person,” says Barbara Boehm, the
community programmer for persons
with mental handicaps. “If a person
comes along who needs a skill we
haven't taught before, we will design a
course to teach that skill.”

Boehm says the goal of the program is
to enable individuals to enter commu-
nity settings.

The Western Institute for the Blind
(W.I.D.), another “silent partner’,
provides interpreters for deaf and
hearing-impaired students who wish
fo enter regular courses.

Dotty Rundles, a Career and Job
Preparation instructor for adults with
hearing impairments at Douglas
College, says the college works in
close association with the W.I.D.

“The W.I.D. also provides referrals to
courses and other support services
such as counselling for people who
have sign as a first language and En-
glish as a second.”

The United Way, another community-
oriented organization, funds both the
Simon Fraser Society and the W.1.D.,
as well as numerous other agencies
working with the college, such as the
Red Cross, the Greater Coquitlam
Volunteer Bureau and the Ridge-
Meadows Associations for Mentally
Handicapped Persons.

Each one of these organizations work
towards making a community college
truly representative of the community.

Response to Howard Eaton’s
Open Letter

We wish to respond to Howard Eaton’s
open letter to students and staff which
was published in the September 29th
issue of the Other Press.

Howard expresses concern over a free
parking clause recently negotiated into
the Faculty Association’s Collective
Agreement. He feels that it promotes

 

 

 

inequity among staff, faculty, and
students, and, moreover, encourages
destruction of the environment. We
think it necessary to examine these
claims and the basis upon which they
are made.

At the root of our disagreement with
Howard’s analysis are his mis-
conceptions about trade unions in
general, and our Association in parti-
cular. First of all, Howard appears not
to understand what a union does when
it bargains collectively for its
members. Even though we may want
all who are part of the College -- be
they faculty, staff, students, or
administrators -- fo enjoy the same
advantages and benefits that we man-
age to win through collective bargain-
ing, it is not the mandate of our
Association to negotiate benefits for
other than faculty. Indeed, we may not
negotiate others’ conditions of work.
The Association functions on behalf of
faculty, and particularly in the negotia-
tion of a contract involving wages and
working conditions, must represent
that group exclusively. Our immediate
victories benefit only our members.
Historically, however, the victories of a
specific union by turn have influenced
the outcomes of other unions’ strug-
gles as well as those people outside
the union movement (e.g., the eight-
hour day, minimum wages, restrictive
child labour legislation, health and
safety regulations and so on). We
would hope that any positive
precedents set by our Association
would be helpful to others in their
attempts to better their situations, but
we cannot act on behalf of others in the
formal negotiating of a contract.

Parking -- both cost and availability
-- is an issue for all who work at or use
the College. We think that faculty
should not become complacent as a
result of our newly won benefit, but
rather, offer support in working out
solutions to a problem that will only
worsen. We reiterate, though, that this
support cannot be expressed through
our Collective Agreement.

Secondly, although Howard may take
issue with free parking, his proposal

 

 

for other colleagues, students, and
staff to speak to him, other faculty
members, and the College Board is
quite out of place. An agreement has
been reached between the Faculty
Association and the College, voted on
by faculty, and duly signed by the
Board. It has the force of law. It is quite
inappropriate for anyone other than
the parties to the agreement to take
action to amend or rescind it.

If attention is to be directed at issues
that relate to the ‘ideals of equity and
social responsibilty’, perhaps we
should begin with some that are a bit
more pressing than parking. For inst-
ance, Howard criticizes the spending
of ‘scarce educational dollars’ on
faculty parking (a non-educational ex-
pense). The government's allocation
of money to educational institutions,
including student aid provisions, might
be a topic which warrants more atten-
tion. In any case, we would argue that
money spent on parking is a benefit for
faculty in lieu of a wage increase, anda
paltry one at that. One may even view it
as o return to the status quo, since we
gave up free parking with the occupa-
tion of the new campus.

Finally, Howard contends that the
provison of free parking will encourage
the use of the automobile at a time
when there should be heightened con-
cern for the environment. This is a log-
ical fallacy. Will exorbitant parking
rates or a dearth of spaces promote
healthful living and respect for the en-
vironment? We would agree that cars
are major polluters, but we would dis-
agree that it makes sense to get rid of
cars or discourage their use in the
absence of viable transportation alter-
natives. Taken out of the context of a
radical social transformation, token
gestures such as Howard appears to
recommend are ineffectual.

Gillies Mainarich
Connie Broatch