Matt Street brings us an interview about CKMS, a campus community radio station in Waterloo, Ontario that is facing an uncertain future. Students at the University of Waterloo voted to stop funding the station as of August 31st. Heather Majaury, the station manager, explains.
Paul Martin interviews environmental author and lecturer Mike Nickerson about some out-of-the-box ideas that could help us to create a more sustainable future.
Hello,
Regarding the CKMS defunding referendum, many people who voted for defunding were not against campus radio or independent media in general. Here are some perspectives that explain the sentiments of those for defunding.
From the Chair of the committee advocating the fee removal:
jeffaho.com/archives/ckms-referendum
jeffaho.com/archives/synaesthetik
A blog post by a self-described lover of alternative media:
atuw.ca/opinion-ckms-endgame-analysis
(The comment from a self-professed “proponent of diverse and open media outlets, and as a former DJ and huge supporter of, and believer in the utility of, radio broadcasting” may also be of interest)
A Macleans On Campus editorial by a fan of NPR and indie music:
oncampus.macleans.ca/…
From the President of the Graduate Students Association:
http://www.lunarluau.ca/blog/?p=249
To answer some specific issues that Heather raises:
- The last-minute decision to add the referendum motion to the agenda was unquestionably legal; further, it required 2/3 approval to get on the agenda, as contrasted with automatically being added to the agenda in cases where the motion was not made at the last minute. Further, the specific reason for adding the item to the agenda at that time was to have the referendum coincide with the coming elections, thus delivering a higher voter turnout, which is in the interest of transparency and democracy. Further, the head of the “Yes” campaign was not made aware of the motion any earlier than CKMS. Further, some individuals on student council who voted for the referendum also yielded their speaking time to CKMS to give them more time to have their say. There was nothing “dishonourable” about this set of events.
- The phrasing of the referendum question, where “Yes” meant defunding and “No” meant no change to funding, was legitimate for many reasons. For one, it is convention that the status quo aligns with the negative and change aligns with the affirmative. This convention has not been broken in the history of our student government, and makes perfect sense because without the question being asked, the status quo would be upheld anyway. Second, the question was being raised as a challenge to CKMS’s funding (since, without a referendum, CKMS’s funding would be unchallenged), so it would actually be dishonest for the person proposing the referendum to be asking for the opposite of what his intentions were. Third, if quorum is not met then regardless of the vote results of the referendum, the change that aligns with the affirmative is not put in place, so that actually protects CKMS. It’s also disingenuous and condescending to suggest that students would be voting based on the emotive qualities of a single word rather than the content of the relatively brief referendum question. When you think about it, it only makes sense that supporters of CKMS would vote “No” to express their support for CKMS, because the fact that they are called to vote at all comes from a challenge to CKMS, which they would oppose.
- Regarding the allegation that the referendum question omits the fact that the fee is refundable with intent to mislead: it would be a legitimate concern if the referendum question were challenged as explicitly expressing misleading information. To make the accusation that it is deliberately misleading due to some conceived omission is much more precarious. The question has to identify the fee in question, not define it; requiring the latter would end in stalemate becase there could be no characterization of the fee that would be acceptable to all parties. Further, there are many conceivable omissions present in the question that favour CKMS: the fact that in order to get a refund one has to walk to the what most students consider the middle of nowhere, on Bauer Warehouse Road; the fact that CKMS has been accused explicitly by a student council of a different year (with an entirely different composition) of unacceptable behaviour including holding meetings in a poisoned environment; the fact that CKMS has violated its own bylaws to silence dissent (even CKMS’s own lawyer made clear in the minutes of a meeting following a past AGM that a vote which was obstructed by Heather Majaury herself was perfectly legal), etc.
I encourage objective, open-minded readers to look at the links I have posted and reflect on the number and severity of ethical lapses and abuses of power that the CKMS establishment has been accused of.
Sympathizers with college radio and alternative media may instinctively side with the CKMS establishment, but please consider an alternative narrative (and decide which version of events is more supported by the evidence): that the CKMS establishment acted unethically and is actually responsible for CKMS’s current set of circumstances. Please consider the statements of various supporters of alternative media who were in favor of defunding, as laid out above.
Thank you very much for your comment. It is important to have a dialogue on this topic. The interview with Heather was only to highlight one point of view and its main function was to talk about the importance of community radio and ask, what is going to replace CKMS as a radio listening option for its current listeners? I knew that it would only be a one sided conversation with Heather and I am happy that you have continued the conversation here on the message board. I encourage everyone who is interested to follow this links above and continue to talk about where they would like to see community radio, in Waterloo, in the next 1 to 10 years.