For an organization that prides itself on being an established institution at SFU, SFPIRG’s annual general meeting was unbelievably disorganized and shamefully anti-democratic. Hiding behind the rhetoric of social and environmental justice, SFPIRG has long argued that they are non-partisan, open to all perspectives, and interested only in supporting environmental and social change. What their AGM on Wednesday proved was that actions speak louder than words, that when it comes to internal politics for SFPIRG, democracy and free speech take a back seat to promoting the interests of their non-elected board.

As a relatively uninvolved student at SFU I attended the AGM out of curiosity, expecting to see an interesting debate between social justice activists and students concerned about how their money is being spent. Unfortunately, the meeting was run similar to that of the Soviet Politburo – a group of non-elected members chaired the meeting and controlled, limited, and influenced discussion on the various motions they hoped to pass. In the process, any dissenters (of which there were many) were pigeon-holed as being an ideological conspiracy group with the sole purpose of disrupting the meeting.

Instead of answering basic questions like “how are your members elected?” or “why do you need $130,000 for salaries while many [more productive] organizations on campus suffer financial shortfalls?” the PIRG board resulted to name-calling, making fallacious accusations regarding individual’s political perspectives and agendas. Even more comically, one gentleman – who clearly had a vested interest in passing the motions – resorted to calling someone “a stupid idiot” because he was not following the established Robert’s Rules of Order (the irony of course being that he himself was out of order with his comment). On the odd occasion when they did reply, their answers were incredibly vague and unsatisfying for anyone who would consider themselves an impartial observer.

The general consensus among those concerned regarding SFPIRG is that the organization provides little-to-no benefit to SFU students (who are the main financers of the organization). There is a major disconnect between the average tuition-paying student and the radicals represented in the SFPIRG clique (many of whom are not even members of the SFU community). Students are frustrated that while funding is being cut, and tuition is increasing, appointed non-SFU students collect salaries and spend money on what THEY deem socially important. In their 29-year history on the SFU campus, SFPIRG has done little more for actual students than provide a rotting compost heap, an alternative resource library, and a bicycle repair centre. In defence, the board members argued that social issues extend beyond the interests of SFU students and that SFPIRG has established valuable connections with the community.

The real issue extends far beyond trivial ideological differences. Instead it lies in the processes SFPIRG has adopted to promote their agenda. The SFPIRG faction has veiled their undemocratic procedures under the rubric of social justice, and in doing so have compromised the very values they claim to represent. By appointing members and then attempting to allow them to choose who can be a part of their clique (based on whatever arbitrary criteria they see fit), SFPIRG has effectively alienated themselves from the people who pay their bills… concerned students. Due to their failed tactics and deceptive agenda, the future of SFPIRG is dark and will inevitably be viewed with scepticism – which I believe is well deserved. If SFPIRG wants to become relevant again it will be necessary that they cease funding non-students through our tuition fees who siphon resources off campus, and instead become much more transparent with both their agenda and their finances.

While the attempt at diverting attention from their agenda to political ideology was laughed off by the large variety of political perspectives present (all of whom united under the belief in accountability and democracy) there clearly were deep cleavages on either side of the debate. One side supported democracy, free speech, transparency and accountability, and the other, simply, did not.