To the editor:

We would like to take this opportunity to comment on a remark made by Principal Shapiro in the last issue of the Reporter regarding the University's budgetary options. Shapiro argued that if no new money is found, we are left with two options: mediocrity or transformation. The point we want to make is that there is new money.

Last year, the McGill Alternative Budget Group, a coalition of professors, students and staff, produced a budgetary alternative for 1998-99. This alternative outlined a number of possible sources of revenue that are available to the University. Some of these alternatives are more long-term (e.g., sale of investment properties). However, others are available right now.

We highlighted the fact that McGill's half-billion-dollar endowment fund generates over $70 million per year in investment revenue. Yes, per year. Yes, revenue over and above the actual endowment monies. Currently, much of this money is reinvested into the endowment fund savings for a rainy day.

We argued that some of this investment revenue could, and should, be spent on operations. This argument still stands. This is new money, Principal Shapiro. The question now becomes: will the Board of Governors liberalize its budgetary strategy? Or will it continue to save for a rainy day while the roof in McLennan Library continues to leak?

The McGill Alternative Budget Group will be producing a new document for 1999-2000. If you are interested in participating in its production, or just want to be kept abreast of its development, please contact us. To peruse last year's McGill Alternative Budget, visit the following website: ww2.mcgill.ca/PGSS/mabg.html

Anna Kruzynski
(akruzy@po-box.mcgill.ca)
Eric Shragge
(cxer@musica.mcgill.ca or 398-7051)
Members of the McGill Alternative Budget Group


To the editor:

Respect us and then we will be more cooperative. This would be the simplest remedy for many of McGill's problems. Unfortunately, it cannot be widely used because our University is not fully democratic. A lack of fair treatment is confirmed by numerous noisy protests, confrontations and legal court battles involving a whole spectrum of employees or students.

There are too many problems which cannot be solved or defused by using the existing parliamentary platforms in our Senate, Board of Governors and other collective bodies. The most spectacular example of how deeply we are divided is the latest unionization movement among academics. So, even those who are representing the core of the University and enjoy tenure, which secures the best social protection for jobs or free speech, are feeling unheard and unfairly treated.

Something is wrong with our supposedly balanced democratic representation or too much power is in the hands of parachuted executives.

We should forcefully react to the fact that the University's governance structures do not work well. That is the reason why the policy of divide and conquer is so widely used by some people in top management, who want to keep their manipulative power as long as possible. They were selected for their position behind closed doors and now they do not feel obliged to care much for internal peace or securing balanced interests for each group within the McGill mosaic. That is my interpretation of how my questions of last year, addressed to the chancellor, the secretary-general and the chair of the Board of Governors, about the fairness of electoral procedure, has been treated.

Our community is generally frustrated, and about 70 percent do not participate in elections organized by the administration. In many cases there are even not enough candidates (Reporter -Sept. 24) to organize voting, because the majority does not want to play the role of puppets but, at the same time, forgets about their constitutional rights for properly conducted elections.

Until today, there has been no full description provided of the electoral procedure. The fate of signed envelopes with the ballots is very unclear. There are places and times where the unsecured envelopes are exposed. There is no guarantee that the envelopes will not be opened, replaced or even forged, or mixed with others.

Anything could take place in our community so divided by diverse polices for employment, job security and salaries.

Loyalty to the present administration has become quite important for many vulnerable employees now, and without a verifiable procedure for ballots, many people feel uncomfortable and are embarrassed to express their opinions. Acquiescence of the majority is fully justified because it has become clear that by raising doubts, I was singled out by Mr. R. W. Pound, chair of the Board of Governors, as the only one who has doubts about "an electoral process which is based upon the premise that people are fundamentally honest" -- instead of receiving a full answer for my legitimate questions.

The latest assurance of the secretary-general that "the names are verified against the electoral list," or her invitation for scrutineers, are meaningless because Mr. R. W. Pound is against a random checking.

People are only people. This is no matter of lack of trust in the secretary-general or other people in positions of influence, but an issue of respect for democratic principles. A Russian motto says: "Trust and believe people, but check them."

The recent trial of an extremely well-paid supreme court judge, a Laval lawyer and the arrest of a well-known rabbi, who for more easy drug money forgot their deep social mission, should increase our sensitivity to procedural fairness in our University, which in fact is very rich -- $500 million that triples with the executively promoted superhospital.

It is curious that Mrs. G. Chambers, who was formally informed about my electoral concerns last year, created a vicious circle by saying that "proper channels should be used and those pass by the secretary-general," because after that she has never replied to the questions and problems that were also addressed to her attention.

We cannot change much at the present in McGill's "executives' democracy." Only by consistently demanding democratization can we improve the quality of our place of work at all levels. The issue of a fair election is a good beginning and we should demand a clear response to the request for properly conducted mail ballots, or traditional voting with the ballots carefully watched, sealed and guarded, from the beginning to the end, by democratically chosen observers.

Slawomir Poplawski
Technician, Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering

Editor's note: Mr. Poplawski recently ran as a candidate to sit on the Committee to Advise on the Nomination of a Chancellor, finishing third in a three-candidate race. He is currently running to serve as a non-academic representative on the Board of Governors.