Due to the structure of the AMS, some of the projects that UBC students have voted for may not continue. When asked if the AMS would back certain Resource Group initiatives, including Resource Group Advocacy for lower tuition (which students voted for the AMS to engage in four years ago, a democratically made demand by the student body that the AMS has been ignoring, in a stunning display of their lack of commitment to democracy and the student will), and anti-racist work done by the Resource Groups, AMS members have consistently stated their position as “non-partisan,” as they claim to represent the plurality of opinions on campus. The Resource Groups house the Women’s Centre, and the Pride Collective, and Colour Connected Against Racism, groups that do work that some students may not support, as the burning of the Pride flag in recent years demonstrates, and even the AMS sees the anti-racist work being done by the Resource Groups as partisan. As such, if the AMS continues to take “non-partisan” stances on issues directly affecting students, then the AMS cannot be counted on carrying out the work of the Resource Groups. This demonstrates the necessity of an independent space for women at UBC, for LGBTQ+ students and racialized students, a space that can be “partisan” where these students can decide on the work they need to do with funds that they can directly access. Resource Groups better the overall student body by taking care of those students that are more vulnerable, though these impacts are not always the most visible. Resource Groups provide support for communities that need specially-targeted strategies due to their particular needs. These communities continue to be marginalized at UBC. Resource Groups address these issues and provide key, targeted support that is crucial in working towards a fair, democratic and substantially equal access to resources for students.
Even if the the student body continuously votes to continue the funds, provided this current referendum passes, the fact that an immense campaign for votes would have to be carried out once every third year takes valuable time, energy, and resources from students who otherwise would be putting their efforts in progressive change at UBC and in our Vancouver community. Not only will this change mean that Resource Groups will have to pause regular activities to launch campaigns every three years in order to secure our funding, but it will put under threat the entirety of existing support actions in the case that a motion for defunding would pass. Combined with the already low voter turnout at UBC, and the sheer difficulty in getting even one out of five people to commit to a 10 minute online vote with overarching impacts like the governance of the entire student body, a campaign to protect the funds every third year would be a monumental challenge and an immense waste of resources.
Flexibility
Though it is important for AMS funding to adapt to yearly changes in student needs, Resource Group activities demand a stable source of funding to provide stability and continuity for the communities we support. As some of our projects span over more than one year, funding stability is very important to our actions. It is clear that our communities’ marginalization will not cease to need addressing in the perceivable future.
Moreover, the current structure of directly-democratic discussions surrounding specific project funding allow students a great deal of flexibility when it comes to how they will be spending their money any one year. Taking the SROC for example, we renew our funding agreement with them every year. We have face-to-face meeting, talk about budgeting then put this funding request to a vote. This is an example of flexible “year-to-year funding decisions” where a consistent commitment is tempered by annual budget meetings to gauge possible changes. It does not seem very “flexible” for the AMS to give uninformed voters the ability to indefinitely strip funding for groups. It is not flexible because it operates on a funding binary of “all or nothing” instead of adjusting the fees yearly. It is not flexible because it gives the power solely to a massive yet uninformed group that we cannot have a valued face-to-face meeting with. It is not flexible in which allocations within a fee could be raised or lowered, it is simply a blanket statement. This is the AMS simply trying to wash their hands of a complex and high-consequence decision by forcing clubs, groups and institutions to fight for their very sustenance.
The proposal also does not mention a reinstatement mechanism. How do we get a year-by-year funding decision if the policy does not actually have one? If we do not get quorum for funding (which is quite possible given the apathy most UBC students have towards these referendums) we then lose all of it and have no definitive way to get it back. Would we then have to submit this as a referendum question next year? This enormous oversight alone cripples their claim of flexibility as it leaves groups in the dark about the fate of our organizations next year.
Financial Burden
Resource Groups understand that students’ financial situations are often strained, as is especially the case with the communities that we work with. However, cutting on Resource Groups’ funding will result in even lesser access to resources for the communities that are most affected by financial difficulties. Resource Groups use our funding to advocate for lower financial burdens for the student body it its entirety; we work for lower overall tuition, cheaper textbooks, affordable housing options, and many other financial stress points for students. The individual small sacrifice makes a big impact for a lot of groups within UBC.
Moreover, it is important to remember that the Resource Groups are not imposing any of these funds on UBC students. For the students who cannot afford the $1.64 asked by the Resource Groups, or who truly do not want to support the initiatives taken by the Resource Groups, the option to opt out of the Resource Group fund is there. Students who do not want to see their money spent on these initiatives still have the power and say not to do so. An individual student need only to fill out a form and submit it. Let us say hypothetically out of all the students, only 50% wanted to pay the $1.64. The ones that do not could choose not to pay at the beginning of the year and be refunded. The current proposal would discontinue the fund for everyone indefinitely. The hypothetical 50% would now not have the opportunity to contribute and thus is much more absolutist. The VP Finance, a paid student position, should be keeping AMS fees transparent and accountable.
Our UBC Resource Groups provide key support and community organization for UBC’s most marginalized communities. These communities’ voices continue to be systematically silenced. In addressing this funding change, it is crucial for AMS leadership to lend particular weight to these student communities, so as to work for a fairer access to positive learning environments. As for the future of the AMS, we hope that the utter mishandling of this entire referendum process will serve as a warning to future members that they cannot simply make decisions impacting large portions of the student body and intimately affecting groups integral to the wellbeing of the UBC campus without consultation, without a proper and transparent democratic process, without facing opposition, outrage, and backlash. It is a complete disappointment that the UBC AMS believes that they can sneak through major changes to the operations of large student constituencies in a heavy-handed, top-down manner; without reaching out to these groups, without considering the demands, desires and reactions of the students they govern, and with no respect to transparency and democracy.
So once again, we urge ALL UBC students to VOTE NO on the fee restructuring referendum to protect democracy and transparency at UBC.
The UBC Resource Groups Collaborative:
The Social Justice Centre
The Pride Collective
The Womens’ Centre
The Student Environment Centre
Colour Connected Against Racism
Pathfinders: UBC Neurodiversity
The Talon Alternative Student Press
Out on the Shelves Queer Library
The Free Store
