the

  

February 11 1998

her

 

Press

Getting screwed by software upgrades since 1976

  

Volleyball
action
page 7

Students hit by car + page 4
The Rev is backs page 5
Queer Supplement - Flip over

Voiume 22 « Issue 17

 

Scare tactics backfire

A voice of dissent rises in Coquitlam

Homan Sanaie & John Morash

 

A Douglas College Student Society representative
from the David Lam campus resents the handling
of the firing of DCSS business manager Merrilyn
Houlihan so much that he wishes to detail what he
considers the misadministration behind the
controversy. More importantly, he wishes to use his
own name.

Massanio Chang, a rookie David Lam Repre-
sentative, has stepped forward to give his version of
events surrounding the firing of Houlihan, after
receiving a threatening letter from two of the
executives of the DCSS.

The letter, signed by Amanda Wheeler [VP of
Thomas Haney Campus] and Christa Peters [VP
External] states, “If you wish to be excluded from
civil action and a civil lawsuit please forward a
letter to the Other Press explaining to them how you
have been giving out false information to your
membership [the people who elected you] and
apologize to all four persons named in the peti-
tion.”

An impeachment petition with over 400
signatures is currently circulating the Douglas
College campus for the removal of student
president Jaimie McEvoy, DCSS executives Christa
Peters and Amanda Wheeler, as well as UT Rep
Paul Rosha. Among the reasons given in the
petition for the impeachment are “theft by
executives reported; firing of the business manager
for reporting the theft; failure to follow bylaws of
the society; spending approximately $8000 of
student fees on CFS conferences before the
students had a right to vote as to becoming
members of the Canadian Federation of Students;
holding a representative orientation under false
pretence.” The members of the DCSS who are
fingered for impeachment are going from class-
room to classroom telling the students of Douglas
College that the reasons for the impeachment are
all lies. They are also pressuring Chang to support
their position.

Chang came down to talk to the Other Press a
couple of days after receiving the letter. He said,
“The reason I came forward with this letter is
because it is a direct threat on me and I don’t
appreciate people telling me, ‘you have to do this
you have to do that.’ I believe the only people I
have to answer to are the students. Students need to
know about this. I don’t believe that we should just
hush it up even though people say this is not that
much money. This is $6000 of your money, my
money and someone else’s money. They work for it.

“I made one promise to my campus [David
Lam]. My campaign slogan was ‘Promises aren't
real unless they're kept.’ I remember when I was
making my speech. People always make all these
promises. My only promise was I would tell the

truth and nothing would be hidden.”

4

He believes that he is the only person to receive
this letter, but that other people have been
threatened in other ways.

Chang’ says Houlihan was fired because, “She did
what she thought was right for the students and
they [the DCSS] thought that was crap.”

Houlihan was fired by the DCSS after she
reported thousands of dollars in financial irregulari-
ties, which took place while Houlihan was away for
three weeks in the fall of 1997. Upon her return,
Houlihan contacted the New Westminster city
police, the Douglas College Student Society and
the Douglas College Board.

The last time Chang spoke to Houlihan was the
Thursday before she was fired. He says, “She was
really worried and under constant strain.” Chang

believes what Houlihan did was right. First, she

went to the police and then she went to the college.

Chang said, “Merrilyn went to the police first
because $6000 is gone. Anybody could have taken
it.” ;

This is the first time Chang has been threatened
to be sued. Chang states, “I’m a first-year student
fresh out of high school, I’m truly thankful for the
people that elected me. To be sent this warning...I
don't appreciate people threatening me.”

Chang went to the meeting at which Houlihan
was fired thinking that it was going to be an
orientation meeting—but it turned out it was a
meeting to decide Houlihan's fate. “There was no
forewarning of Merrilyn’s firing on the agenda. For
four hours, the DCSS was giving their side of the
argument to fire Merrilyn. Merrilyn was not even
at the meeting and the people at the meeting did
not hear Merrilyn’s side of it.” Chang says the
reasons given for firing Houlihan were question-
able. “There was no clear evidence. Jaimie said
nothing, just rhetoric.”

Chang also questions the manner in which the
meeting was conducted. “The rules of protocol to
fire Merrilyn were not proper. We asked for a stay
for just one week so that people could actually
think about it. There was a majority vote to cancel -
it. We didn't stay to think about it, That’s why I
was disappointed. I just wanted one week to think
about it.”

The Other Press has requested a copy of the
motion to fire Houlihan, but the motion has not

yet come forth.
Chang said, “For
the motion being
read out, I
remember it was so
quick. Elliot [Fox-
Povey] said it and
Amanda [Wheeler]
set the question
[that goes to vote].
I remember the
Athletic Reps asked
what the question
was. They ques-
tioned the vote.” In
the end the vote was held, and Houlihan was sent
packing.

Chang said “People voted just to get through it.
You have been through four hours of pure talk the
day before and then you come back; you just don't
want to hear about it. Maybe [Houlihan] didn’t
follow the proper channels of communication but,
morally, I believe what they did was wrong.” Chang
voted not to fire Merrilyn.

The two DCSS executives have threatened
Chang with legal action for his noncompliance
with their position. But Chang says he’s just
representing his constituents to the best of his
ability. “If he [DCSS President Jaimie McEvoy] is
willing to sue every single student I’m okay with
that. If he wants to sue the whole student popula-
tion go ahead, I really mean it. I’m not doing this
because I have a personal vendetta against Jaimie. I
have nothing against him. I just don’t think he is
doing this right.”

There are allegations by Christa Peters that the
people behind the petition want to get rid of these
members because they. pro-CFS, but Chang
remains doubtful. “I don’t believe that. I have no
stance on the CFS. If the CFS comes.back to
Douglas College that is up for the student body to
decide. Just because four people aren't here any
more doesn't mean the CFS won't get voted in, The

 

Massiano Chang

‘referendum is not a vote by four people. It’s up to

the ten thousand students to decide. It is up to the
students to vote.”

Chang says that students have a right to know
what's happening in the DCSS. And he believes
that Houlihan's firing was made too hastily. “I
believe Merrilyn should be reinstated. I believe
Merrilyn should have had a fair trial. We should hear
both sides of the story.”

 

| to the impeachment campaign and any other
_ attack on their reputations”; it also asks for

 

the Fingered Four |
respondio
impeachment attempt

President, et a/ take

measures to counter

Houli-gate accusations

Jim Chliboyko

 

“Now it is time to respond to the allegations
being made,” states the letter penned by

» Amanda Wheeler, Paul Rosha, Christa Peters

and Jaimie McEvoy. Calling the 12 reasons
(which were outlined in last week’s Other Press)
behind the impeachment petition “lies” that
are “legally questionable,” the four have been

| actively campaigning to clear their own names
‘from what they are calling a witch hunt. |

“One woman asked that if she signed the

| impeachment petition, would that have any

effect on the people,” says DCSS president
Jaimie McEvoy of the impeachment attempt.
“She was told that signing the petition was the
only way to get the other side of the story.”

All four have been visiting classrooms
around the college to address the charges, and
to plead their side of the argument to the
student body. Part of the drive involves a
campaign to have students who have signed
the impeachment petition remove their names
from the list. :

McEvoy estimates that he has 100 signa-
tures already, though there are several counter-
im ent sheets circulating amongst the
college community. “The signatures are
coming in easily,” says McEvoy.

The counter-impeachment petition, entitled
‘Petition against political dirty tricks and for
real work on student issues,’ calls for “an end

“our student leaders to act in a responsiblé
manner and % spend their time working oe
our interests.”

One of the things the counter-impeachment
is attempting to do is to “get some of our
positive shift back on track,” says McEvoy.

The counter-impeachment emphasizes
some of that “positive track,” demanding that
“we call on the representative committee to
dedicate their energies not on political
infighting but on the issues that affect us,
issues like the costs of education, tuition,
student debt and child care.”

Among other points of information, the
letter directly addresses the firing of business
manager Merrilyn Houlihan. According to the
letter, “The Rep Committee voted, democrati-
cally, to dismiss the business manager for not
following the proper lines of communication.

continued page 3