Misplaced Priorities: Allow Personal Interests to Conflict with Responsibilities

Conflict between his multiple commitments and affiliations have caused him to neglect his responsibilities to the SOGS membership.


A president can be expected to have personal opinions. Student politicians run on a platform and have their own personal motivations for pursuing elected positions. After the election, the winner is entrusted with the responsibilities of the position they ran for, and the execution of those responsibilities has to be a priority. As SOGS members, we pay our elected officials a monthly stipend, in appreciation of the work required to fill the role, and to recognize that these graduate students are sacrificing the time they might have spent pursuing coursework or research for their degree, or devoted to some other goal.


It is accepted, and expected, that Rick Telfer's political flavour would colour his tenure as President. Rick Telfer's preferences could (and should) emerge in terms of the projects he chooses to pursue, his perspective as President, and the knowledge he brings to debate. Since taking office, however, Rick Telfer has repeatedly failed to prioritize SOGS core services, and the representation of grad student's concerns, above his other commitments or political affiliations.


This failure has been repeatedly demonstrated during his tenure. He voiced strong opposition to the health insurance provider that was selected by the Health Plan committee and voted on by Council. He then jeopardized our coverage by delaying the finalization of the contract [1]. He also voiced strong support of the Graduate Student Employee unionization drive, then refused to effectively communicate the concerns of the Membership regarding it when asked to do so by a resolution at a General Meeting [2].


As a third example, he has asserted himself as a pro-CFS activist [3]; then, when more than 1 in 10 SOGS members indicated that they wish to have a debate and vote regarding Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) membership via a petition (the only way to do so meaningfully under the CFS bylaws) , he produced and personally circulated [4] a petition to nullify that request for debate and vote on continued CFS membership.


He was not expected to support the CFS-referendum petition, nor remain silent on his pro-CFS views. However, his “counter-petition” attempted to marginalize the voices of more than 10% of the graduate student body and obstructed their request for democratic process and academic debate. Spearheading a counter-campaign would be reasonable from a pro-CFS activist with no other commitments, but not from the president representing all graduate students.


Finally, past presidents have found it challenging to hold the position of President while satisfying their advisory committees that they are making sufficient progress towards completion of a thesis. The job of President is time consuming; it takes skill and dedication to juggle both graduate-level research and the large commitment that the President has made to the Society. Rick Telfer holds a part-time instructor position at Fanshawe College [5]; in addition has to fulfill the course and/or thesis progress requirements for graduate school and execute his UWO teaching assistant responsibilities. His lecturer work takes him off campus during working hours, making it difficult or impossible for him to meet his bylaw-mandated office hours.


The role of a SOGS President could reasonably include a responsibility to 1) hear and support the concerns of the SOGS electorate (not third parties); and 2) promote informed debate. If the SOGS President has a conflict of interest on an issue then he should have made a choice. Rick Telfer could have chosen to continue to be a strong activist and wade right into the middle of the hot debate on membership in the CFS, and resigned his position as the head of SOGS. Alternatively, he could have reaffirmed his role as the SOGS president and committed to ensuring that both sides of the argument had a chance to be heard. In using his power to attempt to kill the debate (by nullifying the petition) Rick Telfer committed to his role as an activist but failed to resign, and this brought his ability to continue as President in doubt.

His unwillingness to concede to consensus and prioritize SOGS needs make him ill-suited to the process of governance.



[1] - Minutes including his argument against the HPC decision
     - Minutes regarding his failure to sign the contract
     - Full Health Plan Argument
[2] - Letter sent to the Union
      - Full Union Argument
[3] - Final Paragraph of "Wonder Who..."
[4] - Gazette article on the counter-petition
[5] - Blogger Profile of Rick Telfer
     - Fanshawe college staff listing, search for "Telfer"