... and now the rest of the meeting
At the same time that the Organizational and Services Development Committee was considering a variety of motions, the much larger Finance Committee was discussing audits and budgets. Calvin Tompkins from Tompkins, Wozny, Miller (TWM) (the auditor for CFS-BC, as well as the SFSS, the KSA, the DSU, and several other students' unions) was present. He was apparently quite shaken up when he learned that the draft financial statements for the fiscal years ending 2003 and 2004 that TWM gave to CFS-BC were presented to the general membership and "approved" by the members at previous General Meetings as "audited financial statements." (Furthermore, the 2004 draft financial statements were not even marked draft.) When Finance Committee representatives asked Tompkins why the statements were so very late, Tompkins said that this was because information on certain transactions was not provided to the auditors.
Although the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend the re-appointment of TWM, I strenuously argued against their re-appointment during closing plenary. I noted the following:
Now, I should make it clear that I am not faulting the competency of the TWM partners or staff to conduct audits. Rather, I question their independence from management and their willingness to act on behalf of the members that appointed them and use (when necessary) the legal tools that the Society Act gives them, for fear that they might not be re-appointed. TWM auditors, I am sure, are nice people, but I cannot possibly advise my employer to re-appoint them as auditors of the KSA.
In non-financial news:
The Campaigns and Government Relations Strategy of CFS-BC passed, which included a controversial component called "Access for Graduate Students." The SFSS graduate representative and the UVic Grads objected to the campaign's proposal that funds from a BC graduate student grant program be distributed on the basis of need, rather than on merit. (Their arguments are somewhat complex, and I am hopeful that one of them will spell out their arguments in greater detail.) In any event, "Access for Graduate Students" passed despite the fact that every graduate student in the room was opposed to it (the specific details of the component, not the general principle!).
CFS-BC Documents:
Although the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend the re-appointment of TWM, I strenuously argued against their re-appointment during closing plenary. I noted the following:
- Auditors have a legal obligation (section 47 of the Society Acti) to complete audits of the organizations that they serve, an obligation that is not impacted by the failure of that organization's management to provide certain financial information; however, TWM failed to do so, spectacularly, in the case of two different organizations: CFS-BC and the DSU. In the case of the DSU, audited financial statements were left uncompleted for three years, and even today the organization is not up to date on its audits.
- Auditors have the right (section 52 of the Society Act) to access documents and to interview directors, officers, and staff of the societies that they audit in order to obtain the information necessary to conduct their audits. We had no evidence that TWM did so at CFS-BC or DSU.
- Auditors also have the right (section 54 of the Society Act) to attend general meetings of the societies that they audit, and to speak at these general meetings. TWM had very good reason to speak to the members of CFS-BC and DSU and tell them why (and that!) they (TWM, CFS-BC, and DSU alike) were violating the Society Act - yet they failed to do so.
- Lastly, I wasn't proposing that CFS-BC should go without an auditor - under section 41 (3) of the Society Act, the refusal of the Semi-Annual General Meeting to re-appoint TWM as auditor would not have any actual effect on their continued status as the auditor. A negative vote would amount, essentially, to censure of the conduct of TWM.
Now, I should make it clear that I am not faulting the competency of the TWM partners or staff to conduct audits. Rather, I question their independence from management and their willingness to act on behalf of the members that appointed them and use (when necessary) the legal tools that the Society Act gives them, for fear that they might not be re-appointed. TWM auditors, I am sure, are nice people, but I cannot possibly advise my employer to re-appoint them as auditors of the KSA.
In non-financial news:
The Campaigns and Government Relations Strategy of CFS-BC passed, which included a controversial component called "Access for Graduate Students." The SFSS graduate representative and the UVic Grads objected to the campaign's proposal that funds from a BC graduate student grant program be distributed on the basis of need, rather than on merit. (Their arguments are somewhat complex, and I am hopeful that one of them will spell out their arguments in greater detail.) In any event, "Access for Graduate Students" passed despite the fact that every graduate student in the room was opposed to it (the specific details of the component, not the general principle!).
CFS-BC Documents:
- Agenda and background documents
- Campaigns Committee agenda & report with Campaigns and Government Relations Strategy
- Finance Committee agenda & report with 2007-08 budget and 2003, 2004, and 2005 audited financial statements
- Organisational and Services Development Committee agenda & report
- Policy Review and Development Committee agenda & report
- Caucus Agendas
- Executive Committee Report [note: not actually approved by the Exec. Ctte.]
- Minutes of the January 2007 meeting
Labels: cfs
4 Comments:
What? They were the DRAFT financial statements?!
Titus,
I think it would be more accurate to say Grad Caucus was unable to discuss the campaign due to other issues at grad caucus (including debate about election of a grad caucus chair and the rights of non-graduate students to vote at the caucus, and the campaign is out of date (the goals were achieved) and so shouldn't be used.
There is lots of debate whether grants vs. scholarships are best for grad students.
Mostly this comes down to practicality--a BC scholarship will help grad students obtain national scholarships, get published, move forward academically, while a BC grant will not. Graduate students already must have high academic achievements just to get in and survive grad school, so the academic requirements as a barrier to the funding is kind of moot in terms of access. What I think would be the best to do for access is restrictions that students cannot hold the BC scholarship AND another major grant, which ensures top students don't obtain all the funding to the exclusion of others. Most universities have such policies in place for graduate funding.
My own concern based on comments from the ministry of advanced ed ADM at a CFS GM is that if graduate students are returned to the grants program, this will mean a shift of some funding away from undergrads. I think it is important to maintain access for undergrads to grants and post secondary education that are not contingent on high grades and if the grants program is not going to be expanded, it is better to go for the scholarships for grads as a seperate program.
One more comment regarding access--we need to advocate that the grants are not targetted only to particular departments. For example, in many departments at UVIC in the sciences, ALL students are already fully funded. Funding should not be targetted in those areas, or, put another way, underfunded areas should be targetted.
Also, there has been a division made in the new BC funding between "professional" and "research" graduats programs that needs more investigation. Students conducting original research may be ineligible due to the perception of their degree as a "professional" program.
One more comment regarding access--we need to advocate that the grants are not targetted only to particular departments. For example, in many departments at UVIC in the sciences, ALL students are already fully funded. Funding should not be targetted in those areas, or, put another way, underfunded areas should be targetted.
Also, there has been a division made in the new BC funding between "professional" and "research" graduats programs that needs more investigation. Students conducting original research may be ineligible due to the perception of their degree as a "professional" program.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home