Editor,

I want to respond to Chris Baxter's article ‘ "All Work No Pay?", in the Fearuary 10 issue of the SUN. Having been ~ quoted in the article in two places, and given the sensitivity of the issue,

I want to clarify my state- ments and place them in context.

First, when questioned by Chris, I made it clear that my official position was"no comment,” since the matter is before the court. I gave my personal opinions on flue following conditions 1) that they be noted as my personal opinions (as a private member of the union), 2) that they only be printed if other coun- cil members were speaking out publicly on the issue (an idea that I disapproved of) and 3) that I have a chance to .see a copy of the manuscript before it was sent to press. These conditions were mostly

met; there was some in- dication that I was speak— ing unofficially and cer- tainly other counsellors were speaking out public— ly and, apparently, offi- cially. .

There were a number of "facts" presented in the

article that I question but I do not intend to address them all here.

Contrary to what the article indicated, there was no“arranged" interview with me and I am not a "key figure" in the "dis— pute", being a neutral (but concerned) member of council. Chris asked me a fen] ouestions one night at the Barn and my official response was "no cammen ".

I only consented to discuss the issue publicly (as oer— scnal opinion) when I found out that other members were planning to speak publicly

out of court. ,

I realize that my com- ments were condensed and that the quotations made of them were somewhat dis- jointed but they fairly re- present my opinion, although I do not recall saying that the contract was "built on a gentleman's agreement". (Cy- nthia - a gentleman?!)

Chris took up a difficult

task when he edited the com-'

ments he gathered in order to present the story. For

LETTERS \’

example, was it possible for him to separate fact from opinion?

I do not know whether Chris has an opinion on the issue or not, but I'm ' sure many people will pre— sume that the article re—

' presents his opinion. I can

see that much of what he wrote came from the opinions of others, but regardless of where it originated there are some criticisms I'd like to

‘make (without blaming anyone)

about the article. (1) SLANDER?

The article should not - have singled out Mike Train- or and Howard Beatie as men-‘-

»bers of the committee to re—

view the yearchk settlement. Furthermore, it should have shown that Mike was particul- arly negligent in his comm— ittee deliberations before criticizing his participation on it. If his qualifications for membership on the comm- ittee were in question it should have been brought up in Council,before or after the committee was struck, for rectification. This does not mean that I think there is a question of Mike's qualifications or competence for the committee. In fact, I think that the article bordered on slander reg— arding Mike's character, when it addressed this ' topic.

As a member of council, I was never.told of any prior connection between Mike and Cynthia, before I read last week's article. I-Iaflever, it is not surprising that any- one on such a small campus and involved in student affairs would have a prior association with the year- book editor. I think that most people commenting in the article had a previous association with Cynthia.

If we followed the logic of i

the story, shouldn't this mean that their opinions be taken "with a

grain of salt"? Surely we wouldn't suggest that they would have made more camp- etent committee members than the ones we had!

(2) CDUNTERSUIT?

The article said that Student Council has res- ponded with a countersuit. That's news to me! (I should, at this point, make it clear that I only missed one council meeting since

U.p‘.E.I. SUNFEB ]7,]983-.

I was elected. This was scheduled fer 7:30 p.m., Sunday, February 6, 1983. When I arrived I was told that the meeting was held at 4:00'p.m. and that I ‘ .. ,, had missed it -“pre—pcned?~)

The article quoted a member of Council saying, "We feel we have solid ‘ ground to stand on." (Ob- viously not referring to U.P.E.I. landscaping.) "We" was explained to mean "The Student Union". However, my personal opinion is not one of such confidence. I'm not sure Council has come to that consensus, but I cannot speak for Council. (3) MOTIVES?

A counsellor was quoted as saying, "Student Union is mainly concerned with ' the principle of the thing...". He goes on to say. "Maybe you will set a precedent." But what prin- ciples are we concerned about? I'm not sure coun— cil is mainly concerned about precedents;t V

If "we" are successful in, "our" suit against Cyn— thia, what will we have done? Let us accept the theory that Council is poor. It is still quite possible that we could pay damages if we lose the case, but what if Cynthia loses? I do not wish to defend Cynthia, but I ask: "Can we morally say that she deserves WHAT— EVER she gets?" As a’member

of Council, I don't liken-

being sued but I think that more could have been done

, to achieve a just solution > without going to court or

provoking Cynthia into fil- ing suit.

If there is a precedent, being set, could it be that we are establishing ourselves

V as being so petty, technical

and ill—willed that we got ourselves into a legal mess? Will we be forced in future to make all agreements so legally watertight that we can never be allowed to .,.;u. trust each other and amp- erate? Will we be forced

to legislate "good attitudes and cammnications" between, council and its "employees" thereby setting the two in opposition toone another? It seems to me that the more formal Council tries to become, the less profes— sional it gets and certain— ly it becomes less humane.

{ Could we not take this '

opportunity to' set a good precedent? I. think we should ,

[try to settlepth'is issue in a more humane and forgiving

fashion (on both sides) and we should try to communicate much more openly with the people we work with. (Not

to be confused with "our employees", although we should cooperate with them, also.) ,

(4) HONORARIA -,

we should realize that

yearbook editor's fees are not salaries or wages (i.e. as in "minimum wage") . They are honoraria which-should not need to be conditional in a contract. A yearbook editor is not a wage labor- er. We couldu't afford to j pay what that is worth, ’ anyway. Unlike wage payments the giving of an honorarium should not be conditional on the quality of work, amount; of work done,nor the dead- lines. These responsibilities should be shared by council (unless we contract the job out or hire a salaried ed- itor) . An honoraer is a token payment or gift» from a community to an individual who has donated a service, and this is how "paymen " should be determined. If there were problems in pre—

, paring the yearbook, council

should have knmm and would have, known if it_was function- ing properly.

Wages are used as work incentives (sometimes this requires imagination) but honoraria usually do not cover the value of services and they‘are not expected to.

If we decide that the whole responsibility of pro— ducing a yearbook Should be placed on the editor then we should hire an editor for a legal wage, make a much ' tighter contract and prepare for the usual management- labour problems. This would suggest that we rewrite the Student UnioanonStitutiOn in order to provide us with a much more solid basis ‘ with which to "manage" the students, If We make this our

. course of action I would suggest that we establish a core program in Business Management as a prerequis- ite for those aspiring to sit on council. V ' I » (5) THE CDNTRACI‘

Finally, there, seems to

'd‘ , ., .g. ,1. ‘ .