To the Editor:

I was extremely excited to see the headline on the front page of the last issue of the Reporter: 'Shapiro, Martin face off." My initial reaction was, "Finally! Principal Shapiro has upped the ante! He has moved beyond the shoulder rubbing, backroom lobbying that is so reflective of McGill University politics. He finally realized that to actually effect change, he was going to have to get tough." My hopes were crushed, however, when I read in the article, "Shapiro stated that his discussion with Martin wasn't as confrontational as the press accounts portrayed it." Why did Principal Shapiro feel the need to make such a disclaimer? The media coverage of his remarks was incredible  and, I think, could have had an impact.

Instead of taking advantage of this fact, of playing along with the perception that he really was angry at the government's continuing attack on post-secondary education, he killed the momentum. I hope that the University administration realizes that this was an opportunity  an opportunity to up the ante, an opportunity to force the government to take notice of the diminishing quality of education due to unacceptable funding cuts  an opportunity lost.

In the same issue, there were a couple of inaccuracies in the Senate report on the question of outsourcing the Bookstore. Karl Jarosiewicz states that "this issue has even divided the student groups, with the SSMU supporting the recommendation to outsource and the PGSS aligned with the opposition."

This is not accurate. In a previous Senate meeting, I made it clear that PGSS Senators were not taking a stand for or against outsourcing, since the PGSS Council has not yet had the opportunity to debate the issue. My opposition in Senate was to process. I voiced the PGSS's disapproval of the fact that Vice-Principal Heaphy created an "invited" committee to interview the companies after the Senate Bookstore Committee had voted to table the issue of outsourcing indefinitely. We think the University's decision-making structure should have been respected. PGSS Senators did not at any point say that they opposed the proposal to outsource management of the Bookstore.

Second, Jarosiewicz writes that "Alexandris is the only member to have sat on both the Bookstore Committee and the Workgroup." This is also inaccurate. John-David Stanway, the PGSS representative, also sat on both committees.

Anna Kruzynski
University and Academic Affairs Coordinator
Post-Graduate Students' Society

Karl Jarosiewicz replies: I recognize that PGSS does not support or oppose the outsourcing of the Bookstore, as I noted in my October 1 Senate report. However, Anna Kruzynski's statements have consistently supported the opposition (Noumoff, Archibald, the Bookstore Committee, etc.) against Vice-Principal Heaphy. I only say "aligned with the opposition" and not "against outsourcing." I therefore believe my statement is accurate.

My reference to Steven Alexandris as "the only member" who sat on both committees is clearly a mistake. I based this on a statement recorded at Senate made by Alexandris and I should have checked the records myself.