Last night, the Dal Student Union held a vote that, if successful, would have de-funded NSPIRG. That motion failed, 215-237. See here for more details on the vote itself, and read Ben Sichel’s article on the issue here.

This article appears in Apr 2-8, 2009.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

  1. Reply

  2. Tim, I wish you’d do a little more research. The motion was not, in fact, to de-fund the PIRG. The motion called to hold the PIRGs funds in trust until it could be determined whether or not they still operate within the mandate under which the levy referendum passed in 1990, not de-fund.

    Regardless, it seems pretty certain to me that NSPIRG will be facing a referendum in the coming years that will call into question whether or not they should still collect a levy.

    Frankly, the Coast’s coverage of this issue has been pretty disappointing and one-sided. I belong to neither NSPIRG or stop-NSPIRG, but I do subscribe to the school of thought that if a paper is going to report on something they should present both sides the story, and avoid painting all of those with opinions different from their own with the big C conservative brush.

    I’m usually proud to call the Coast my favourite news source but the past couple weeks have embarassed me.

    Reply
  3. Reply

  4. I voted at that meeting. I was debating which way to vote.
    A “yes” vote would mean that NSPIRG would have to justify their existence to the student body, and if the student body disagreed with them or the students of 1990 who made the levy then they would lose most of their income. Had it gone to referendum I would have voted to keep them.
    A “no” vote would bypass that process and let them keep the status quo without a vote.
    Since they’re a social justice organization I voted for the referendum. Since it was voted down I’ll sign on to the inevitable one next year. Institutions which promote democracy have to be accountable to the democratic process.

    Reply
  5. Reply

  6. actually, jennier, the vote WAS about de-facto de-funding of the NSPIRG.
    what the passage of that motion would have done, was change the status of the levy from opt-put, to opt-in, which would guarantee that unless one would do extensive research on all aspects of the tuition, one’s money would not go towards NSPIRG (as you would have to clearly state that you WANT TO pay a couple bucks to them). therefore, the motion WAS about de-funding NSPIRG.

    Reply

  7. Actually, K, the vote was to bring about a referendum that would address the funding. There wasn’t even any mention of a change from opt-out or opt-in presented in the motion. Therefore, the motion was not about de-funding.
    Also, if students have to do extensive research on all aspects of tuition then it should be just as difficult to opt out as it would be to opt in. It appears as if you think it is OK for students to unknowingly fund NSPIRG but there would be an issue with students having to make an informed decision to opt in.
    Besides, NSPIRG does advertise the opt-out period, although it is done very poorly. You should inform yourself on these matters before emphatically trying to shut down others.

    Reply

  8. Actually, K, the vote was to bring about a referendum that would address the funding. There wasn’t even any mention of a change from opt-out or opt-in presented in the motion. Therefore, the motion was not about de-funding.
    Also, if students have to do extensive research on all aspects of tuition then it should be just as difficult to opt out as it would be to opt in. It appears as if you think it is OK for students to unknowingly fund NSPIRG but there would be an issue with students having to make an informed decision to opt in.
    Besides, NSPIRG does advertise the opt-out period, although it is done very poorly. You should inform yourself on these matters before emphatically trying to shut down others.

    Reply
Leave a comment

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