Feb 21 OUWCC Motion

[The following motion was passed at the OUWCC (Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee) on February 21, 2010. The OUWCC represents more than 18,000 CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) university workers in Ontario.]

CUPE Local 3903 was put under administration by CUPE National at the behest of the former Executive Committee of Local 3903 on October 29, 2009 for the following reasons: 1) financial troubles that are the result of last year’s strike and 2) an alleged climate of “fear, harassment and bullying” that pervades the internal life of the union.

CUPE OUWCC Will:
1. Encourage CUPE National to provide Members of Local 3903 with specific benchmarks that need to be met in order to regain local autonomy and democratic control, which should include a time line and proposed plan for meeting these benchmarks.
2. Encourage CUPE National to make all of Local 3903′s committees that are presently being reconstituted under administration open to election by the 3903 membership in accordance with the Local’s Constitution and By-Laws, as should be done with any ad-hoc committees that have been or will be created.
3. Encourage CUPE National to work with Lynn McDougall and members of Local 3903 and provide them with all the necessary resources to addressthe problems of the local in order to end administration as soon as possible.

Because, to date we have not been told what specific conditions we must meet in order to regain autonomy and membership control of our Local or by when such conditions should be met, and therefore when we can expect to regain membership control of our local.

Because, while there is no doubt that Local 3903 has some serious financial issues that need to be straightened out, prior to administration the leadership and rank-and-file members of 3903 were in the process of addressing these issues. Our efforts on this front included the passing of an internal financial controls policy, setting up a repayment plan with National to get our per-capita dues up-to-date, and had scheduled a forensic audit of the Local’s books, and passed a special levy to rebuild our strike fund.

Because, to date the specifics of the alleged climate of “fear, harassment and bullying” have not been made clear, nor has there been any talk of how it is to be repaired. The vagueness of the claim on the part of National makes it difficult to address this problem. Local 3903 has an excellent Equity Officer on staff – Sheila Wilmot – and we recently developed an anti-oppression policy and program with her. We were in the process of offering anti-oppression training to our Local’s various committees when we were put under administration.

Because, to date much of the money owed to CUPE National is related to different definitions from National and from Local 3903 of what is considered picket duty. Due to the composition of our local, and taking into account various barriers members might experience in participating in strike action, we broadened what this means. That these duties are now being disputed raises serious concerns about accessibility.

Because, the general lack of transparency and democratic accountability that we have thus far witnessed under CUPE National’s control is not acceptable. For example, while a number of former executive committee members continue to perform some select executive duties, it is not clear how they are being compensated or why some executive members have been excluded from participation.

Because, although we recognize that the work of addressing the problems at Local 3903 are substantial we firmly believe that the work of addressing these issues must be done in a democratic, membership-driven, and transparent manner. We further believe in democratic, transparent, and membership driven unionism we maintain that the issues and affairs of Local 3903 can be best addressed by a collective effort of 3903 members.

Because, we face an especially aggressive and intransigent employer at York University, that is for instance in the process of eliminating minimum guaranteed funding for new Master Students and through such maneuvers seeking to preclude new graduate students from being union members (in Unit 3 of Local 3903). The longer we are under administration the more difficult it will be to organize effective fight backs against such actions and protect our collective agreement rights.

Because, the undermining of our democratic rights and capacities to organize such a fight back weakens not only the membership of Local 3903, but also the capacities of all of our locals wage fight backs in the sector.

December 7 Townhall Logistics

CUPE3903 TOWNHALL
Mon December 7, 5 pm
GSA Lounge
On December 17, the CUPE National Executive Board will be meeting in Ottawa and the question of the administration of our local will be on the agenda. Join us to strategize around building a collective response to this.

Agenda
1 Report Back from Meeting with Administrator
2 Updates from sub-committees

3 Next Steps: Strategizing for December 17
4 Action Items
5 Other

Nov 16 Townhall Logistics

3903 Townhall

Monday, November 16

5:30 PM

OISE, Room TBA

(look for posters by the elevator for room number)

Brought to you by the 3903 Democratic Membership Committee

Nov 11 Communique

Real CUPE 3903 News

November 11, 2009
 
In this issue:
 
1.  Statement from the Steering Committee of the 3903 Democratic Membership Committee (formerly the Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration) and next meeting – Monday, November 16, 5:30pm @ OISE [Details below]
2.  Call out for sub-committees of the Democractic Membership Committee [Details below]

3.  Call for feedback to CUPE National [Details below]
4.  Report-back on November 4 info sessions [Details below]
5.  Draft minutes of November 4 SGMM [Details below]

 
________________________________
 

1. Statement from the Steering Committee of the 3903 Democratic Membership Committee  
 
At the November 4th SGMM, the 3903 Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration was reconstituted as the 3903 Democratic Membership Committee.  This committee, which is open to all members of CUPE 3903, will work at maintaining and renewing the democratic functioning of our local.  We recognize the severity of the issues that have led to Administration, and want to work together toward membership-driven solutions to these problems, as well as all other current and future concerns. 
 
Towards that end, we will continue to organize Town Hall meetings to facilitate membership involvement in our local.  The next Town Hall will be held on Monday, November 16th, at 5:30pm at OISE (252 Bloor St. W., room TBA).  Proposed agenda items include the following:
 
            1. Update on Administration
            2. Question and Answer Period
            3. Report backs from Committees
            4. Relationship with Administration
            5. Discussion of DMC Mandate and Strategy
 
2. Call out for sub-committees of the Democractic Membership Committee
 
As part of its efforts to involve 3903’s members in resolving the problems of the local, the 3903 Democratic Membership Committee is forming several sub-committees and soliciting broad involvement from all members—regardless of how they feel about administration. To get involved in a sub-committee, send an email to the contact listed below.
 
Communication Committee ~ contact: Jesse (jesse.ovadia @ gmail.com)
Research Committee ~ contact: Peter (pbrogan1 @ gmail.com)
Equity Committee ~ contact: Jeremiah (yu263558 @ yorku.ca)
Bylaw committee ~ contact: Kevin (kevi.mccain @ gmail.com)
Finance Committee ~ contact: Jesse (jesse.ovadia @ gmail.com)
Fundraising Committee ~ contact: Yuri (yyarin @ gmail.com)
Departmental Meetings ~ contact: Madeleine (madeleine_b222 @ hotmail.com)
Direct Action Committee ~ contact: Madeleine (madeleine_b222 @ hotmail.com)
3.  Call for feedback to CUPE National [Details below]
 
3903’s administrator, Lynn McDougall, told the membership on November 4 that she has received roughly 200 emails from members, mostly in support of CUPE National. She encouraged all members to let her know how they feel by sending her an email. She can be reached at lmcdougall@cupe.ca.
 
The 3903 Democratic Membership Committee encourages all members to email Lynn and let her know how they feel about administration. While you’re doing that, why not copy the CUPE National Executive at the same time?
 
Paul Moist (President) pmoist@cupe.ca
Claude Généreux (Secretary-Treasurer) cgenereux@cupe.ca
Daniel Légère (Vice-President) dlegere@cupe.ca
Lucie Levasseur (Vice-President) most likely llevasseur@cupe.ca
Barry O’Neill (Vice-President) boneill@cupe.ca
Kevin Rebeck (Vice-President) krebeck@cupe.ca
Patrick (Sid) Ryan (Vice-President) sryan@cupe.on.ca
 
4.  Report-back on November 4 info sessions [Details below]
 
Report-back from Information Session with Lynn McDougall
 
Lynn McDougall was appointed as the administrator of our local by CUPE National president Paul Moist, after members of the now former executive voted to willingly be put under administration. According to Lynn, the timing of administration was the result of our executive’s request. While Lynn will be serving as administrator for the local, David Gwilt will continue to serve as our local’s representative to CUPE National.
 
According to Lynn, there were 3 reasons why the local was put under administration:
An unhealthy environment in the local: According to Lynn, there were many emails and calls from members of the local to CUPE National indicating that they felt unsafe in the union environment, and some expressed instances of feeling harassed.
Outstanding money owed to CUPE National: We owe roughly $500,000 in dues to National and there is about $700,000 that we cannot reconcile from the strike.  We also owe money to the Receiver General of Canada and to our own staff.
The issue of ensuring our collective agreement is upheld. Lynn gave one example related to the administration of the Professional Development Fund, however she implied that there was a more general problem. She was unable to provide specifics of what the problem was or how to resolve it.
 Lynn then attempted to explain how the presence of CUPE National in our local will help repair the issues in our local. It was suggested that the administration would help increase democracy in our local. She also mentioned that there would be the imposition of a code of conduct on our membership, although how this would be enforced was not made clear. In terms of addressing the financial issue, there was talk of a dues increase, but that this is something that she would want to have passed in some way by the membership.
 
What does administration mean?
According to Lynn, she is empowered to act as the Executive, but also as more than the executive. This means that where once our General Membership was the highest decision making body of the local, Lynn McDougall now has final say on any decisions related to the local. Being under administration also means that all committees are dissolved, but Lynn assured us that these committees could be reconstituted. When asked how this reconstitution would occur, Lynn declined to say that they would be reconstituted in their pre-administration forms but suggested that members on committees could come forward and re-volunteer. She insisted that things will be done as democratically as possible because she is not a dictator; however she said there would not be elections for any open positions and all decisions would be up to her. It was not clear whether reconstituted committees would receive honoraria.
 
When will administration end?
We have been told that we can expect administration to last for a minimum of 9 months, which is when Lynn is required to report back to CUPE National on the progress that has been made. After 1 year, CUPE National would have to apply to the Labour Board for an extension. She was unable to give specifics about her timeline for resolving the problems the local faces.
 
What about Bylaws?
Lynn argued that we need to revisit some of the bylaws we currently have, and that they would not be changed without a membership vote. She is planning to look into by-law changes that are contradictory to National’s constitution. Also, in her role as administrator, Lynn does not have to adhere to our bylaws, but maintains that she will attempt to stick to the spirit of the bylaws.
 
What happens with the former Executive?
The executive no longer exists as an entity.
 
What about our staff?
At this time staff layoffs are not likely. In accordance with the CA of our staff, they must be given 6 months notice of a layoff. Another sub-issue Lynn pointed out is that there have been delays in implementing staff salary increases, which were negotiated in their most recent round of bargaining this past spring. 
 
What happened to our finances?
Lynn and her supervisor maintain that our former executive and the executive during the strike were incompetent and unable to properly manage the local’s finances. Although she was unwilling to comment at length about the process by which the local’s Executive voted to go under administration, she said that it was necessary because they realized they were unable to resolve the problems the local faced and it would have happened anyway even if they didn’t request it.
 
What about union culture?
Lynn suggested that some serious thought will need to go into how to make union spaces safer for all members. One member noted that her info session was the first CUPE meeting she could remember that did not start with the reading of the equality statement. Many members questioned how she would be able improve the environment of the local for us, and noted that many members have in the past felt intimidated by CUPE National itself. Many members at both sessions were concerned that administration would undermine the traditions of democratic governance and member-driven decision-making in the local. They were also worried that a select group of people might have privileged access to the administrator. Lynn noted these concerns and said that she was open to hearing from all members.
 
How did members at the sessions feel?
There were a wide variety of opinions on administration and whether it is good or bad, though there was much more general agreement that the issues mentioned by the administrator are important and need to be addressed.
 
5.  Draft minutes of November 4 SGMM [Details below]
 
Draft minutes (not approved) for the November 4 GMM are attached to this email. They will also be available, along with all of our other communications and documents at 3903dmc.wordpress.com.

Nov 4 Report-back from Information Session with Lynn McDougall

Report-back from Information Session with Lynn McDougall

 

Lynn McDougall was appointed as the administrator of our local by CUPE National president Paul Moist, after members of the now former executive voted to willingly be put under administration. According to Lynn, the timing of administration was the result of our executive’s request. While Lynn will be serving as administrator for the local, David Gwilt will continue to serve as our local’s representative to CUPE National.

 

According to Lynn, there were 3 reasons why the local was put under administration:

1. An unhealthy environment in the local: According to Lynn, there were many emails and calls from members of the local to CUPE National indicating that they felt unsafe in the union environment, and some expressed instances of feeling harassed.
2. Outstanding money owed to CUPE National: We owe roughly $500,000 in dues to National and there is about $700,000 that we cannot reconcile from the strike.  We also owe money to the Receiver General of Canada and to our own staff.
3. The issue of ensuring our collective agreement is upheld. Lynn gave one example related to the administration of the Professional Development Fund, however she implied that there was a more general problem. She was unable to provide specifics of what the problem was or how to resolve it.

 

Lynn then attempted to explain how the presence of CUPE National in our local will help repair the issues in our local. It was suggested that the administration would help increase democracy in our local. She also mentioned that there would be the imposition of a code of conduct on our membership, although how this would be enforced was not made clear. In terms of addressing the financial issue, there was talk of a dues increase, but that this is something that she would want to have passed in some way by the membership.

 

What does administration mean?

According to Lynn, she is empowered to act as the Executive, but also as more than the executive. This means that where once our General Membership was the highest decision making body of the local, Lynn McDougall now has final say on any decisions related to the local. Being under administration also means that all committees are dissolved, but Lynn assured us that these committees could be reconstituted. When asked how this reconstitution would occur, Lynn declined to say that they would be reconstituted in their pre-administration forms but suggested that members on committees could come forward and re-volunteer. She insisted that things will be done as democratically as possible because she is not a dictator; however she said there would not be elections for any open positions and all decisions would be up to her. It was not clear whether reconstituted committees would receive honoraria.

 

When will administration end?

We have been told that we can expect administration to last for a minimum of 9 months, which is when Lynn is required to report back to CUPE National on the progress that has been made. After 1 year, CUPE National would have to apply to the Labour Board for an extension. She was unable to give specifics about her timeline for resolving the problems the local faces.

 

What about Bylaws?

Lynn argued that we need to revisit some of the bylaws we currently have, and that they would not be changed without a membership vote. She is planning to look into by-law changes that are contradictory to National’s constitution. Also, in her role as administrator, Lynn does not have to adhere to our bylaws, but maintains that she will attempt to stick to the spirit of the bylaws.

 

What happens with the former Executive?

The executive no longer exists as an entity.

 

What about our staff?

At this time staff layoffs are not likely. In accordance with the CA of our staff, they must be given 6 months notice of a layoff. Another sub-issue Lynn pointed out is that there have been delays in implementing staff salary increases, which were negotiated in their most recent round of bargaining this past spring. 

 

What happened to our finances?

Lynn and her supervisor maintain that our former executive and the executive during the strike were incompetent and unable to properly manage the local’s finances. Although she was unwilling to comment at length about the process by which the local’s Executive voted to go under administration, she said that it was necessary because they realized they were unable to resolve the problems the local faced and it would have happened anyway even if they didn’t request it.

 

What about union culture?

Lynn suggested that some serious thought will need to go into how to make union spaces safer for all members. One member noted that her info session was the first CUPE meeting she could remember that did not start with the reading of the equality statement. Many members questioned how she would be able improve the environment of the local for us, and noted that many members have in the past felt intimidated by CUPE National itself. Many members at both sessions were concerned that administration would undermine the traditions of democratic governance and member-driven decision-making in the local. They were also worried that a select group of people might have privileged access to the administrator. Lynn noted these concerns and said that she was open to hearing from all members.

 

How did members at the sessions feel?

There were a wide variety of opinions on administration and whether it is good or bad, though there was much more general agreement that the issues mentioned by the administrator are important and need to be addressed.

Nov 4 SGMM Minutes

CUPE 3903 Special General Membership Meeting

November 4, 2009, HNES 140, 5:30pm-9:30pm

 

Chair: Neil Braganza

Co-Chair: Joanna Adamiak

Minutes: Set 1: Sarah Hornstein Set 2: Ian Hussey; Sets combined by Jesse Ovadia

 

1) Reading of the Equality Statement

 

2) Approval of the Agenda

m/s: Madeleine Boyer/Chris Vance

 

Request that we strike item 3 (presentation by Lynn McDougall).

 

There are members here who were at the info session and can give a report-back, so it is worth leaving on. 

 

This meeting is organized by members, this is not the information session. 

 

Call the question (on the agenda)

 

Motion carries (2 abstentions)

 

3) Lynn McDougall (CUPE National Administrator)

 

a) Presentation

 

Request for a report-back from the info session. 

Joanna was asked to speak on this because she took detailed notes at the info session.

 

Report-back:

Lynn said that David Gwilt would stay on as the National rep for the year.  Mentioned 3 issues underlying administration: unhealthy environment, money, and upholding CA. 

We owe roughly $500 000 in dues to CUPE National and $700 000 in money we cannot reconcile from the strike.  We also owe some money to the Receiver General.  There are some CA issues in relation to staff and paying them properly.

There were lots of emails to National about the unhealthy environment and Lynn suggested that National’s presence is intended to increase democracy in the local.

She mentioned that she is empowered to act as the Exec but is also more than the Exec.  Argued that we need to revisit some of our by-laws and suggested twice that she does not want to change them without taking it to a membership vote.  She also said she is open to the creation of new bylaws.

In terms of committees, she declined to say that she would reconstitute the committees in their pre-administration form but suggested that members of these committees come forward and re-volunteer.  She is not going to pick and choose committees and will not force people to stay on committees they no longer want to be on.

She says she is looking to impose a code of conduct in both GMMs and on listservs not to censor but to address harassment.  Wants to create a “will of respect” in the local.  This might require “reeducation” about how to be respectful. 

We shouldn’t question being under administration but we are able to make arguments against being put under administration at the National Board meeting later this month.  Lynn said that being put under administration wasn’t necessarily urgent but was inevitable. 

She wants to look into increasing dues.  Will be prioritizing financial issues.  Paying back the Receiver General, National and paying our staff is the priority. 

She expressed concern about how some of our funds were used during the strike. 

Would not specify how long we would be under administration but wants to plan at least for the next 9 months.

She said that there are problems with Ad-Hoc committee using the CUPE logo and is looking into legal recourse given that we’ve used the logo.

She was asked why our efforts to resolve this issue ourselves wasn’t enough and she said it was because we didn’t address the entire debt in our budget.  Also fears that the policies we have in place against harassment are not adequate.

She wants to have monthly General Membership Meetings.  When asked what kind of harassment she was referring to, she said it was mostly political harassment.

Said she doesn’t have to act in accordance with our by-laws.  She will try to stick to the spirit of the by-laws but is not obliged to. 

Would like to change by-laws to prevent future financial issues.  The restructuring committee is not necessarily open to former Exec members only.  She said in clear language that the former Exec is no longer a recognizable entity. 

She is planning to look into by-law changes that are contradictory to National’s constitution. 

She was asked about the possibility of staff lay-offs and all she would say on this is that staff needs to be given 6 months notice before they can be laid-off. 

She committed to letting members know about the National Executive Board meeting and said we would have a chance to present arguments at that meeting. She will look into the details further of how this works and report back to the membership.

She noted that administration didn’t have to happen right when it did, but would have happened anyway. The timing was the result of our executive’s request to be put under administration.

 

b) Q & A

 

Technically she says she has the power to unilaterally change our by-laws but has indicated that that is not her intention.

What would be the role of the membership in all of this?  What happens to the membership and their votes on things?

 

Her first response was that GMMs are part of our bylaws and while there won’t be GMMs, she will hold monthly meetings.  But this is at her discretion.  She can offer us a vote on things but isn’t obliged to.  She says she is interested in membership involvement/participation because she doesn’t want to make unilateral decisions about our by-laws and levies.

 

If somehow we’re still under administration in 2011 how does that affect bargaining?

 

Her power stops at ratifying a new CA for us.  She can bargain on our behalf but can’t force us to ratify.

 

This isn’t an accusation but is a question for clarification: was her info session open to everyone?

Yes.

 

Did Lynn mention our current GMM here and if so, what did she think of it?

 

She said she’s fine with us having meetings and is interested in communicating with the Ad-Hoc Committee.  She said if she’d been contacted, she would have communicated with the committee.

 

Did she say precisely which by-laws/policies are clashing with the National Constitution? Did she try to justify why there wasn’t a progression of steps before administration took place?  Is she from National or is she regional?

 

She is from National.

She was vague about which by-laws in particular.  She said she is interested in the by-laws that have put us in our current situation.  She refused to speak to any specifics.  There were two people speaking; the other person was the regional rep.  A lot of the answers were ambiguous even when there was a request for more specific information. 

 

In terms of how fast the process was, someone asked why National didn’t circumvent the Exec and go straight to the membership.  The regional rep said it would be inappropriate for the National to go straight to the membership because local autonomy is so important to National. 

The other important part of this is that when asked about the urgency she responded that it was the Exec that decided to go under administration and not National.  At the same time she speculated that the amount we owed made it urgent. 

 

In the second town hall meeting that we had it was mentioned by former Exec members that there was some mention of the “chilly climate” being the more important and urgent factor.  So now this is confusing because this seems different than what she’s said today.

The regional rep gave this narrative where the problems have been building for the past few months and indicated that the Exec on their own realized this problem was too big for them to handle so they voted to put us under administration.  Even though they said that probably administration was inevitable, that National hadn’t started the process yet.

The decision was more about the Exec than about National although National did put pressure on the Exec to make the decision that they did when they did.  For the Exec members who voted in favour, the reason seemed to be the amount of money owed and they didn’t want to go to the GMM in October and have to talk about the money. 

 

By way of clarification, she can negotiate a contract but can’t ratify.  It’s unclear if people will get elected to committees. 

 

Wondering if any members of the Exec have read the article in the most recent YU Free Press and whether they would be willing to express their thoughts on that article?

We should hold off on that because it isn’t related to this agenda item.  We can discuss it later if there’s time.

 

In terms of the committees, in the past we’ve elected members so this is unclear because she says she’s willing to accept volunteers but how would this work?

She didn’t address this directly.  She refused to answer the question about whether members would be elected.  She wants people to express interest if they have interest.

 

At the beginning of the report-back, 3 things were mentioned.  Finances, including the money owed to the Receiver General and item 3 had to do with enforcement of the CA.  Is that our CA or the 1281 CA or both?  What kinds of issues were she talking about? 

 

They claim that some of our funds were moved into the general operating budget during the strike. 

 

So funds within our agreement being misused and then the Receiver General are the issues?

Did she say there’s problems with the 1281 contract in general? 

 

She said there are bills to the Receiver General and then she said there are collective agreement issues with staff.

She said staff aren’t receiving the increases they should when they should.

She said the third thing is that she is here to protect our CA rights and the membership.  She didn’t really elaborate this.  She said our CA rights have not been upheld in a consistent, justified manner. 

 

When she was talking about the financial issues, the 3 part of the finances was staff related and the third reason overall was the issue of CA rights being upheld in general.

 

When she mentioned this third item she said there are general problems with enforcement of the CA.  She gave the example of the PDF fund being moved.  She made it seem like it was more general but this is the only example she gave. 

 

All of these are real problems.

 

She was asked why, since her meeting had significantly less people than this one does, she didn’t want to come here.  She said that because she was only CC’ed on the email she didn’t think that was an invitation.

 

She also said that there are issues with grievances.  A question was asked if there are three people are on a committee and five come forward will there be an election?  She said she would change the structure of our committees to accommodate people. 

 

Back to the issue raised before, is there no policy in place about whether the GM can vote to be put under administration or is it really only the prerogative of the Exec?

The Exec is the decision-making body of the union between meetings so in that sense they have the authority but then there’s also the question of how informed the membership is about decisions that are made on our behalf…

 

Confusion about how she is communicating with members of the union.  How did she do it? Because some of us didn’t receive any communication from her.

Over 3903 News.  

 

Another financial thing that she mentioned was the Exec honorarium.  Our CA ensures a certain amount of money but many years ago the Exec made a decision to donate part of their honorarium to the Operating Account and she sees that as a questionable activity.

 

Wanted to add that the forensic audit would continue and in the summer we voted for a particular auditor so it’s unclear if that auditor will stay on. 

 

Lack of clarity about why the Exec felt they had to do this without giving the membership any warning.  It feels drastic.  Why didn’t they feel there was any other option?  It just seems a little bit extreme.

The Exec didn’t feel confident that the GMM would be able to help with whatever issues they were dealing with.

Also the Exec was told by our National rep that they had to make the decision by the end of the day but National says that wasn’t the case. 

 

Is our local going to have to pay for the audit or does National pay?

National pays.

 

She continually mocks criticism of her as “I eat babies” or “I kill birds”

She didn’t explicitly answer who would be on the committee but made it clear she would chose who would be on the committees

 

 

4) Ad-Hoc Committee

 

a) Presentation

 

This formed out of the first town hall meeting we had right after hearing about trusteeship.  We’re against administration, not the administrator.  We feel that we can work on these issues to try and end administration as fast as possible.  Also want to be able to keep information flowing to the membership as much as possible.  We’ve produced an FAQ based on information from the administrator, the National Constitution, and Ontario Labour Relations. 

 

Right now there’s 8 people on a temporary steering committee for the Ad-Hoc Committee and the idea is to get as many people involved as possible.  It would be great at this meeting if new folks wanted to join the committee or get on the steering committee. 

 

We need to elect new members to the steering committee of the Ad-Hoc Committee. 

 

I am a former exec, didn’t get to go to the exec mtg with the vote, then there was a move to not let me know about the admin, so when I found out I told the membership, the ad-hoc is for dissemination of info, unity of a disperate group of people,

 

There were problems with members of the Exec not being told about the vote on whether or not to go under administration and then were told not to tell the membership when it happened.  But one of these Exec members told the members anyway and a town hall was called.  

 

At the two town halls it was decided that the committee would be formed but without a specific aim because we wanted the committee to be as representative as possible and so a GMM was called to get more membership input.

 

b) Q & A

 

If the goal is to end administration, Lynn said the National Board meets and we can present to them. Is there a sense of what some of the strategies could be?

There is a section for strategy at the end of the agenda so these questions should be held until then if possible. 

 

Thanks for the FAQ, it is really priceless info.  Question about #1: it talks about the Labour Relations Act.  There is a limit to how long administration can last.  In the report-back it was said that the administrator said that it’s possible administration could last beyond two years but this appears contrary to the Act. 

 

It’s a very uncommon process for the Labour Relations Board to extend administration beyond two years.  3906 was under administration for 4-6 months and they didn’t pay their debt off completely before administration ended.

 

What is the relationship between the Ad-Hoc Committee and the Exec?  What information do we have related to their involvement in this process? What is the relationship between the Exec and the Administrator? As members we need to know what exactly our Exec members did and why. 

 

CS Unit 3, CS, Unit 1 and VP, Unit 3 got together to work out what they would say at the town hall.  Also talked with the former VP, Unit 1 and with the Recording Secretary because he has the minutes from the Exec meeting where the decision was made.  The committee intends to reach out to other members of the former exec who voted in favour of administration to ask them to participate in our work.

 

Today Lynn mentioned that she has no interest in viewing the former Exec as an entity in and of themselves so in terms of them having a particular relationship with her, she said “No.”

 

There’s conflicting information about who triggered what in terms of this process getting underway.

 

Curious as to what discussions around strategy took place at the last town hall meeting.  This will be useful when we get to the strategy agenda item. 

We talked about strategies.  We got the FAQ out and organized the SGMM.  There was discussion of things we can do. 

Part of the intention behind the SGMM was to reassert the involvement and the willingness to be involved of and by the membership. 

 

We prioritized steps we had to take

1. FAQ
2. Organize SGMM
3. Town hall organizing
4. Reinsert involvement of members through gmm and we want to be in control of the union as the membership
5. Strategies around national board meeting, have a presence, tell them we are making plans to pay them back and deal with the “chilly climate”, we can take plans to change these things to the national board, if a local shows they are making attempts to deal with their problems then administration is less likely (national said at a recent exec meeting)

Food donated, Chels made it, word!

Next week we are planning a bake sale

 

One thing that was suggested at the last town hall meeting was to work to come up with effective proposals for addressing the issues that have led to our being put under administration.  The idea is that we could present these proposals to the National Board when they meet in December in order to make a case for the administration of the local coming to an end.

 

A email sheet has been passed around for people to sign up to become involved with the Ad-Hoc Committee and get added to the listserv. 

 

Meeting resumes after 15 minute break

 

5) Finances

 

After a strike you have 10 weeks to reconcile and we’ve gone way past that date but by the same token National is obligated to tell us how much we owe them and we only got that information a few weeks ago.  At the July GMM, we were told by the Chairperson of the Union that we couldn’t reconcile because we couldn’t close the books on the strike due to ongoing legal fees. Today at the info session, Lynn and her boss, Karen, said that whoever said that was incompetent. It’s hard to make a plan to pay money back when you don’t know how much you owe.  So in the September GMM we had a plan in place but now National says it wasn’t enough.

 

A certain amount of the money we owe is political; there’s debate about whether we owe on certain things.  So there’s some ambiguity about the figure.  This past Wednesday the range we owe was given as between $800 000 and $1.75 million which is a difference in almost a million dollars.  So is a number being imposed on us?  Maybe we can think about organizing around the political aspects of the debt.

 

Request for clarification about what reconciliation means.

It means an attempt to pay back.  National fronts us strike pay and we have to be able to account for that with documentation. 

In terms of reconciliation, based on all the money that National paid to the local we need to justify all the money we paid out using very standardized forms.  We didn’t use those forms, which they don’t like and see as improper process.  So it’s not that we have to pay the money all back but rather that we have to be able to account for the money they fronted us. 

 

At the info session she said she is going to wait until the audit is completed and that administration comes to an end once National deems that all loose ends are tied up.  She said the first possible moment for that to be the case would be in December.  She’s very vague on the details.  We shouldn’t be assuming that this is going to be a quick process. 

 

In terms of what National is willing to pay for and why the range is so large, there seems to be some issue around alternative duty, being paid for GMMs and rallies, and holiday pay.

National has very strict rules around picket pay and their definition of alternative duty and accessibility is perhaps more narrow than ours has been and that’s where some of this tension comes from politically. 

 

Lynn herself seems open to broader definitions of accessibility so maybe this is a place where some movement can be made. 

 

In terms of the definitions around picket duty, Lynn implied that it’s going to be a battle between National’s definitions and our membership.

 

One thing that was brought up was that our local used different forms than National’s.  Why?

 

It had to do in part with flexibility.  During the strike, we would send people from one line to other, weaker, lines to increase safety which is almost impossible to do using National’s forms.

 

What’s the big deal in terms of which forms are being used as long as there’s documentation?

 

What about the issue of holiday pay during the strike?

In 2000 we paid holiday pay after National made it very clear that they understood why we were doing it and that they approved it.  It’s not forever and always that National takes the position that they seem to be taking now because they paid it in the last strike (2000-2001). 

In the most recent strike, the decision around alternative duties was made was in an effort to reflect the nature of our membership.  People got paid for the holiday by banking hours. 

 

All these little things seem to be little things.  There’s a discrepancy of almost a million dollars.  So where has the big money disappeared from? If we’re talking about a discrepancy this big, there’s big money there.  There’s a disconnect here. 

 

One of the reasons why we were paid for GMMs is they started to be scheduled during regular picketing hours.  It would be useful to know how much money was spent on a GMM in picket pay on a given day to get a sense of how this money adds up. 

 

It’s $700 000 related to strike duty that’s related to either lack of documentation or irregularities (for example the same person signing out for multiple people).  She said she wouldn’t comment on it until the forensic audit is complete. 

 

Part of the million dollars is also what we owe them in back-pay for our dues.  We haven’t paid them since October of 2008.  Also part of it is to do with strike equipment.  There’s some argument about whether and what they pay for.  Part of it is around what counts as picket duty and part of it is around irregular picket sign-ins. 

 

Question as to whether people know specific numbers.

Roughly $500 000 in dues, $700 000 in strike reconciliation.

 

How much strike pay was paid out?

Not sure of exact figure.

 

In terms of holiday pay, in GMMs during the strike the process through which we developed the policy happened in conjunction with Barbara from National who indicated that it would be an acceptable process.  So this is part of the political issue.  We should go back to the minutes from those GMMs when National Reps were there telling us this. 

National is changing their position from what they said before and that’s where this political debate about what we owe is coming from.  400 per member for holiday pay for say 800 members is quickly getting to 300,000-400,000 dollars

 

It would be useful to know a ballpark figure about how much money the local usually makes in a year.

The Exec had some plans to deal with the debt but what were they?

 

We generate about $100 000 a month in dues. Over the summer the dues we get decrease to about half of that and it’s also affected by membership growth/decline.

 

Why weren’t dues paid? It makes sense not to pay during the strike because we don’t have dues coming in but what about after?

After the strike we didn’t pay because it came to a GMM that National owed us money from legal fees a while ago and so the membership voted to withhold dues. 

 

In terms of dues, a few weeks ago there was a National Convention where it was stated that in total, from 2008 alone, various locals owe them a total of around 24 million dollars.  Us owing National 2 million even in the big picture is a small figure. 

 

The dues that we owe for National are not the problem.  They are more concerned with the discrepancy in strike funds.  They said that the dues issue is more normal for locals. 

 

Our Operating Budget for a year was over a million but it will go down now because the Admin is trying to eliminate Unit 3. 

 

The reconciliation is where we basically have to show how we spent all the money National gave us and if we weren’t able to do that they say we owe them whatever can’t be accounted for. 

 

6) Union Culture

 

Lynn mentioned that she received over 200 emails on a variety of topics, some of them around the culture.  She mentioned specifically the listservs and the atmosphere at meetings. We already have an equity statement, what more can we do? Lynn was vauge on the answer

 

It was mentioned that all committee members go through Anti-Oppression Training and she mentioned instituting a code of conduct. 

 

She was asked who would enforce the code of conduct and the response was that National is coming up with a code of conduct for all locals.

 

Suggestion that we could get a mediator who does conflict resolution as one way to try and resolve some of these issues. 

 

We were fighting the student code of conduct during bargaining.  A good model might be the one used by TFAC on their listserv.  Christina will look into this and talk to Sheila.  They have listserv decorum guidelines and that’s something that might be interesting and important to work on for our listservs more generally. 

 

We should take this issue quite seriously even though it would be hard for National to make the argument for trusteeship to the Labour Board based on this issue.  We need to develop concrete proposals for addressing this issue in the local but the code of conduct is not the way to go. 

 

We have to be very creative and careful about how we deal with the code of conduct if it’s coming down from National and being put in place for all locals.  The harassment that allegedly goes on usually stems from deeper political and ideological divisions and we need to take this into account in how we think about this issue. 

 

We have mechanisms on member to member harassment, maybe we should relook at those and improve them where possible

 

Did Lynn provide info on how we deal with the subjective issue of chilly climate? What procedures or criteria that national has to determine a chilly climate

 

Did Lynn provide information about how they justify administering us for having a “chilly climate”? 

Who was Lynn before she became administrator? Why would she personally be receiving emails from members?

She just said that she’s received emails and that they contain specific allegations.  She wouldn’t give a number.  She wasn’t able to say how National would justify administration based on this particular claim of the climate in the union. 

 

When did people start emailing her? 

 

In terms of the Labour Board, we need to see the emails because they are being used to substantiate claims against the membership and we need to see if those documents are there. 

 

There’s this ongoing difficulty where a few different past Exec members have wanted to change how, for example, the Stewards Council listserv functions.  Also Exec members are required to be on Talk but this didn’t happen.  Some of the problems on the list come from the fact that members try to use the space to ask the Exec questions and they don’t answer and then frustration builds and things escalate. 

 

A lot of emails were CC’ed in the past month to David Gwilt, including emails from the Chair.  It might be interesting to give these emails to Lynn, though it’s quite possible that David has already done so.

 

If we only talk about this issue in terms of administration that might not be the most productive.  It might be useful to think more generally about long-standing issues within the culture of our local. 

 

Two suggestions: 1) revise the equity statement to talk about how we should behave toward each other and about the kind of climate that we actually want to have; 2) it’s going to be hard for us to go the National Board and to the Labour Board and say we don’t want a code of conduct because they might not understand why so maybe we could write our own, broad code of conduct. 

 

If we do draft a new equality statement and code of conduct perhaps we should also consider proposing a way to enforce these things on our own terms.  Not sure how it works right now but maybe we could strike a committee or bring it to another GMM. 

 

We should do this and bring it to all of these parties to show that we are making progress.

 

BIRT we develop a working group tasked to formulate an equality statement that expresses what we value in positive terms, as well as a list of equity guidelines and strategy for implementation. 

BIFRT we bring these documents to be presented to the membership and to later be presented to the administrator and CUPE National Executive Board.

m/s: Jeremiah Gaster/Chris De Carlo

 

Point of Order: The administrator sees us as an ad-oc committee.

 

But we are treating this meeting as a legitimate GMM and we have been running it that way. That’s separate from how other people think of us.

 

Do we mean to bring this to the next GMM that we call or do we mean her GMM-like meetings?

We’ve self-organized this meeting as general members and it should come to the next meeting we hold as general members.

 

The administrator has said that political harassment is her issue.  So we’re only partly engaging with this issue here.  Do we want to do that or do we want to include some of these political issues? 

 

We should think about the comment made earlier objecting to codes of conduct because they are so regulatory and this might not catalyze a major shift in how we relate to one another in this local.  Is this motion meant to justify ourselves in relation to the administration or is it meant to really help address the issues in the local? 

 

Sometimes in GMMs motions and conversations get weird when two issues — the motion and the implementation of the motion — get conflated. 

 

Agree with motion in spirit but is unclear in terms of implementation.  If we say how we’re going to try to implement this motion here then that might create problems.

 

We’re not discussing implementation right now.  We’re discussing the motion.  If the motion passes, then we’ll need to discuss implementation.

 

Call the question

m/s: Susanna/Saron

Motion carries

 

Motion carries (6 abstentions)

 

Nominations for the working group:

 

Request for male-identified members to volunteer because often this work gets left to women. 

 

Christina

Sarah S-M

Jeremiah

Susanna

Tristan

Jaime

 

Suggestion that we consider leaving space for members not present so that they can get involved.  A call-out should sent over the Ad-Hoc and RealNews list.

 

7) Business of the Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration

 

BIRT we extend the meeting by 30 minutes.

Tristan/Sarah S-M

Motion carries.

 

At the last info session it was very easy for the Ad-Hoc Committee to be demonized.  So one of the things they talked about was that the Ad-Hoc Committee disrespected Lynn by not inviting her properly.  It was mentioned that she was CC’ed and invited and she said she didn’t know who to respond to.  One member mentioned that he’s been getting emails from the Ad-Hoc Committee over News and wanted to know how can this be happening and Lynn said it’s a breach of security and is being looked into. 

 

Lynn said she is looking into shutting down the News listserv and starting a new one. 

 

How can any committee operate without being demonized from the get-go?

 

Maybe we should rethink continuing to meet as an Ad-Hoc Committee.  If we’re continuing to hold GMMs maybe this is the space to use.  This GMM has been more productive than many of the past GMMs we’ve had and it seems like here we’ve been putting a lot of positive things into practice.  We’re demonstrating our ability to work together on these issues in this meeting.

 

At the last two town halls the idea that came to mind is to think about what we’re actually accomplishing and how we want to engage.  We can see ourselves as a GMM but outside of this meeting no one has to abide by the motions we pass here.  But we want to change this situation and we want to be able to engage with other parts of the local about things that have been decided here.  We want to show up to Lynn’s meetings to find out how to facilitate the process of ending the administration by finding solutions to our problems.  What solutions are actually going to be effective in how we engage with, for example, National and Lynn?  We might need an Ad-Hoc Committee to work on strategizing around the motions passed here. 

 

In the Ad-Hoc Committee there are currently the following working groups:

Fundraising

Research

Communications

Direct Action

 

We could try to come up with by-law proposals of our own.  Also tabling, bake sales, etc.  It’s also important to have a basis of unity and to extend olive branches to other groups/individuals.

 

The primary issue should be ending administration as soon as possible by addressing the reasons for the administration and this should be membership-driven.  That should be the mandate of the Ad-Hoc Committee.

 

Is there a way we can challenge administration?

The main place that it’s challenged is the National Executive Board. The National Exec meeting that happens in 14 days is a conference call and they won’t reverse the decision.

 

 

Maybe we should consider renaming the committee to help communicate the fact that the intention really is to be a positive alternative.

 

We should also be volunteering for committees and attending the meetings set up by the administrator.  We should do everything we can not give Lynn an opportunity to claim she’s being mistreated in some way.  The aim is to create a space to increase democratic participation in the administrative process.

 

We could try to oppose administration but perhaps that’s not the best place to put our efforts.  Administration is anti-democratic by definition.  We should be trying to open this up a bit, to try and increase democratic participation.  We want to hold GMMs even though we’re not supposed to so that we can talk to each other and try to find ways of addressing our issues.  Why is this being framed by people in other spaces as something bad?  How can this be bad?

 

We can’t sidestep the problems that this local has; we have to address them. 

 

Under administration the union is not democratically run.  The purpose of the committee should be to keep our membership’s voice as a voice in this process.  If committee sizes are increased by Lynn that doesn’t make things more democratic; those 13 people still don’t represent the membership.  We have to have a voice and this should be the whole point.

 

In terms of the name of the committee, it should be a concern for us in terms of trying to make it more difficult for people to spread a negative image of the group and make it seem like something it’s not.  Actually, changing the name probably won’t make any difference.  What’s really important is continuing to do outreach to the membership and to really try and get prepared for the National Exec Board and Labour Board meetings later this year.  The process that led to us being put under administration is very problematic.  We need to be clear about what we are against and what we are for and no matter what our name is, we aren’t going to be liked by the administration. 

 

From what Lynn was saying tonight it didn’t seem she was against us having these GMMs.  She has problems with the fact that the Ad-Hoc Committee is sending emails over News and presenting those emails as the “Real News”.

 

We could send something out that instead of saying the “Real 3903 News” could be called something else and we also need to change the logo because there’s a problem with us using the logo.  We also need to make sure to communicate with Lynn.  We need to come up with proposals for addressing the three issues and presenting this to Lynn and to the National Board.

 

In terms of reaching out to members, it might be useful to ask members what kinds of things have come up for them in terms of the local’s culture and we could do this in a more face-to-face way.  It was offensive today when Lynn couldn’t name the moment when we asked what this “chilly climate” business is about and then finally she said “political”.  So we should do this work.

 

 

Is it possible to send things to the National Exec members who are going to have this conference call in 14 days? Can we get something together by then?  Is that useful?

 

BIRT we extend the meeting by 10 minutes.

m/s: Yuri/Jaime

Motion carries.

 

We need to elect a new steering committee for the Ad-Hoc Committee.

This steering committee needs to set another meeting.

 

BIRT we elect up to 10 members to the steering committee for the Ad-Hoc Committee.

m/s: Yuri/Tristan

 

Call the Question

m/s: Sarah H./Saron

Motion Carries

 

Motion carries.

 

Nominations:

Kevin

Claire

Susanna

Peter

Yuri

Jaime

Saron

Jesse

Jeremiah

Madeleine

 

Members are acclaimed.

 

BIRT we change the name of the Ad-Hoc Committee to the 3903 Democratic Membership Committee.

m/s: Ian/Chris V.

 

Concern about having 3903 in the name.  Will we get in trouble for that?

 

We are 3903 members.  What’s the problem?

 

Something should be in the name about it being “ad-hoc” because every group in the union has been disbanded.  We need to stress that the group formed for a purpose.

 

 

Maybe that isn’t a good idea because actually this group could continue as something to help keep the democracy-building going.

 

Instead of talking about this maybe we can put a bunch of names up there and then people can vote on the names.

 

Motion fails.

 

BIRT we extend the meeting by 3 minutes.

m/s: Jesse/Madeleine

Motion carries.

 

Names are written on the board and voted on:

 

3903 Democratic Membership Committee (14)

3903 Committee for Democratic Renewal (9)

Ad-Hoc Committee for Democratic Unionism (2)

Reclaim 3903 (5)

 

 

Ad-Hoc Committee is renamed 3903 Democratic Membership Committee

 

 

BIRT the steering committee of the 3903 Democratic Membership Committee circulate a petition to hold another SGMM within the next month.

m/s: Kevin/Sarah H

Motion carries (1 opposed).

 

 

Motion to adjourn

m/s: Sarah H/Tristan

Motion carries.

 

FAQ

Frequestly Asked Questions about Administration

Collectively prepared by the Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration research committee

 

1. What is administration and what are the relevant rules governing it?
2. Why are we under administration?
3. When was administration first raised and what has CUPE National said in the past about administration?
4. What did 3903 do about the issues leading to administration prior to Oct 28?
5. Why has CUPE National not shared any information with the membership about administration?
6. Did the former executive vote to approve administration?
7. Why and how did the former executive vote for administration?
8. What are the powers of the administrator and what are the limitations on this power?
9. What are the administrator’s plans?

10. How will this affect our staff?

11. How do we get out of administration?

12. What is the Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration? (how it was formed, who is in it, what its mandate is, what its structure is)

13. Should I attend the information sessions on Wed Nov 4?

14. Should I attend the SGMM on Wed Nov 4?

1. What is administration and what are the relevant rules governing it?

A chartered union local may be placed under trusteeship by its parent union.  In this situation, the local’s autonomy is suspended.  Trusteeship is governed, in the first instance, by section 89 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, ‘Locals Under Trusteeship,’ which allows for a provincial, national or international trade union to assume supervision or control over a subordinate trade union under the constitution or by-laws of the provincial, national or international trade union [S.89 (1)].

The Labour Relations Act also sets out limits on the duration of trusteeship: “such supervision or control shall not continue for more than 12 months from the date of such assumption, but such supervision or control may be continued for a further period of 12 months with the consent of the Board” [S. 89 (2)].

Under the CUPE National Constitution (available at http://cupe.ca/updir/Constitution07.pdf), trusteeship, or administration by CUPE National, is governed by Article 7.8.  The article states that “In cases of emergency and having received substantive evidence from members of a chartered organization that it would be in the best interests of the chartered organization of the Canadian Union of Public Employees that immediate action be taken, the National President may place a chartered organization under an administrator who shall forthwith exercise the authority and carry out
the functions set out hereunder” [CUPE National Constitution 7.8(f)].

The section of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 governing trusteeship can be found at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_95l01_e.htm#BK103.

2. Why are we under administration?

The CUPE National Constitution permits the administration of a local when “there is reason to believe that any chartered organization may be dominated, controlled or substantially influenced, in the conduct of its affairs by any corrupt influence, or that its policies or activities are contrary to the principles or policies of the Canadian Union of Public Employees” [CUPE National Constitution 7.7(a)].

According to the National Representative to CUPE 3903, the two major factors contributing to CUPE National’s decision to put us under administration are: 1) Finances, 2) The ‘culture of harassment and intimidation’ that pervades the local.

In terms of the things leading to these two charges some specific details include:

1)    Finances

a)    We owe CUPE National (according to the current estimation used by the administrator) $1.2 million. This is probably the single greatest factor contributing to administration, without which it would be far more difficult to justify.

b)    During the strike there were a number of problems with our financial controls:

                                      I.    Auditors we brought in to help reconcile the strike wrote a letter to the executive that determined there was “a lack of internal control and insufficient documentation… at the Local office before, during and after the strike…”  As a result of these concerns, they had to cease the audit.

                                    II.    A major problem was that CUPE National has specific software and sign-in sheets that it gives out to every local on strike. In order to safeguard our autonomy, we decided to make our own sign-in sheets and use a spreadsheet of our own to keep track of finances. Given the amount of missing information, missing sheets and sheets that are so chaotic they are difficult to get information from, and given the way we accounted for this information on the spreadsheets (mistakenly writing a food or equipment expense, which CUPE doesn’t reimburse) as strike pay [which they do]), CUPE was upset not only with the lack of record-keeping but that we had (apparently rudely) told them we didn’t want to use what they were providing us with to help.

                                   III.    We decided to start paying strike pay to members for coming to GMMs, but never took into account that National would not reimburse this money as it doesn’t consider it part of strike mobilization. This may also have been other cases where work that we decided merited strike pay, that we never thought to check with National about and assumed they would pay for.

c)    According to our National Representative, reconciliation between the local and CUPE National must be completed within ten weeks of completion of the strike.  According to the regulations, if reconciliation doesn’t happen by the prescribed date, the National Executive Board may make an arbitrary decision about the amount owing [local executive meeting minutes, Sept 10]. Although the strike ended on January 29, 2009, we have yet to reconcile with CUPE National.  However, CUPE National has also never settled on a number representing what we owe them. The National Representative was asked what would happen if the reconciliation could not be completed. He replied: “If it can’t happen then the decision is arbitrary and anything outstanding is a debt owed.  If there’s a debt owed and you go out on strike again then you won’t get any money from National.  So that’s the repercussion.  That’s in the strike fund regulations” [local executive meeting minutes, Sept 10].  It is also important to note that we could not close the books on the strike until we stopped incurring legal fees.  Because we were legislated back to work and entered binding arbitration, we continued to incur legal fees into the summer of 2009 related to the strike that prevented us from closing our books.

2)    The ‘culture of harassment and intimidation’ that pervades the local:
(Note: the apostrophes are not meant to underplay any harassment or intimidation taking place in the local, they are only used because this was the exact wording chosen by the National Representative and the Administrator).

a)    It is no secret that many people had a large number of legitimate complaints about: harassment, intimidation, equity issues, sexism, racism, political ‘targetting’ of individual members, misrepresentation, innuendo, toxicity on the lists and other problems with the climate of the local both before, during and after the strike.

b)    The only specific things that the National Representative and the Administrator said regarding this are:

                                  I.        That more than one upset member had made phone calls in tears to National about the climate of the union.

                                II.        That both the National Representative and the Administrator said that this factor was far more important to them personally than the million dollars owed to National.

3. When was administration first raised and what has CUPE National said in the past about administration?

 

The concern of CUPE National “coming in and putting us under administration” was raised at the July 21, 2009 Special General Membership Meeting on finances.  This was given as the rationale for the new financial controls adopted at that meeting. At the August 13, 2009 executive meeting, the National Representative said “The local is in serious, serious financial trouble.  The local is going to have to redo its budget.  We’ll have to pay our per capita.  All the money that has been transferred out of accounts and into other ones has to be paid back.  The local is at risk of being fined.  The priority has to be the administration of the local.  All donations, etc will have to stop.  The local does not have the money.  If this isn’t figured out by September, then it will add up each month: $100 000 for National dues plus 2% compound interest.  The local needs to make some serious decisions to administer itself before it gets put under administration.” [local executive meeting minutes, Aug 13].

At the September 10, 2009 local executive meeting, the executive asked the National Representative about the possibility of being put under trusteeship. He responded: “Under the constitution if you become consumed with corrupt influences or finances and this isn’t resolved then the possibility of administration becomes real.  But given that the local is making a concerted effort to really rectify the situation this isn’t necessarily something that is going to happen. Also, GMMs are not strike duty so the pay that was given to members for that would not be paid by National” [local executive meeting minutes, Sept 10].  

4. What did 3903 do about the issues leading to administration prior to Oct 28?

Regarding the two major issues that we are under administration for, 3903 took the following measures prior to Oct. 28th:

1)    Finances:

a)    The executive looked up CUPE’s policy on Financial Controls, combined them with recommendations from both the auditors and suggestions from our Equity Officer (Sheila), during the time that the executive had asked for her help with finances, and voted to implement them as soon as possible. They then took this protocol to the General Membership Meeting on

b)    As the amount of money 3903 expected to receive from National became a debt that it would owe National, the executive each week helped develop (with our Equity Officer) a proposed payment plan. While it is true that this payment plan only thought the debt would amount to $500,000, it was being constantly updated and developed at each weekly executive meeting.

c)    The executive passed the following motion at their July 16, 2009 meeting: “BIRT we recommend to the GMM that we hire David Burkes to do a forensic audit of our finances for the 2008-2009 fiscal year and the subsequent period to the present. The cost will be approximately, twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00).” The same motion was passed without amendments at the July 21 SGMM.

d)    The executive passed the following motion at their June 30, 2009 meeting: “BIRT the financial officer, the chair and nay and all signers for the union be required, as part of their duties, to take the first available financial training session offered by CUPE National.”

e)    The executive passed several motions at their July 20, 2009 meeting related to proposed new financial controls, including motions to change the courtesy account number, delegate Sheila (CUPE 3903 staff) to work on finances one day a week until the end of August, and put a moratorium on unnecessary discretionary expenses.

f)     A Special General membership Meeting on Finances was held on July 21, 2009 to discuss the finances. This meeting confirmed the executive’s July 20 decision to put a moratorium on unnecessary discretionary expenses and the decision to change the courtesy account number. The membership later approved new financial controls at the September GMM based on the recommendations of the auditor, CUPE National’s policies on financial controls, and suggestions from our staff.

g)    The membership was also interested in discussing hiring a full or part time staff member to deal with finances and discussed the issue at the July 21 SGMM. This was also a recommendation of the auditor.

h)   The membership was considering proposals for a new levy to replenish the strike fund and strengthen our finances. Different levy proposals were discussed at the July, August, and September membership meetings.

2)    The ‘culture of intimidation and harassment’ that pervades the local:

a)    The Equity Officer, with the executive, developed an anti-oppression protocol and a member to member grievance protocol over the summer. This protocol was passed to the General Membership Meeting in August.

b)    On October 20 the Executive of CUPE 3903 underwent anti-oppression training to resolve some of the longstanding ‘toxic’ patterns in its dynamics. It had also scheduled a follow-up session on November 23rd.

c)    The executive had scheduled (though it has now possibly been canceled) two sessions of management training to learn to direct its staff in an equitable way.

d)    The Equity Officer had planned and was beginning to implement anti-oppression training for all 3903 committee members.

e)    The existence of the position of the Equity Officer itself is a sign of the strong commitment that many 3903 members have to promoting equity in the workplace.

5. Why has CUPE National not shared any information with the membership about administration?

The new administrator, Lynn McDougall, sent one short message to the membership on October 28 after news of the take-over was leaked.  In her discussions with individual members and with the former executive on October 29, Lynn McDougall stated that she was aware of the need to better-inform the membership and that she was planning on writing a communique to the membership, similar to the information she was giving to former executive at the October 29 meeting.  She stated that the information would be sent out on the evening of October 29.  A second communique with some of the basic points of her meeting and times for the information sessions on November 4 was sent out early on November 2.

6. Did the former executive vote to approve administration?

Yes, the former executive of 3903 voted to ask CUPE National to put the local under financial administration on Tuesday, October 27.  The vote was 7 for, 1 against, and 1 abstention.  Two executive members sent regrets and one had to leave by 12:30pm.

7. Why and how did the former executive vote for administration?

On Friday October 24 select members of the former executive met with National’s financial representatives about reconciling the strike (matching the invoices for the money National had sent to us with the picket sheets).  After that meeting the executive members that were present felt that National administration was a mixture of necessary and inevitable because of the sheer amount of money owed.

Whether these members communicated this information to other members of executive or not is unknown, however it is clear that a sizable portion of the executive was unaware that this would be voted on prior to the October 27 meeting.  Two members of the executive were not able to attend the executive meeting on October 27 and had no prior warning that a proposal in support of National administration would be debated and voted on.  Therefore they were completely disenfranchised from voting.  The motion was only introduced an hour and a half into the meeting, with no prior warning, and only a few minutes before a third member of the executive had to leave to teach.  Therefore he was also disenfranchised from voting on it.  There were clearly members of the executive ‘in the know’ and others not ‘in the know’ at the meeting on Tuesday, since the chair brought the motion typed-out and the National Representative knew to be present at the meeting.

One member of the executive raised the equity issue of the missing executive members and asked to table the motion so that all the members of the executive at least had the opportunity to be informed of the debate taking place.  The motion to table was defeated, after the National Representative to 3903 stated that he had to call National and inform them of our decision that afternoon.

During much of the debate around the motion it was understood that either the executive could vote to ask to be put under administration or CUPE National would choose to do it unilaterally. The executive was informed that if it voted in favor of administration, then the administration would be considered a ‘friendly administration,’ but that if they voted against it, National would decide to put us under ‘unfriendly administration’. The difference between the two was explained to them as: ‘friendly administration’ – the executive stay on working as advisors to the administrator to provide help and information (and still receive their honoraria); ‘unfriendly administration’ – the executive would be removed from office and have no role in the future administration. Given these conditions the vote by the executive was almost unanimously in favor.

Under CUPE 3903′s bylaws, the executive committee “shall be the governing body of the local between membership meetings” [Article 9b].  Under our structure, their powers are very limited.  Although the bylaws can be interpreted in many ways, it is generally accepted that the organizational structure in Article 4 is intended to suggest a hierarchy and that Article 9(c) also suggests the membership in the GMM can overrule the Executive Committee, making the GMM the highest decision-making body in the union.  Given that the regularly-scheduled October GMM was two days away, it was entirely inappropriate and a severe abuse of power for the executive to consider unilaterally inviting National to put the local under administration. The October GMM was cancelled by the chair of the local on October 26, the day before the executive’s vote because of “a delay in obtaining necessary information regarding our finances” [CUPEnews, Oct 26].  Given what the chair was contemplating at the time, it seems clear that she had the necessary information; she just didn’t want to share it.  It is extremely rare for a regularly-scheduled GMM to be cancelled for any reason–in fact, none of the members involved in the preparation of this FAQ can ever remember it having been done before.

8. What are the powers of the administrator and what are the limitations on this power?

Essentially, the Administrator assumes the complete set of powers previously granted to the Executive Committee and the various subcommittees of the union.  At a meeting on October 29 between the new administrator and the former executive, the administrator implied that her power encompassed the powers of both the executive of the union and the membership, reinforcing her statement to the employer earlier that day that for all intents and purposes “she was CUPE 3903″.  Specifically, she claimed that the only power she did not have was to ratify a new collective agreement (as this is governed by Ontario law).  However, it is clear that she is also limited by the terms of the CUPE National Constitution.

According to the CUPE constitution “…the administrator shall have full authority to conduct the affairs of the chartered organization, to receive or disburse its funds, and in general to carry out the duties which would otherwise devolve upon officers of the chartered organization, provided that disbursements of funds by the administrator shall be confined to the regular and necessary business of the chartered organization and shall not be made for any other purpose; and provided further that the funds and other assets of the chartered organization shall be and remain the property of the chartered organization. The administrator shall also call meetings of the membership in the normal manner and keep them informed of the details concerning the administration. The administrator shall be responsible to and shall regularly report to the National President and the National Executive Board” [CUPE National Constitution, 7.8(f)].

It is also useful to note that the Administrator’s power does not extend beyond that which would normally fall to the “officers of the chartered organization,” i.e. the executive members.  As best we can tell, all powers that previously have required membership involvement (by-law amendments, dues increases, ratification of collective agreements, etc.) must still fall to the general membership, despite her claim to the contrary.  Furthermore, although the new administrator stated there were no General Membership Meetings (GMMs) and she would decide whether or not to hold them, the constitution clearly states that GMMs must continue to be called “in the normal manner.” 

The CUPE National Constitution states “The regular monthly dues shall be established or altered by the Local Union only at a regular or special membership meeting, provided that at least seven (7) days notice at a previous meeting or at least sixty (60) days written notice has been given” [B.4.3 (c)].  This suggests that the administrator does not have the power to alter the dues. Similarly, she cannot levy assessments “unless voted by a majority of the members present at a regular general meeting, following appropriate notice to all members of the proposed assessment, or at a special general meeting called for that purpose and of which all members have received adequate notice (which shall be not less than seven days) or by a majority voting in a referendum of all members” [B.4.2 (a)].  Finally, with regard to additional local bylaws in addition to the bylaws set out in Appendix B of the CUPE constitution, the constitution states that such bylaws may be enacted “by a majority vote at a regular meeting, or at a special meeting called for that purpose, make such additional by-laws as it may deem advisable, provided that at least seven (7) days notice at a previous meeting or at least sixty (60) days written notice has been given” [B.7.1].  This suggests that the administrator may not enact new bylaws without the approval of the membership in the manner outlined above.  Due to the unresolved differences between the administrator’s position on October 29 and the CUPE constitution, it would be useful for the administrator to directly address the scope of her powers as soon as possible.
 
Finally, the term of administration is limited constitutionally to twelve-months with the possibility both of a reduction and extension in time depending on the will of the National Executive [CUPE National Constitution 7.8(g)]. The “test” used to assess the end of administration is given as the point when “a chartered organization placed under administration is no longer dominated, controlled or substantially influenced in the conduct of its affairs” [CUPE National Constitution 7.8(g)].

9. What are the administrator’s plans?

There is little information as to what the administrator’s plans are. Specific projects that she has mentioned include:

1)    There will be a forensic audit

2)    3903’s lawyers will not be used for an grievances during the period of administration; only lawyers provided by CUPE National will be used

3)    All committees are disbanded until further notice (though she does plan on reinstituting them in the future, though with new or the originally elected members is unknown).

4)    The administrator is planning to implement a code of conduct for CUPE 3903 members.

 

 

The staff will go on working but the administrator (Lynn McDougall) will now be their boss instead of the executive.  Our staff are unionized and protected by their own collective agreement with CUPE 3903, which remains in force.

11. How do we get out of administration?

There are a variety of strategies being discussed to get out of administration as soon as possible:

The decision must be reviewed by the National Executive within 14 days of October 28 and by the National Executive Board at its following meeting.  The local “shall receive notice of the place and date of such meeting not less than 7 days before such date and the officers and other members of the executive board of the chartered organization or any of them shall, if they so request, be given every reasonable opportunity to make representations to the said meeting of the National Executive Board” [CUPE National Constitution, 7.8 (c)]. If either body votes to recind the administration, the administrator shall be recalled and shall cease to function within 48 hours of the decision [7.8 (b); 7.8 (d)].  The National Executive is meeting in mid-November (we are unsure of the date), and the National Executive Board is meeting in Ottawa December 15-18, 2009.

Additionally, according to the Labour Relations Act the administrator must file a report to the Labour Board within 60 days, verified by the affidavit of its principal officers, setting out the terms under which supervision or control is to be exercised [S.89 (1)].  We are as of yet unsure whether this represents another opportunity to have the decision recinded or whether officers or members can make representations to the board.

Paying back National as quickly as possible is obviously a priority.  This can be done through the cutting of current expenses, the increase of dues, or a special levy for the explicit purpose of paying them back.

With regards to a chilly climate, there is much work to be done.  Members of all tendencies in the union have felt targetted at one point or another and there seems a genuine will to move past grudges to rebuild our union.  At the October 30 town-hall, it was suggested that a sort of conflict resolution process be implemented among members who have felt harassed and intimidated, and in turn, those who have been accused of such.

12. What is the Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration?

After learning the news that we were being put under administration, one member of the executive informed the Stewards Council List-serve and, in turn, other departmental lists.  This led to the announcement from CUPE National cited above (question 5).  A meeting was immediately called for the next day (October 28), which, while not strictly sticking to Bourinot’s Rules, had a similar structure to a General Membership Meeting.  The meeting was attended by representatives of many departments and had representation from all three units. Among the roughly 100 members that attended the meeting, there was near unanimity that administration had to countered by the membership of the local.  Many of those that attended the meeting were encouraged by the fact that many people who have had political disagreements with one another in the past were largely in agreement with each other and were ready to work together to rebuild the local.

The following motions were passed at the meeting:

• BIRT: this room constitute  itself as an ad hoc organizing committee against administration by CUPE national
• BIFRT: that we elect a temporary coordinating committee of 5-10 members to carry out administrative and communications work for the committee until our next meetings
• BIFRT: this group call a Special General Membership Meeting for the CUPE 3903 membership to discuss the issue of administration
• BIFRT: that our committee organize a protest of CUPE national with the details organized by our temporary coordinating committee
• BIFRT: that we organize departmental level meetings to discuss administration issues ASAP. The temporary coordinating committee will help to organize meetings in departments where we are not currently active.

A temporary coordinating committee of seven members were elected to ensure completion of tasks.  An eighth member was added at the October 30 town-hall meeting and organizing session.  The coordinating committee’s mandate is for a period of one week, as the mandate, structure, and strategies of the Ad-Hoc Committee are to be discussed a the SGMM.  As well, rank and file members have volunteered to take on tasks having to do with communications, research and other activities.  The idea of a Special General Membership Meeting, which can be called by 25 members of 3903 in good standing, was to formulate strategy around the membership’s reaction to administration.

The AHCAA’s mandate is very broad, and the committee is completely open to full participation by all members.  It has a listserve, which can be accessed by contacting Yuri Yarin (yyarin@gmail.com). The AHCAA is against administration but not against the administrator, and as such we are prepared to work with her and invite her to the meeting on Wednesday.  The AHCAA believes in the principles that have always guided CUPE 3903, including a commitment to autonomy, social justice, and democratic decision-making by the entire membership.  Recognizing the seriousness of the twin concerns of our financial situation and our chilly climate, we call for an immediate end to administration and a renewed commitment from the membership to address these issues fully and responsibly.   

13. Should I attend the information sessions on Wed Nov 4?

It is worthwhile for members to attend the first session from 2:30-4:30pm if they can, and to encourage the administrator to be forthcoming with all relevant information about administration.  Unfortunately, the second session conflicts with the SGMM.  Hopefully this can be resolved by the administrator’s participation on equal footing in the SGMM.

 

14. Should I attend the SGMM on Wed Nov 4?

It is important that as many members as possible attend this meeting, as we will be formulating official strategy, according to our bylaws, in regards to how we deal with the current situation.  While the SGMM has been called by the AHCAA, it is obviously open to all perspectives, including those members who may be supportive of CUPE National administration, and those of whom are not sure where they stand. The agenda has been formulated to allow for both sides of the issue to be treated equally and the meeting will be co-chaired by respected members who have a great deal of experience in chairing 3903 meetings.

Any decisions made so far at the AHCAA can be reversed or reconsidered at the SGMM.  As well, the National Administrator will hopefully be on hand to answer questions and get to know the membership.

Nov 2 Communique

The new administration has taken over CUPEnews and blocked our access. PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY ON ALL DEPARTMENTAL AND UNIT 2 LISTS

CUPE 3903 Underground Bulletin:
Communique from the Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration

November 2, 2009

Dear members of CUPE 3903,
 
In the two town-hall meetings we have held so far, the consensus has been that to be against administration is not to be against our administrator or CUPE National. However, The CUPE 3903 Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration is increasingly alarmed by the lack of information about what has happened.
 
Although our new administrator, Lynn McDougall, promised the former executive and individual members that she would provide more information to members via email on Thursday, there were no further communications from her until earlier this morning. Therefore, the Ad-Hoc Committee’s newly formed research committee has put together a Frequently Asked Questions about administration for our members based on what we have been able to find out so far.
 
Our committee has called a Special General Membership Meeting (SGMM) on the topic of Administration by CUPE National. The Ad-Hoc Committee has been preparing this message as well as the FAQ through the weekend.  In order not to conflict with the new administrator’s proposed information meetings, we decided to move the start time of the SGMM from 1:00pm to 5:00pm. Although it has now been announced that one of the sessions will be from 5:30-7:30pm, we intend to go ahead with our SGMM.  Hopefully the conflict between these two events can be resolved by the administrator’s participation on equal footing in the SGMM, as per the proposed agenda below. We regret that written notice of this meeting cannot be made, however we are including the meeting details and proposed agenda below and ask that they be distributed widely amongst members of all three units.
 
 Special General Membership Meeting
Wednesday November 4, 2009 @ 5:00pm
GSA Lounge, Student Centre rm. 430
 
 There are several outstanding questions stemming from the FAQ. Therefore, we ask the administrator to address the following questions publicly and directly as soon as possible:
 
What are CUPE National’s justifications for putting us under administration?
What are the conditions for ending administration?
What are your plans for restructuring the local and in what way were the plans adopted by the former executive inadequate for addressing our situation?
How do you intend to involve members in the restructuring of the local and are you prepared to work with the general membership?
What are the powers of the administrator and what are the limitations on this power?
 As a local with a proud history of autonomy, being placed under administration has serious implications, which we would like to discuss. In the administrator’s private discussions with the former executive, she named the union’s finances and the ‘culture of harassment and intimidation’ within the union as the two areas of concern that prompted the take-over. Recognizing the seriousness of these issues, the committee’s primary response tactic for ending the administration will be to continue finding new and innovative ways of addressing these concerns. At our town-hall meetings, several proposals have been made, from renewed efforts to examine our financial records and make our own financial plans to address this crisis, to conflict resolution sessions and mass anti-oppression training for members. We are hopeful that many more proposals will come from our membership at future meetings like the SGMM.
 
The Ad-Hoc Committee would also like to invite Lynn McDougall to attend the upcoming SGMM, in which we are proposing that she be allotted equal time to discuss her own point of view. We regret the conflict with her scheduled information meeting, however the conflict cannot be avoided due to the November 5 day of action. We also encourage all members of the former executive to come and participate in the meeting.
 
 
 
Proposed SGMM Agenda*
 
Reading of the Equality Statement (5 min)
Approval of the Agenda (10 min)
Presentation from Lynn McDougall (30 min)**
Presentation (10 min)
Q & A (20 min)
Presentation from the Ad-Hoc Committee (30 min)**
Presentation (10 min)
Q & A (20 min)
Finances (30 min)
Union Culture (30 min)
Business of the Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration (45 min)
Consideration of our mandate
Consideration of our structure
Consideration of our strategy
Adjournment
 
* An SGMM may be extended by majority vote. There will be a break every 1.5 hours.
**No motions will be entertained during these items
 
 

Being against administration does not mean being against our administrator. While renewing our call for an immediate end to administration, we hope that Lynn will welcome membership involvement in this process as long as she is the administrator of the union.
 
In solidarity,
 
The Ad-Hoc Committee Against Administration
CUPE 3903

Oct 29 Communique

CUPE 3903 Underground Bulletin:
Communique from the Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration

October 29, 2009

Dear members of CUPE 3903,
Over 100 union members attended an emergency town hall meeting last night to
discuss yesterday’s announcement that CUPE National has put our union under
administration. This means that, henceforth, CUPE National will make all
decisions about our local as it sees fit. This move is troubling because our
local’s emphasis on grassroots democracy and local autonomy are the key
reasons we have one of the best contracts in the postsecondary sector.

We heard from members of the former executive, who explained that at the
most recent executive meeting, a motion was put forward for our local to be
placed under the administration of the National Union. According to these
members, the motion was put forward without any prior notice, and was voted
on with at least two other members of the executive absent and unaware that
such a critical vote was underway. As a result of the vote, members of the
former executive will continue to receive their honoraria and serve as
“advisors” to the new administrator, Lynn McDougall.

CUPE National has yet to clarify why it has undertaken this action, or
explain the process by which it was legitimated.

Several important concerns at the moment may have prompted this action by
CUPE National, including a large outstanding debt to the National Union, and
a “chilly climate” within our local. We acknowledge the seriousness of these
concerns. We object, however, to the way the National Union has taken over
CUPE 3903 without discussing the situation with its members.

Since September, our former executive has passed a series of financial
controls to ensure better fiscal management; eliminated most discretionary
spending; prepared a plan with the help of our staff to repay the CUPE
National debt; undergone anti-oppression training; and passed a new
anti-oppression protocol for the local. Additional plans were underway to
conduct a vote on a dues levy, to further strengthen our finances. In short,
the concerns about the local’s finances and climate were being
addressed—which makes this drastic move by CUPE National all the more
alarming.

At last night’s town hall meeting, the members in attendance constituted
themselves as the *Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration* in order to
ensure that information about the current situation reaches the membership,
and to organize a challenge to CUPE National’s actions. Like Lynn McDougall,
the Ad Hoc Committee wishes to rebuild our union. However, as a local
committed to grassroots democracy and social justice, we believe that our
membership should have a chance to continue the process of rebuilding
itself. CUPE National neither communicated to us that a takeover was
imminent nor suggested how it could be avoided. What is more, the majority
of our former executive deliberately refused to inform our members of the
impending take-over; instead, our former chair unilaterally cancelled
today’s scheduled General Membership Meeting.

The Ad Hoc Committee exists to ensure that the membership continue to have a
voice in our union; all members are welcome to participate in its
activities. We have come together despite our own differences, and will
continue to work with each other to regain control of our local as soon as
possible. We will be holding a second town hall meeting on Friday, October
30, at 3:30pm (at a downtown location TBA). We are also calling for a
Special General Membership Meeting next Wednesday on York campus, to discuss
the administration by CUPE National; for this purpose, we have gathered a
petition of more than 25 signatures from members in good standing, as
required by our local’s bylaws. We welcome the new administration to join
this meeting, however we are preparing to organize it ourselves.

We reject Lynn’s use of the tactics of our employer in stating that there
would be “times and locations” announced for “information meetings” on
November 4. We expect President Shoukri to pretend to encourage
participation by holding multiple small “information meetings.” We do not
expect that from our own union. All of the past practice and history of our
local affirms that the former executive did not have the authority to act
unilaterally to make such a decision—especially when they had such an
obvious opportunity to bring the issue to the October GMM where the
membership could have a voice.

All members interested in receiving communications from the Ad Hoc Committee
should contact 3903adhoc@gmail.com.
In solidarity,
The Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration
CUPE 3903
________________________________

Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration | 3903adhoc@gmail.com

CUPE 3903 Underground Bulletin:
Communique from the Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration

October 29, 2009

Dear members of CUPE 3903,
Over 100 union members attended an emergency town hall meeting last night to
discuss yesterday’s announcement that CUPE National has put our union under
administration. This means that, henceforth, CUPE National will make all
decisions about our local as it sees fit. This move is troubling because our
local’s emphasis on grassroots democracy and local autonomy are the key
reasons we have one of the best contracts in the postsecondary sector.

We heard from members of the former executive, who explained that at the
most recent executive meeting, a motion was put forward for our local to be
placed under the administration of the National Union. According to these
members, the motion was put forward without any prior notice, and was voted
on with at least two other members of the executive absent and unaware that
such a critical vote was underway. As a result of the vote, members of the
former executive will continue to receive their honoraria and serve as
“advisors” to the new administrator, Lynn McDougall.

CUPE National has yet to clarify why it has undertaken this action, or
explain the process by which it was legitimated.

Several important concerns at the moment may have prompted this action by
CUPE National, including a large outstanding debt to the National Union, and
a “chilly climate” within our local. We acknowledge the seriousness of these
concerns. We object, however, to the way the National Union has taken over
CUPE 3903 without discussing the situation with its members.

Since September, our former executive has passed a series of financial
controls to ensure better fiscal management; eliminated most discretionary
spending; prepared a plan with the help of our staff to repay the CUPE
National debt; undergone anti-oppression training; and passed a new
anti-oppression protocol for the local. Additional plans were underway to
conduct a vote on a dues levy, to further strengthen our finances. In short,
the concerns about the local’s finances and climate were being
addressed—which makes this drastic move by CUPE National all the more
alarming.

At last night’s town hall meeting, the members in attendance constituted
themselves as the *Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration* in order to
ensure that information about the current situation reaches the membership,
and to organize a challenge to CUPE National’s actions. Like Lynn McDougall,
the Ad Hoc Committee wishes to rebuild our union. However, as a local
committed to grassroots democracy and social justice, we believe that our
membership should have a chance to continue the process of rebuilding
itself. CUPE National neither communicated to us that a takeover was
imminent nor suggested how it could be avoided. What is more, the majority
of our former executive deliberately refused to inform our members of the
impending take-over; instead, our former chair unilaterally cancelled
today’s scheduled General Membership Meeting.

The Ad Hoc Committee exists to ensure that the membership continue to have a
voice in our union; all members are welcome to participate in its
activities. We have come together despite our own differences, and will
continue to work with each other to regain control of our local as soon as
possible. We will be holding a second town hall meeting on Friday, October
30, at 3:30pm (at a downtown location TBA). We are also calling for a
Special General Membership Meeting next Wednesday on York campus, to discuss
the administration by CUPE National; for this purpose, we have gathered a
petition of more than 25 signatures from members in good standing, as
required by our local’s bylaws. We welcome the new administration to join
this meeting, however we are preparing to organize it ourselves.

We reject Lynn’s use of the tactics of our employer in stating that there
would be “times and locations” announced for “information meetings” on
November 4. We expect President Shoukri to pretend to encourage
participation by holding multiple small “information meetings.” We do not
expect that from our own union. All of the past practice and history of our
local affirms that the former executive did not have the authority to act
unilaterally to make such a decision—especially when they had such an
obvious opportunity to bring the issue to the October GMM where the
membership could have a voice.

All members interested in receiving communications from the Ad Hoc Committee
should contact 3903adhoc@gmail.com.
In solidarity,
The Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration
CUPE 3903
________________________________

Ad Hoc Committee Against Administration | 3903adhoc@gmail.com