When someone knowingly deceives their organization, and brings massive criticism from all venues, a call for their resignation is more than called for.

When someone does something illegal or causes a great deal of harm to the society they are taken to court.

Your assumption that not breaking any rules exempts them from the judgement of their constituents is completely false. While it was their prerogative to go about this process, the fact that for 9 months, with countless hours put in by themselves and staff, in addition to at least $3000 that was spent, without mentioning it any councillors, committees, or media sources, and having all above groups find out after a press release is called is completely irresponsible, and worthy of the measures taken.

Your other assumption about disagreements being a part of politics is also wrong, as in this case 100% of Council was against the move, and Blake and Tim, on the record, said they did not bring this to Council because they knew it would not pass. They knowingly deceived and circumvented us, ignoring the due process that a measure this large needed.

There is no argument that can justify any of their actions in this matter.

What are these ‘real issues that matter to students’ in your mind? All of Council have public emails, and all Council meetings (every second Wednesday at 6pm) are open to all students.

If you have concerns that issues aren’t being addressed, or that any councillors are being ‘co-opted’ by Matt Naylor, then please come. But don’t just lambast student volunteers, elected by their peers, on website comment boards when you don’t agree with what is going on.

I look forward to seeing you at Council on Wednesday, December 2 at 6pm in SUB Council chambers.

Which brings me to 1, 2) My point was that Blake’s actions are especially egregious because he knew that had he brought this before council it would have been defeated (yes, his knowing that is an assumption, but it’s what I’ve come to believe based on everything I’ve seen and read – do you disagree?). While it’s true that executives are trusted to make some decisions without council (since that would further bog down the process), they still need to act in a way that they feel best reflects what their constituents and council want done! It is an entirely different matter altogether if they start doing things that they know council will disapprove of and because of that they then do those things secretively.

4) You’re right, how “embarrassing” this actually is is a matter of personal opinion. Keep in mind that that is Georgia Straight readership comments – have a look at the Vancouver Sun comments and you’ll see a different cross-section of society. And that’s not to say that Georgia Straight readers should be ignored etc, but, again my opinion, it seems that they are in the minority on this one.

5) You’re right, they didn’t break any code, but they did betray the trust that was placed in them by acting in a way that they knew was contrary to the will of council and of the students they allegedly represent (again, that is what the facts I’ve seen up until now lead me to believe). And although I’m no AMS historian, it sounds like this has been ongoing behavior. Sounds like a pretty good reason to impeach someone to me.

1. You say “had he consulted anybody… he would have found out how opposed everyone is.” But then you also say he “knowingly acted contrary to the desires of the constituents.” It sounds to me like there are a lot of assumptions about his intentions, trying to make them seem more evil than they really are.

2. Executives have a lot of power to act on issues without the approval of Council. Writing letters, voicing students’ opinions at committees, taking on portfolio projects… Executives have not only been doing this since there have been Executives, but that is what they are elected to do! Its’ their job! They UN appeal was bold, and perhaps a stunt that should have had more support before done, but it is by no means an abuse of power.

And Executives have a lot of leeway on what they can do. Are they accountable to Council, sure. But they don’t need to get Council’s approval every time they do anything. And there is nothing to suggest that the Human Rights Claim goes against the AMS” policy on tuition… Council has every right to not like the move, demand Blake (and exec) to be more transparent and take disciplinary action (they are supposed to be a check on exec power after all). But impeachment!? It’s absolutely ridiculous.

3. The degree to which students don’t support the move is entirely unclear. Just because there is a body of AMS hacks who blog incessantly about their own little groups’ musings, doesn’t mean that represents all students’ opinions. With a student population of 43 000, it is impossible to ever know what the student body “thinks” – and it’s never cohesive. Anyone who thinks that 43 000 are all clear and agreed on even one issue is completely misguided.

4. The degree to which the move “embarrassed” the AMS and UBC is entirely questionable. Look at the responses to the Georgia Straight article – hardly any of them were students and they all thought it was an interesting and bold move.

5. Blake and TIm didn’t break any AMS code. They didn’t do anything illegal. They literally just did something that their Council isn’t happy with. Okay, its bad leadership, its not a good way to go about things, agreed.

But asking people to resign isn’t something that should be thrown around lightly. It should only be used for people who do something illegal and cause a great deal of harm to the society. It’s a political body, disagreements about how things should be done is inevitable!

Can you think of a county in the world that does more for disabled people than Canada? To me, they shouldn’t have a seat not because their needs are unimportant or to be ignored, but because once extra seats on council are given out then where does it stop? Maybe students from Manitoba should have a seat? Or students with names starting with ‘L’? Or students that live in Totem? Or those from Abbotsford?

The disabled are very important and to me this decision wasn’t one to marginalize them.

Blake Frederick has been asked to resign, and if (probably when) he doesn’t comply with that he deserves to be impeached.

Why should he be impeached? We could sit here and troll the internet for new forums in which to debate the tuition issue until our keyboards break, but that’s not the crux of the matter here.

The main point is that Blake KNOWINGLY acted contrary to the desires of the constituents that elected him. Had he consulted ANYBODY regarding this complaint he would have quickly found out just how overwhelmingly opposed students are to this move. But he knew that, so he decided to go behind the students’ backs and do this without telling anybody. When a person is elected to an office it is their duty to represent the population that elected them to the best of their ability. Not only has Blake proved unable to do that but he has shown that he is willing to go to great lengths to abuse the power he has been given to achieve his own personal goals.

Again, what has been debated so far is whether or not students SHOULD want this to happen (and I view that as a valid debate!). However, the fact is that right now they DON’T. Blake knew that but he did this anyway. That is why he should be impeached.