By Kim Burgess
When I started at SFU in January 2009, there were whispers of a student union building — undefined, and uncertain, but the possibility did exist. It was something that the student society was thinking about, but nothing was anywhere near to a decision. Then three weeks ago, seemingly out of nowhere, comes the Build SFU initiative, with architectural plans, a funding outline, and a stadium all set up and in place. The news of a SUB for SFU is not unwelcome, however I have two major problems with the Build SFU project as it stands now: a lack of student consultation and the stadium.
The list of documents on the Build SFU website would lead you to believe that a comprehensive study has previously been conducted by the SFSS in regards to a new building. A review of these documents shows that this is not the case. The 2008 student consultation by past president Joe Paling spoke to approximately six students and asked the single question of (and I quote) “What kind of stuff do y’all want to see in a SUB?”
The 2009 food services consultation focused exclusively on a SUB building placed in Convo Mall, not in the athletics building, and this holds true again for the preliminary architectural sketches from Bing Thom Associates. Space committee meeting minutes from 2008 to 2010 are linked online, but have restricted access (something that doesn’t fill one with confidence for a transparent process). The consultation that was supposedly conducted by the current board has never been released.
Finally, the Build SFU site does provide a link to a comprehensive consultation process — one used by UBC’s Alma Mater Society.
The UBC process involved a student advisory committee to oversee consultation, a preliminary consultation of over 1,000 students, and more than a month of themed consultations as to what should go into the space — before any architectural drawings were created. It is easy to see how the current board has drawn inspiration from the UBC plan — the referendum and the tiered funding structure. The giant piece of the puzzle that the SFSS is missing is student consultation.
Build SFU is not a consultation process — it is about creating buy-in for the project as it stands now. Students are being asked what they would like to see included in the building, sure, but are not being asked what their priorities are. The current process will only generate a list for organizers to pick and choose from. A web survey that visitors to the Think Tank are being encourage to fill out, called “What do YOU want in your student union building”, contains nine questions — five of which are focused on collecting demographic data. Of the remaining four, three ask specifically about your interactions with the Build SFU brand — have you gone into the Think Tank and visited the website? What did you think? The final question gets around to asking your opinion: “Any comments? Ideas? Suggestions? Jokes?” The SFSS may have been talking about the project for long time, but they haven’t been talking to students. For anyone to say that they ‘just know’ what students need is paternalism at its worst.
The major thing missing from this review of past SUB documents has been any mention whatsoever of a stadium. The stadium does make a brief appearance in the 2010 Burnaby Mountain Development Plan — prepared for the university, not the student society. This brings up the major question of why the student society is planning to pay for the building of a new sports stadium instead of the university? A brief search through the student society website shows that clubs centering around sports and recreation are not administered through the student society at all — they are specifically directed to the SFU recreation department.
Call it SFU federalism if you will, but the separation of power between the university and the student society is very specific. The SFSS covers all matters wherein students govern themselves: clubs, department student unions, issues, and advocacy. The university governs everything else. While students do have input into university governance, final decisions and responsibilities lie with the university. This is the case with athletics and recreation — funding, facilities, teams, and equipment.
Having the student society build a new stadium creates a dangerous precedent at SFU by making students responsible for the construction of amenities. The student society didn’t pay to have the track refurbished last year and they didn’t pay to redo the Southwest AQ washrooms. What happens when there is a need for more space in the library? Will the SFSS fund that too?
I have decided to vote ‘no’ on the Build SFU referendum question. This does not make me a scrooge, or a Debbie Downer; this is not the equivalent of me taking my ball and going home. I support the idea of a student union building — more space for study and for clubs is something that I believe is needed at SFU. But without consultation, and without the removal of the stadium I cannot support moving forward at this time. The SFSS executive should take a cue from the university in this matter and seek to engage the student body in a meaningful way.
Voting ‘no’ on this referendum will not kill the SUB. Voting ‘no’ will send the message that SFU students deserve to be consulted extensively before we hand over $65 million for a project that is outside the scope of the SFSS’s responsibilities. This referendum is the first time that SFU students have been asked how they feel about the SUB — and I am voting ‘no’ to show the executive that I deserve a proper consultation.
