Letters to the editor

AMS perspectives on Grey House issue

Re: “Grey House groups face removal” (September 9, 2011).

Dear Editors,

I am writing to address multiple concerns regarding the present occupants of 51 Bader Lane (the Grey House), as detailed in Friday’s issue of the Journal. Specifically, I would like to dispel numerous misrepresentations from former AMS President Safiah Chowdhury.

Ms. Chowdhury commented that AMS policy must be applied “with some flexibility,” but she simultaneously encourages stringent adherence to a document that was found to be illegitimate. She seems to be confusing her administration’s failure to enforce longstanding policies as “flexibility.” Chowdhury further expects the AMS to follow her example by extending an offer of unlimited and unconditional use of AMS space resources to the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG), the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre, and “others.” If she had believed in the importance of this contract, she should have brought it to the respective student-elected bodies and secured their support.

Instead, it was signed on Saturday, April 30, and the only elected officials aware of the contract were the signatories. Her claim that the application of current policy is being used “against” the occupying groups and is not “in the best interest of students” is an irresponsible assumption of the Space Allocation Committee’s motives. The committee is responsible for allocating space in Student Life Centre (SLC) buildings on the basis of demonstrable utilization.

However, due to the continued refusal of OPIRG and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre to ratify as AMS clubs and apply for space, it was never possible to consider the organizations for an allocation or a renewal of the space they had been previously assigned.

In order to equitably apply policy, the committee allocates space based solely on submitted proposals; to exempt any organization from this process would constitute an abuse of power.

Nonetheless, we understand that different organizations have different needs, and have worked to accommodate these however possible. Accommodations were made for these organizations throughout the summer, including emails, phone calls and personal visits by AMS staff members imploring the groups to continue their association with the Society.

We were told by the directors of both organizations that they would need time to evaluate the merits of AMS affiliation (though our records clearly show that OPIRG has historically re-ratified as an AMS club without contest and in a timely fashion). Extensions to the ratification deadline were granted accordingly, but specific concerns about the ratification process were never expressed by the groups. All AMS actions and correspondence relating to this issue have fulfilled the mission statement of serving and representing the diversity of students at Queen’s, and to contravene the policies set in place by student representatives would be an affront to this effort.

Craig Draeger

AMS Clubs Manager

Chair of the AMS Space Allocation Committee

Re: “Fighting for Grey House” (September 9, 2011).

Dear Editors,

I am writing in response to Fraser MacPherson’s and Kym Nacita’s opinion piece in Friday’s issue of the Journal.

First, it is a mischaracterisation to say that the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre are being “evicted” from 51 Bader Lane. The Grey House is a University-owned building that is administered by the AMS, SGPS and University. OPIRG and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre have never owned the space, and have always operated there in agreement with those bodies.

When they chose to end their relationship with the AMS, the directors of those two organizations elected to relinquish their access to AMS resources, and made this decision on behalf of their members and those who use their services. By refusing to affiliate with the AMS, they do not meet our eligibility requirements for occupancy in AMS space: exclusive, shared or joint.

They have recently tried to resurrect a demonstrably invalid agreement, and then refused to recognize the basis of its invalidity. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was not “rendered invalid by September,” but was invalid from its conception, as was clearly communicated to the organizations a number of months ago.

MacPherson and Nacita accuse the AMS of lacking accountability, but the leadership of these organizations have failed to be accountable to their membership by making the unilateral decision to not re-ratify as AMS clubs.

The AMS extended multiple deadlines in order to accommodate OPIRG’s and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre’s consensus-based decision-making models, but these deadlines were ignored by both organizations — an action which is in itself a dedicated refusal to re-ratify. The most recent extension was offered to OPIRG in order to accommodate their AGM on Aug. 4. This meeting was rescheduled — something that was not communicated to the AMS—but they did inform us that the issue of maintaining this space was never even addressed at that meeting. The Space Allocation Committee and the AMS as a whole have dedicated an immense amount of time to seeking a resolution with these organizations. Our efforts have been received poorly and if there are factors that have influenced the action of these organizations that led them to end their affiliation with the AMS then those reasons have not been clearly communicated.

My hope is that this letter will add clarity to the on-going ‘Grey House’ issue. A resolution to this process is still attainable and will require both OPIRG and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre to work with the AMS on the issues of re-ratification and subsequent space allocation.

Mark Preston

AMS Commissioner of Internal Affairs

Re: “Groups say space has historic importance” (September 9, 2011).

Dear Editors,

I would like to respond to some views expressed in Friday’s issue of the Journal. The individuals quoted seemed to presume that the current activities housed in 51 Bader Lane cannot be replicated elsewhere due to the safe, queer and historic nature of the building itself.

First, the idea that 51 Bader Lane is the only space on campus that is sufficiently safe to house the activities therein denies the opportunity for radical, structural change within our campus community. This claim that the building is the “only queer space on campus” is an insult to the commendable efforts being made throughout the University to create safe and queer spaces and resources.

The building itself is not uniquely suited to serve the needs of the organizations within it — in fact, the Education on Queer Issues Project (EQuIP), an AMS committee, is being moved to a physically accessible space so that it may better fulfill its mandate. Any claims that this effort “shows a disregard for marginalized students,” deny the importance of queer resources to persons with (dis)Abilities. This move comes after years of requests to create accessible space for EQuIP. I would also like to address the proposed correlation between the historic nature of the building and its ability to house “human rights” initiatives. The Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre serve and work with student communities, which are inherently transitional and subject to change and evolution.

This loss of space was precipitated by the leadership of OPIRG and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre, and no one else. They were given every opportunity to maintain the space that they claim to cherish. I wonder: if the space is so historically important, why did these organizations end their affiliation with the AMS, knowing that it would end their occupancy of AMS space? Why didn’t these two organizations re-ratify as AMS clubs?

One reason that has been vaguely referred to is that these two organizations serve groups outside of the undergraduate student body. However, AMS affiliation does not handcuff a group to undergraduates. The Sexual Health Resource Centre and Students for Literacy are only two examples of organizations that enjoy the benefits of AMS resources while working far beyond the undergraduate student body.

The “Save the Grey House” website also references “consistently unclear” communication, but there are records of the AMS Clubs Manager describing the need to re-ratify, the specific benefits of re-ratification, the repercussions of a failure to re-ratify and the exact process to re-ratify. How is this unclear?

There has never been any disagreement that OPIRG and the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre are important on this campus. The leadership of these organizations could have demonstrated this importance by ratifying and applying for space. No ratification or space application was ever received by either group; therefore, the decision to relinquish space was made by the groups themselves, and not by Space Allocation Committee.

Gillian Shields

AMS Student Centre Officer

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content