DSU and the audience, and very little
relevant information.

Presenters describe state of the
union’s finances

The bulk of the meeting
consisted of routine presentations. As
an incorporated student union under the
Society Act of British Columbia, the
DSU is legally required to use its AGMs
as an Official forum to make public most
of its official transactions concluded over
the course of the last year.

The 2007 AGM was uniquely
relevant in this regard, however, because
of the DSU’s current state of court-
ordered receivership. For several years
the Student Union has failed to produce
complete financial audits ofits operations,
and legal complications over this matter
are what resulted in the BC Supreme
Court’s imposition of receivership status
in early 2007. Over the last year the last
two outstanding audits (2004-2005 and
2005-2006) were finally completed,
meaning the 2007 AGM would play a
key role in the conclusion of this lengthy
saga.

The DSU’s auditor, Calvin
Tompkins, presented the two completed
documents before the audience, briefly
detailing their contents. He noted that
although his firm was able to complete
the DSU’s 2005-2006 audit largely
without problem, the 2004-2005 audit
was far more troubling. Reading aloud
from the cover page from his 2004-2005
auditor’s report, Tompkins declared that
during the period in question, the DSU
suffered from “serious deficiencies in
internal controls over cash sales from the
Union’s store, transit pass, photocopy,
and other revenues,” making it difficult
for his firm to accurately verify many
of the DSU’s financial transactions
that occurred. He likewise noted that
the premature departure of the DSU’s
former staff financial coordinator, Joey
Hansen, made his job quite difficult, as
with Hansen gone there were “no other
staff members or Union representatives
familiar with the transactions of the
Union” to assist his research.

Tompkins concluded _ by
reporting that his firm was “unable
to express an opinion whether these
financial statements are presented fairly
in accordance with Canadian generally
accepted accounting principles.” This
conclusion could complicate matters, as
there has been some debate. between the
DSU and the College administration as to
whether or not an audit completed with
qualifications constitutes a sufficiently

 

 

“completed” audit. Regardless, both
audits were ultimately approved easily
by the audience.

A second, similar presentation
onthe state of the DSU’s finances was then
given by Marne Jensen, the DSU’s court-
appointed receiver-manager. Jensen gave
a brief summary of the activities she had
been involved in since her January 2007
appointment, including the creation of
a new, more modest DSU budget, the
sale of the DSU’s 8" Street building, and
the finalization of the dismissal of Joey
Hansen. Acknowledging that the DSU
had engaged in problematic financial
activities in the past, Jensen spoke
proudly of the achievements of her term
in office thus far, and expressed optimism
in the DSU’s economic future.

“Overdue” fee increase pushed
through to help improve campus
sports, fitness

The main draw of the evening
came near the end of the AGM, when the
much-anticipated proposal to raise the
“Activity and Intramural Fee” from $5.50
to $30 per semester was put forward. The
fee is one of several expenses charged to
all students as part of their enrolment
costs.

Douglas College Athletic
Director Lou Rene Legge took central
stage to make an impassioned plea for
the increase, noting that the college’s
athletics department has been operating
on a $5.50 per student allowance for
nearly 13 continuous years. She portrayed
the increase as way to bring more sports
and recreational activities to the college,
including an expansion of existing PE
facilities, restored intramural activities,
and gym improvement. Promising that
all athletic services at Douglas will
henceforth “either be free or subsidized,”
she described the raise as a good deal
that was “long overdue.” Her remarks
garnered enthusiastic cheers from the
athlete-dominated audience.

At present, the Douglas College
Activity and Intramural fee is formally
paid to the DSU, but is automatically
distributed to the College’s athletics
department, in what both sides admit is a
largely anachronistic relationship.

“If we had to make an athletic
fund today, it wouldn’t be done this way”
said AGM chair Dustin Grof, noting that
the DSU has no authority over how the
fee is spent, and simply redistributes the
money in accordance with a longstanding
agreement with the athletics department.

Though student fee increases are

usually only approved through College-
wide student referendums, Grof also
argued that in this case, a referendum
would not be necessary.

“A referendum is_ basically
a way to force the college to agree to
something,” he said, arguing that since
the college was already in favour of the
increase to the Activity and Intramural
fee, there was no need to have a
referendum for this purpose.

When the question was called,
nearly every hand in the audience shot
up in support, followed by more cheers
when the motion was declared passed.

For most students, this approval
will mean an increase of $60 in student
fees per year, assuming a student is
enrolled for two semesters. Lou Legge
did note, however, that the College will
allow for disinterested students to “opt
out,” and regain this money if they do
not intend to utilize any of the services
or equipment offered by the Sports,

   
   

es

almost every motion put forward, in
particular, both Wolfe and Sleightholme
made repeated efforts to ask the board
and Jensen about what new “financial
controls” had been implemented in the
receivership period to prevent further
abuses or mismanagement of DSU
funds. DSU treasurer Roohafza Rahimi
responded by saying that the DSU board
was now trying to limit cash-based
transactions as much as possible in its
services, and that a “paper trail” is now
being strictly enforced to ensure all such
transactions are well documented.

Recreation, and Wellness department.

Former directors question
proceedings

Though most of the AGM’s
votes were passed easily without much
discussion, throughout the meeting,
two dissident voices were repeatedly
heard. Sitting together, two former
members of the DSU board of directors,
Christopher Sleightholme and Nathaniel
Wolfe, who both served as DSU Pride
Liaison, repeatedly rose to offer strong
questions and criticisms of the event’s
proceedings.

Over the last few months, both
men have emerged as active critics of the
current DSU administration, especially
receiver-manager Marne Jensen, who
they have accused of being too secretive
and unaccountable in her management
of DSU finances.

Though the two spoke to

Another query, asking how
much in total Marne Jensen and her
assistants have been paid during the
course of the receivership went largely
unanswered, with Jensen saying that she
did not “have the numbers off the top of
my head.”

Though Wolfeand Sleightholme
rarely seemed impressed by the answers
they received, as the meeting progressed,
it became clear that the crowd was
growing increasingly hostile towards the
two, and their questions soon became
drowned out by loud jeers and teasing.

peg

| Continued on Page 7

5

PHOTOS BY LAURA KELSEY