I am appalled by the actions of the Carleton University Students’ Association president Alexander Golovko and vice-president (finance) Michael De Luca. If the stories that have been reported in the Charlatan are accurate, they have broken an agreement with the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA). Undergraduate students are being charged exactly the same amount according to the website of the new health plan provider and according to the comparison that was published Oct. 11 in the Charlatan. I have recently heard that undergrads are about to be awarded a rebate of some sort but it is unclear where this money comes from and whether it is an actual reduction in the advertised costs or just a one-time advantage.
Many questions come to mind. Is this what they intend to do with money they are trying to seize from funds reserved for the shared plan? Or are these savings coming from penalties for the lack of services in Ottawa that the new plan offers? Where else is the money coming from? Will costs go up after this first year rebate? The only motivation I can see for this highly risky behaviour is contained in a letter published Oct. 10 in the Charlatan that says both Golovko and De Luca traveled to a “strategy conference” in Vancouver earlier this year sponsored by the new health care provider. This whole episode reeks of corruption and De Luca’s argument that the contract with the original health plan provider was signed in “bad faith” (Charlatan, July 26, 2012) by past vice-presidents of CUSA avoids legitimate comparisons of the plans and does not address the fact that the GSA signed the agreement as well.
As a grad student, I feel that the GSA is doing a good job of representing my interests and protecting my access to the health insurance that I have paid for, that has been negotiated in good faith and that meets my needs and the needs of many other students at Carleton. I heard no calls for changes to the health plan (from either grads or undergrads) last year and was very satisfied with the incremental improvements and savings that the current provider has offered this year. The surprise announcement at the end of July that a group of three CUSA executives were intent on disrupting the health insurance coverage of the entire student body of the university should have set off alarm bells throughout the university.
I am surprised that the university administration has not spoken out about this issue, both because I would like to think that the health of students is an important concern for them, but also because statements made in defense of the actions of these CUSA executives seem designed to drive a wedge between grad and undergrad students. For many of us, regardless of our degree of education, the university is a place where we share learning and experience. Golovko and De Luca are turning the university into an arena where one student is pitted against another in a struggle for advantages that are measured by a few dollars and cents. They should be condemned by everyone at the university for manipulating a need that we all share for access to health insurance for hidden goals in whatever partisan games they are playing.
As a grad student, I have no control over whether they are elected to their positions or not but their actions could cost me a great deal, and I resent having my health care coverage endangered by three people who have decided that their three votes (their definition of a “referendum”) count more than the votes and opinions of all other students at the university and give them the right to abrogate agreements negotiated in good faith. I would strongly encourage all undergrads to more thoroughly investigate and publicize what has led to this lawsuit. In addition, I support any efforts to speak out against them and to remove them from office and uncover whatever secretive deals they have made.
— Kevin Partridge,
PhD sociology student
