Student Representative Assembly Meeting 12N Sunday, February 3
Student Representative Assembly Meeting 12N Sunday, February 3, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. Council Chambers, GH 111
Call to Order at 1:04 p.m. CALL OF THE ROLL Present Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair
Armstrong, Campbell, Cheung, Cicchi, Collins, Daniel, Doucet, Helie-Masters, Jamieson, Jeyasingham, Kanani, Khaja, Milani, Morrow, Narro Perez, Neves, Palczewski, Pullen, Stewart, Wayne-Phillips, Yendt, Zuchowski Bergen, Graham, Wyngaarden Bifano, Bober-Inoue, Govardhanam, Granat, Lobsinger, Long, Mohamed, Ung Paul, Saeed Sam Colbert (The Silhouette), Mallory Fitz-Ritson (SASS Observer), Talia Kollek (MSU Member), Aissa Boodhoo-Leegsma (The Silhouette), Steven Thompson (CRO), Dave Moore (MSUAA), Joey Coleman (Community Blogger & Journalist), Amy Hutchinson (FAM) J. Bauman (Recording Secretary) Simon Gooding-Townsend
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Moved by Campbell, seconded by Cicchi that the agenda be adopted. Passes Unanimously ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR
The Chair congratulated all Presidential candidates for running great campaigns, and announced David Campbell as the MSU President-Elect. The Chair noted that the meeting is attempting to be live streamed, and asked the Assembly to focus on the meeting rather than engaging in the chat forum.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Cicchi, seconded by Jamieson that the Assembly adopt the minutes from 12M as circulated and amended. In Favour: 21 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 1 Abstentions: Campbell Motion Passes DELEGATION FROM THE FLOOR Moved by Milani, seconded by Stewart that the parameters for the Women and Trans* Centre delegation be set at ten (10) minutes for the presentation and ten (10) minutes for questions. Passes Unanimously
1.
Women and Trans* Centre (WTC) Update – Milani and Hutchinson presented
SRA 12N Page 2 February 3, 2013
Milani and Hutchinson summarized the report (attached).
Questions Neves thanked the presenters for the work the ad hoc committee has done. Neves noted the scope of the centre seems to be taking on many different issues, such as sexual assault, advocacy, safe space, and education. Neves asked how it would work if someone wanted to use the centre as a safe space but it is also being used as an advocacy space. Hutchinson responded that there is an operations sub-committee that is looking into these types of issues. Hutchinson used the Queer Students Community Centre (QSCC) as an example, where QSCC will run a promotional campaign while still being a safe space. The QSCC is set up as a resource library where people walk in, but there is a separate room that is used as a safe space. Hutchinson noted many services can provide different things at the same time. Stewart asked how the WTC how they decided what community and McMaster groups would be contacted. Milani reported that the committee drafted a list of groups who they felt should be involved in the project, and meetings have occurred with interested groups who have responded back to the WTC. Doucet asked what the WTC expected to have completed by the end of the semester. Milani stated she is hoping to have an operational structure, what services would be offered, and an idea of where funding could come from established. Location is still something that needs to be investigated further. Jamieson asked what funding models have been considered. Milani noted the funding research is just starting, but some ideas that have been floating around are partnership with SACHA (Sexual Assault Centre Hamilton Area), a student levy, and research grants. Moved by Khaja, seconded by Kanani that the parameters for the HighRise delegation be set at twenty (20) minutes for the presentation and twenty (20) minutes for questions. Passes by General Consent 2.
Highrise – Khaja and Saeed presented
Saeed and Khaja demonstrated how Highrise could be used by the Assembly. Highrise allows users to keep detailed records of correspondence in an easy-to-view format, similar to the news feed on Facebook. Commissioners and caucus leaders would be given accounts. The purpose of Highrise is to increase transition, to ensure project information is carried forward to the follow years.
Questions Doucet asked if the usage would be mandatory, and if someone would be policing Assembly members, telling them they have to be on Highrise and using this resource. Doucet noted that with all of this new technology, there are many different avenues for people to interact. If members are using different media, the MSU will not be getting the investment from Highrise. Khaja stated the usage of Highrise could be written into an operating policy. All SRA members are mandated to write a year plan, but many choose to not complete the task. Khaja noted it is the Assembly’s responsibility to put information out to students in an accessible form. Saeed added that policing SRA members has been a problem in the past couple of years since the House Leader position was removed. Saeed stated he has found it difficult to ask the VP Administration to police the SRA because of the dynamic. Saeed thought that the use of Highrise would be put into the operating policy, and someone would be in charge of policing its use. If it is general SRA members who are using the program, it could fall to the Commissioners to police, or if it were commissioners using the program, the Board would police.
SRA 12N Page 3 February 3, 2013
Neves stated that in theory, it seems like a good idea. Neves stated he could see there being resistance to using the program, because someone would have to sit down and plug in all of the contacts. There is no reason to use it initially if there is nothing there. Neves asked if Saeed and Khaja had thought of allocating hours or putting it into someone’s job description to start this project. Neves noted that when the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) uses Highrise, there are people who go through and make sure all entries are up to date and accurate. Neves asked if that would happen within the MSU as well. Saeed stated that there have been discussions at the Board level about creating a full time researcher position, so managing Highrise could fall into that portfolio. Saeed noted that for the rest of the year, Khaja and the Research Assistant could help in getting the database up and running. Saeed stated that in the end, he would have to sit down with various people to discuss where it would be housed. Saeed noted those conversations have not occurred yet because this is just a preliminary discussion, and those ideas would be fleshed out in the operating policy. Zuchowski asked which plan Saeed would like to purchase. Saeed stated he would like to go with the Premium Plan, which is $99 a month, which would allow the MSU to have up to 40 users, 30GB of storage, and have up to 30,000 unique contacts. Zuchowski asked if instead of spending $1200 a year if Saeed and Khaja had considered asking the website designer to make a module. Khaja stated he spoke with J. Bauman (Administrative Assistant) and P. Taggart (Network Administrator), and they had proposed that idea as well. Khaja noted with the current website, we could install a tab for SRA member only. Khaja stated there is a similar functionality built into the website, and it would be a matter of figuring out what the Assembly would like the module to look like and what its functionality should be. Khaja stated the benefit of using Highrise is that everything is already created, and it is a bit more intuitive to use. Saeed added that the MSU would be asking a company to create something from scratch when another company has already spent a lot of time and money designing the same product. Whenever something is created from scratch, it is not feasible. Saeed stated he would send factor[e] an email to see what the cost would be. Saeed added that depending on the module, it could be quite expensive. Pullen asked if there would be an evaluation process next year where Highrise is looked at to determine if it has been beneficial. Khaja stated it would be up to next year’s Operations Commissioner to look at if it has been successful and if the program should be expanded or cancelled. Daniel observed that Highrise seems to currently be directed towards usage from the Board of Directors and commissioners. Daniels asked what the prospects were for Highrise if members of the MSU wanted to access it, and if there would be any problems with that. Khaja stated that if it were to be expanded to all MSU members, added security measure would have to be added, because the program is open source. Khaja noted he would like the project to start small, and if things work well, he could see MSU members accessing Highrise as a possibility down the road.
REPORT PERIOD 1.
Nursing Caucus – Palczewski presented
2.
Science Caucus – Daniel presented
3.
Palczewski summarized the report.
Daniel summarized the report.
Social Science Caucus – Doucet presented
SRA 12N Page 4 February 3, 2013
Doucet summarized his report.
Questions Stewart asked if Doucet had more information on the MSSS scholarship. Kanani stated it is not a scholarship, but an award for social sciences students who have been actively engaged in the community. Kanani noted applications are due at midnight. 4.
Bylaws & Procedures Committee – Jamieson presented
5.
Services Committee – Milani presented
6.
Milani summarized her report.
Executive Board – Morrow presented
7.
Jamieson summarized his report.
Morrow summarized his report.
President’s Report – Stewart presented
Stewart summarized her report.
Questions Cicchi asked if the Peer Support Line was confidential. Stewart responded that yes, it was confidential. INFORMATION PERIOD
Stewart informed Daniel that regarding her previous question about Highrise, she thinks SRA members could use it to track projects. Some projects come up year after year, so it would be helpful for caucuses to track what previous members have been able to do. Milani reported that the Cybernetic Orchestra will be performing at Art Crawl on Friday, and they will be giving away CDs. Milani added they will also be representing McMaster in Germany at the end of April. Thompson advised the SRA seat allocation memo was distributed on Thursday. Thompson noted there was an error in the enrolment numbers, but the total seats allocated were correct. Cicchi noted he had looked at the seat allocation and thinking about the Highrise presentation, he does not think the Premium choice would be right for the MSU because there is a cap on users. Cicchi stated that if there are 31 seats on the SRA, plus commissioners and the Board, there are not enough users available. Stewart congratulated the Communications Studies and Multimedia students on the murder mystery event. Stewart stated it was a fantastic event. Stewart added that if anyone is running an event and they would like her or a Board member to attend, all they have to do is ask. Daniel advised that Union Market is going to be launching a Facebook page in the next week or two. Khaja noted that not every SRA member would get a personal Highrise account. Members would go into a general account and make changes. Khaja stated there are ways around it so not everyone needs their own account. Helie-Masters stated that the Kinesiology Society is now an MSU club. The Kin Society is having its first MSU club event tonight at the London Tap House, and it is a Superbowl party. Saeed reported he attended a disability activism forum, where most of the talk was about how students do not know where to go when they are having accommodation issues. Saeed stated that the Assembly is
SRA 12N Page 5 February 3, 2013
failing as representatives if so many students are unaware of where they can go. Saeed stated that the Board could help students get access to the Provost, VP Administration, VP Academic, or any of the Deans. Saeed added that if there is ever an issue regarding an education issue that students are having with their professor or supervisor, they are welcome to come to the MSU, as the MSU can provide them with some direction. Saeed asked members to talk to their friends and constituents to see if they are having issues with accommodations, such as inaccessible classrooms. Doucet thanked the SRA members who have been taking the time to promote the MSU’s events, such as the Make A Break campaign. Doucet reminded commissioners that the MSU has the tools, such as an online chat forum, which can assist in soliciting student feedback.
QUESTION PERIOD
Cicchi asked Helie-Masters if there was an admission cost for the Kin event. Helie-Masters advised there is no admission fee, but there are raffles that require a ticket to be purchased. Cicchi asked Helie-Masters if the Kin event was an all-ages event. Helie-Masters noted it was an all-ages event, and a wristband policy is in effect. Armstrong asked Stewart if a student was interested in looking at the green roof conceptual drawings, where should they be directed. Stewart advised that the drawings would be available online as part of the upcoming green roof survey. Khaja asked Doucet if a commissioner were interested in hosting an online chat, how that would work. Doucet stated the online chat is very easy to use. Doucet would be the moderator, and the commissioner would sign in as a panelist. The time, date, topic, and goal of the chat are set up through Doucet as well. Doucet added that the largest peak in usage is around 8pm. Stewart asked Palczewski if she knew the process of implementing changes discussed at the nursing conference into the curriculum. Stewart noted that there are always discussions from other faculties about increasing engagement. Palczewski stated the delegation was open to all students, but there are specific Canadian Nursing Students’ Association (CNSA) representatives. Palczewski stated she was unsure if the recommendation went from the CNSA to the McMaster University Nursing Student Society (MUNSS) President, or if MUNSS went straight to the faulty. Zuchowski asked if there were any updates on the Wentworth House relocation. Campbell noted he spoke with the Muslim Student Association and MACycle, and he will be meeting with both groups next week. Campbell stated he does not have any updates right now, but he will send out an email. Saeed added that he had recently heard that the McMaster Child Care centre would be moving into a new temporary building that will go into the parking lot in front of T28 and T29. Saeed noted he thought the MSA and MACycle would also have space in that building. Moore asked Campbell to confirm the date for Student Recognition Night, as he had heard conflicting dates. Campbell advised Student Recognition Night is scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 2013. Khaja asked if the university is building another temporary building. Stewart stated that no motion has been made, and nothing has been approved, but the rumour is that the university will be building another temporary building.
BUSINESS 1.
Operating Policy 1.9.7 – Diversity Services
Moved by Campbell, seconded by Milani that the Assembly approves changes to OPERATING POLICY 1.9.7 – MSU DIVERSITY SERVICES as circulated.
SRA 12N Page 6 February 3, 2013
Campbell summarized the changes. Campbell highlighted that the goal is to clarify roles and contact points. The Assistant Director will be administrative help and will organize volunteers, while the Director is the face of the service and will attend any required meetings. Milani added that the Services Committee worked on this project. The current co-Directors agreed that there is too much work for one person to do, but that the current structure is too confusing, and there is no clear division of roles. Milani hopes these changes will assist in role clarity. Stewart thanked the Services Committee for the work they put in, and for talking to the current coDirectors and Executive Board for feedback. Stewart noted it is important for the Assembly to be aware of what is happening in our services and to do what is needed to support them.
Vote on Motion Passes Unanimously 2.
Clubs Ratification
Moved by Cicchi, seconded by Neves that the Assembly ratifies the clubs as recommended by the Clubs Administrator as circulated. Passes Unanimously 3.
Aboriginal Students Policy Paper
Moved by Saeed, seconded by Doucet that the Assembly approves the MSU Aboriginal Students Policy Paper.
Saeed explained that this paper is coming forward because according to OUSA and CASA, there are certain underrepresented groups that need to be addressed specifically, and Aboriginal students are one of these groups. Saeed stated his hope is that this if the first in a line of policy papers that will address some of these underrepresented groups. The paper is separated into two themes. The first is funding, where we are asking the provincial government that the Aboriginal bursary program be expanded and that there be more funding for Aboriginal support services. At the federal level it is an issue because Aboriginal students usually fall under the federal government for funding. Saeed explained that the funding for the program has been capped, but there are more people applying and the population has increased. There has been a lot of support from the opposition, but not a lot from the Conservatives. Saeed has spoken with the Indigenous Studies department, and they agreed that the way funding is distributed is strange. For example, a single mother is less likely to receive funding than a single male. Saeed added he tried to avoid discussing how funding is allocated, because he does not think it is the MSU’s position to decide who should or should not receive funding. Saeed stated the second theme of the paper is cultural in nature, as it deals with the feeling of alienation on post-secondary education campuses. Saeed noted there should be some sort of institutional message that we need to be more cognizant of different perspectives, and this fits in with Forward With Integrity. Doucet stated his concern is that the MSU does not think its role is to discuss how funding is allocated, but it does not seem like anyone else wants to touch the problem. Doucet asked that if the MSU is not going to bring up the issue, who would. Doucet stated he would like to see more teeth in this paper, and to see the MSU make a stronger recommendation on the subject, and other subjects like this. Saeed explained he did not include the funding aspect because papers should be based on the climate of the government at the time. Saeed noted that from his lobbying experiences, people start to walk away from the conversation because it goes back to Aboriginal rights. If the MSU were to ask for the funding model to be changed, that would challenge the Aboriginal right to self-governance.
SRA 12N Page 7 February 3, 2013
Vote on Motion Passes Unanimously
Gooding-Townsend declined the Chair. Campbell assumed the Chair.
4.
SRA Seat Reform
a)
Moved by Milani, seconded by Neves that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 2 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of the necessary bylaw amendments.
Milani ceded to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend summarized the circulated memo. Neves stated he circulated an email that addressed how he felt about this motion. Neves took a straw poll of the Assembly to see if there was an appetite to make changes regarding SRA seat allocation, which showed there was very little interest. Neves noted this issue was brought up last year and was spearheaded by a few members, but stated it does not appear that there is the appetite to make change right now. Neves stated he thinks it is a waste of time for the SRA to pass something only a few members believe is a worthwhile venture. Neves disagreed with the proposal, and stated thereare few democracies that are based on pure proportionality. Neves stated that this proposal reduces smaller faculties to oneperson caucuses, which is troubling, and thinks there are better ways of dealing with the issue. Moore suggested that given the straw poll Neves conducted, the next member should move to postpone this motion indefinitely and stop wasting the Ad Hoc Committee’s time.
Moved by Neves, seconded by Doucet that this motion be postponed indefinitely.
Neves explained that this would kill the topic for the current committee, and the issue would not be brought back up to this Assembly. Doucet stated there have been a number of people working on this project for a while. Doucet stated the SRA has been very apathetic regarding issues being brought forward to the SRA. Doucet doubted members even read the documents. Doucet stated that the Assembly needed to step up and take issues more seriously. Pullen asked what happened to the discussion on meritocracy. Neves stated there had been attendance issues, and as a result, it had not yet been discussed. Neves stated that in itself is a bit worrying. Neves stated he does not want to keep rehashing this issue, which is why he is moving to end the discussion. Milani stated she did not think the conversation should end just because a few people would not be happy with the outcome. Milani suggested the Assembly vote down this motion and have the seat allocation conversation. Jamieson noted he made a rough draft regarding meritocracy, but due to the timing of the committee meetings, he has been unable to attend. Khaja ceded to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend noted he reviewed the minutes from SRA 12K and there was no mention of meritocracy. Neves reiterated that this discussion has been going on for two years, and he does not think that having another conversation will spark interest from the Assembly. Neves stated this conversation has already occurred, and there have been very few people show up to the Ad Hoc Committee meetings. The SRA has not had an issue with the current seat allocation methodology. Neves noted that the Assembly is quite cohesive, and the issues brought to the Assembly are not specific to one caucus. Neves asked if anyone on the Assembly could share a real reason why some caucuses should have more or fewer members.
SRA 12N Page 8 February 3, 2013
Milani noted that there are proportionality issues with the current seat allocation methods. Milani stated there should be equity between constituents and with having someone to whom they can speak. Milani stated there has been a lot of work done by the committee, and it is valid for the Assembly to have this discussion. Khaja asked if by postponing this discussion, the meritocracy conversation could still happen. The Chair explained that the motion to postpone indefinitely is specific to this motion, so the meritocracy conversation could still occur. Neves stated he does not think this proposal is equitable. Smaller areas will always have more representation. Neves stated he thinks things are fine how they are. In almost all democratic systems, there are other things tied to proportionality. Wayne-Phillips stated there is no harm in having the seat allocation discussion. Daniel stated the Assembly is starting to comment on the main motion. Daniel speculated that many members have not attended the Ad Hoc Committee meetings due to class and other commitments, and not because of disinterest. Daniel thought the discussion on why the seat allocation system should stay the same or change is a valuable one for the Assembly to have. Daniel stated that even if it means voting the motion down later, at least the Assembly would have had that conversation. Zuchowski stated he spoke to a number of engineering students, and they do not think it is fair that there is over- and under-representation on the Assembly, but they also did not have a solution.
Moved by Wayne-Phillips, seconded by Neves to call to question. In Favour: 19 Opposed: 3 Abstentions: 1 Opposed: Stewart, Saeed, Milani Abstentions: Daniel Motion Passes Moved by Neves, seconded by Doucet that this motion be postponed indefinitely. In Favour: 3 Opposed: 14 Abstentions: 1 Opposed: Helie-Masters, Wayne-Phillips, Milani, Morrow, Daniel, Narro Perez, Khaja, Zuchowski, Jamieson, Yendt, Pullen, Doucet, Paul, Long Abstentions: Armstrong Motion Fails Main Motion
Jamieson stated he would not expect many of the Assembly members to go out and make changes to seat allocation, because that is the job of the Ad Hoc Committee. When changes are brought forward, that is when the Assembly can vote for or against the ideas. Pullen read out the following statement: As an unofficial sometimes-attendee of the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform, I voted against Option 2 for SRA Seat Re-allocation. I am certainly not against re-allocation and I recognize the gross disparities in representation; I have essentially one reason for voting No, and while it may not be enough to override the pros of proceeding with Option 2 I think it is important to call attention to. This reason is the resultant four one-person caucuses, and the associated obstacles. While having the very handy Arts & Science SRA Ex-officio to observe meetings, hold office hours, and discuss with, this person is not an SRA member and is not required to fulfill the obligations of one. As a result, being essentially alone coming into the SRA is incredibly difficult. It absolutely impacted my productivity,
SRA 12N Page 9 February 3, 2013
participation, and general comfort with the SRA and MSU. That is obviously also on me, but not having either an experienced fellow member or even someone to figure things out with definitely negatively affected me as an SRA member. Perhaps with four such caucuses, this would be lessened by encouraging collaboration, but I just wanted to bring this potential issue to the attention of those voting. In addition, while criticizing this option, I cannot think of a better solution apart from more seats, which is really not an option and could cause even more problems, so I apologize for that.
Pullen added that if the issue is representation, she does not think this proposal makes it better for everyone. Neves stated he was happy talking about the issue, and would like to see someone demonstrate why proportional representation is the best democracy. Neves agreed that one-person caucuses are bad for the SRA and it makes it difficult for the affected members to become engaged. Neves thinks the model should be left as it is, or the Assembly needs to come up with ideas on how to make things more equitable. Just having more students and stating that as a reason for more seats is a bad reason. Pullen cedes to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend stated that in terms of looking at the numbers, when the numbers are higher, it means that it is harder for students to find a representative. Moore clarified that option 2 is not a pure proportionality. It is moving closer, but recognizes that each academic division would be granted one seat. Moore explained that currently, there are caucuses on the SRA that have twice as much voting power because of the misrepresentation. Moore asked if any member had a better way of fixing the issue to bring that idea forward, as there has been two years of worth put into the proposal before the Assembly. Doucet stated it is not fair to compare the SRA to provincial or federal representation models. Doucet is not convinced that the seat allocation needs to be changed. Doucet noted that during his time on the Assembly, he has not seen a motion come forward that would dramatically affect one faculty differently than another. Doucet does not think that inequality is evident. Saeed stated there are two sides to this argument. One is that idealistically, students should have a fair and equal representation. Saeed has found that in practice, it does not matter if your social network needs an SRA member to have their voice heard. Whenever the Assembly is making decisions, they are making decisions that benefit the student body as a whole. Saeed stated he did not think that having two extra caucus members when he was on the SRA would have made his caucus more effective. Saeed stated this would make sense if members were talking to every single student in the faculty, but the SRA does not operate like that. Neves noted he is hearing a disagreement between which model is more equitable. Neves stated he feels there are serious disadvantages to reducing some caucuses to one seat. Neves stated the Assembly could agree that one-member caucuses are bad, and that there are more cons than pros with this proposal. Jamieson stated that if members were not currently representing constituents based on caucus, then moving to a numeric based model would not be a bad thing. Jamieson stated he thinks the entire model needs to be revamped, but agrees with option 2 over anything else. Neves disagreed that a caucus of six people should be able to say it is not a problem, when the Assembly has heard from the one-person caucus who has stated it would be a negative thing. Stewart noted people are looking at this from the perspective of begin able to adequately represent their constituents. Stewart urged the Assembly to consider this motion both ideologically, as well as what is being done in practice. Pullen stated her experience would have been much different if she had more caucus members. Jamieson asked what had gone wrong that made Pullen think she would have been better off having another person on her caucus. Jamieson wanted to know why it is so detrimental to be a one-person caucus. Pullen stated getting into the SRA, becoming comfortable enough to speak, and just figuring out what she is able to do would have been easier with at least one other person. Pullen asked what the engineering caucus does and asked how they collaborate. Jamieson responded they work individually.
SRA 12N Page 10 February 3, 2013
Pullen stated that is still six people working on projects for engineering students. There is much less that she can do as one-person for her constituents. Collins urged the Assembly to heed Pullen’s testimony before voting. Collins stated it has been very important for him to rely on Helie-Masters and to work on things together. Collins noted that if people are worried about the Assembly being apathetic, they should consider Pullen’s testimony. Collins stated he thinks the base allocation for seats should be two, to ensure teamwork. Doucet recommended that people stop being elected by faculty and just have 31 people elected at large. Doucet stated members come to the SRA with a unique reason, ideals, and personal drive and it does not matter what faculty is being represented. Doucet stated that maybe the Assembly should reevaluate voting for people by faculty. Doucet thought the conversation was going in circles, and the Assembly should stick with the status quo. Saeed stated that if the engineering caucus are not collaborating with one another, he would say that they are not doing their jobs as representatives properly. Saeed noted that events for constituents require a whole team of people, and that is why Saeed does not think that having a one-person caucus is beneficial. It is easier to ask for help from a fellow caucus member. Zuchowski stated that as the engineering caucus leader, he solicits feedback from other members. Zuchowski stated it is difficult to bring six people into one meeting. Zuchowski noted that the engineering caucus goes to the McMaster Engineering Society (MES) for help, because they are better at communicating with students. Zuchowski noted that engineering students are concerned that they are underrepresented, yet collectively pay more in student fees. Zuchowski stated he would like to see faculties who are being underrepresented pay less in student fees. Zuchowski noted that students are paying the same fees but do not have the same vote at the SRA. Jeyasingham stated that in Health Sciences, there is an emphasis on group work, and the most effective groups consist of 3-4 people. When the group expands to be 6 or 8 people, they become less effective. Jeyasingham does not think that more seats would make a caucus more effective. Jeyasingham stated that dropping from two seats to one is a bigger change than increasing a caucus from six to seven members. Khaja stated that the end benefit of having two extra science members and losing a Health Sciences and Kinesiology representative is not worth it. Long noted there are many good things that can come out of the SRA, and those are at risk if the Assembly chooses to cut caucuses down to one seat. Jamieson thought that a one-person caucus would allow the member to engage more with the faculty society. Jamieson asked why it has taken the Assembly to have this conversation. Jamieson stated the ad hoc committee could have done so much more if this conversation had been had earlier. Jamieson stated the Assembly needed to start talking about the issues. Jamieson stated he would still like the reallocation to pass. Zuchowski stated that he has personally gone to the Board of Directors for support. He does not think that a single person caucus would be alone on the Assembly, as there are members who are willing to collaborate. Neves stated that the issue of people not doing their work was a negative comment. Neves stated some members have put the effort into attending the meetings, and the Assembly needs to trust in the experiences of the people who are raising issues. Fitz-Ritson stated that she attends the SRA meetings to support and help Pullen. If other caucuses are reduced to one person, Fitz-Ritson recommended those faculty societies consider formally creating an exofficio position. Milani noted there seemed to be a consensus that the Assembly does not like this anymore, and the conversation is becoming redundant. Milani stated if these concerns had been brought up sooner, there could have been more work done at the committee level, and a proposal that everyone agreed with could have been created. Milani stated this conversation should end. Khaja noted that it is not guaranteed that there will be a great ex-officio who is willing to come out and support their member every year. Khaja stated that having two people in a caucus guarantees support.
SRA 12N Page 11 February 3, 2013
Stewart stated that this conversation has touched on a number of other issues, such as reaching out to students and caucus collaboration. Stewart noted the Assembly needs to being thinking about how to address these issues.
Moved by Milani, seconded by Neves that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 2 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of the necessary bylaw amendments. In Favour: 0 Opposed: 22 Abstentions: 2 Opposed: Stewart, Saeed, Helie-Masters, Collins, Wayne-Phillips, Morrow, Daniel, Narro Perez, Khaja, Lobsinger, Jamieson, Zuchowski, Cheung, Neves, Jeyasingham, Pullen, Doucet, Armstrong, Paul, Kanani, Long, Cicchi Abstentions: Milani, Govardhanam Motion Fails b) Moved by Narro Perez, seconded by Morrow that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 5 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of necessary bylaw and Constitutional amendments.
Narro Perez stated that something that goes along with this motion is the creation of new academic divisions. There has been a lot of discussion at the Ad Hoc Committee, and he has done his due diligence by bringing other members from iSci to the meeting to discuss why they should have a separate seat. iSci is growing as a program, and Narro Perez would like to see iSci have the chance to have a seat on the Assembly. The MSU is always looking for student involvement, and there are number of people in the iSci program who are interested in having a seat on the SRA. Morrow stated that since the Assembly has made it clear they do not want to reallocate seats, this motion addresses that issue. Morrow stated he does not feel comfortable representing iSci students because their course structure is so academically and culturally different from other science programs. Zuchowski ceded to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend summarized the background information provided in the report. Milani stated this is coming forward because currently, if the Assembly wanted to create a new academic division, the seat would come from someone else, and the Assembly has just discussed how they do not want this. This motion would create a new seat if a new academic division were created. Govardhanam cautioned the Assembly against passing this motion, as it is a dangerous path. The Assembly would have to define what constitutes an academic division. Govardhanam reported he could think of 20 different programs in engineering that are very culturally and academically different. Saeed asked if Moore could describe the history of Social Work having a seat on the SRA, why it was taken away, and if it was carved out from the Social Sciences caucus. Moore explained that the School of Social Work had a distinct seat on the Assembly until as recently as 2007. Partly due to disinterest from social work students, the Assembly voted to remove the seat. That seat was then reallocated into the general pool, and all social work students are now able to run as social sciences students. The SRA has the power to decide what the academic divisions may be. Whether it is one of the big faculties or something smaller, every fee-paying member will fall into one of these categories. Jamieson stated this would take a long time to implement, and there are many things to consider. For example, if a new seat is created and then enrollment drops, would that seat remain or not.
SRA 12N Page 12 February 3, 2013
Doucet stated he thinks the definition of an academic division should be left to the university. The SRA should not be having that discussion. If the university decides to recognize iSci as separate from science, the SRA can then have that discussion. Daniel asked what the process would be to create an academic division. Campbell stated there is currently an outline, and it has been intentionally left a bit ambiguous. This motion does not reference how academic divisions are created, just how the seat should be allocated. Moore noted that the SRA should be addressing what should be done when there is a new academic division created and not what the rules should be. Moore stated this discussion is about if and when it happens, how will the Assembly respond to that. Moore noted that the Ad Hoc Committee looked at the model the University Senate has, and it expands to satisfy entirely new creations, not just fracturing a current one. Stewart stated she is happy the Assembly is starting to have conversations that are about root issues. Stewart noted she appreciates the comments from all members. Neves stated he thinks that this is a good idea because the Assembly just finished a conversation regarding the issues of seat reallocation, and this seems like an appropriate alternative. Helie-Masters noted the debate is about where do seats for new academic divisions come from. HelieMasters asked what would happen if each of the programs in science were to ask for a seat. Would the science caucus shrink, or would they retain the current six representatives in addition to any new academic divisions that are created. Campbell noted that it would be dependent on the size of the program that is looking for a seat. Gooding-Townsend explained that it would ultimately be up to the SRA to decide if they wanted to create so many different seats. Another conversation should be whether the members want the SRA increase in size. Zuchowski stated that if the Assembly went with this model, and Comp Sci wanted a seat and they have 800 students, would that also mean they are considered in the count for the distribution of seats where they could get an extra seat. Zuchowski stated he thinks it is weird to add seats, and the Assembly should stick with the current model, as it seems like the most reasonable way to do things. Daniel noted there is a lot of conversation about fragmenting faculties, but this motion is relevant to new faculties as well, as how that would play out. Daniel stated that the creation of new faculties needed to be considered when having this conversation. Khaja reiterated that the Assembly just decided they do not like the idea of reallocating seats. Khaja stated this motion is not about discussing the logistics, but whether or not the Assembly would like to potentially expand the number of seats available. Stewart noted that she sees the issue of an already existing department asking for a seat as a different argument than the university creating a new faculty. Stewart stated the Assembly has not discussed about how they would like seats allocated, if the SRA will model the university or if they will stay with what is currently in place. Stewart felt that if there is a completely new faculty, they should be recognized, but she has a different mentality for departments looking for a seat. Milani stated that with the motion on the table, they are being looked at as the same. Govardhanam stated that if new faculties are created, new seats should be added to the SRA. If a new department is looking for a seat, there is the potential that faculties could be grossly overrepresented. Zuchowski stated if the university were to create a new faculty, the SRA would be given enough time to adequately prepare. Stewart asked if the Assembly was prepared to align their system up with the university. If a new faculty is created, the university will create a new seat on the Senate. If a new program is created, they are housed under someone else. Stewart stated the Assembly needed to decide, but that she would personally be voting against this motion. Stewart stated the Assembly needed to consider if academic divisions line up with the university, or if the SRA creates them based on culture and whatever else they decide. Milani stated the discussion is about whether a seat will be reallocated or added if a new academic division is created. The criteria for how to create an academic division is a separate conversation, and the SRA should be talking about how the numbers are going to fit together.
SRA 12N Page 13 February 3, 2013
Neves noted that part of why this has been brought up is because the university creates new seats for new faculties, but that is only part of it. Neves stated that the Assembly has already decided that academic division should have a unique cultural aspect. Narro Perez stated that this motion would open the avenue for a student group who is hoping to become engaged and represented on the SRA. Narro Perez added that he thinks it comes to the discretion of the SRA to decide how to create an academic division.
Moved by Narro Perez, seconded by Morrow that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 5 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of necessary bylaw and Constitutional amendments. In Favour: 16 Opposed: 5 Abstentions: 2 Opposed: Stewart, Govardhanam, Cheung, Yendt, Doucet Abstentions: Helie-Masters, Collins
Campbell declined the Chair. Gooding-Townsend assumed the Chair.
Motion Passes
NEW BUSINESS 1.
Open Seats on Other Committees
Moved by Zuchowski, seconded by Pullen, that the Assembly consider the following motion: “Moved by Zuchowski, seconded by ______, that the Assembly open one (1) MSU seat on the Elections Committee.” Vote to Consider Passes Unanimously Moved by Zuchowski, seconded by Govardhanam, that the Assembly open one (1) MSU seat on the Elections Committee. Passes Unanimously TIME OF NEXT MEETING Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:30 pm Council Chambers, Gilmour Hall 111 CALL OF THE ROLL Present Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Armstrong, Campbell, Cheung, Cicchi, Collins, Daniel, Doucet, Govardhanam, Jamieson, Jeyasingham, Kanani, Khaja, Lobsinger, Long, Milani, Morrow, Narro Perez, Neves, Paul, Pullen, Saeed, Stewart, Wayne-Phillips, Yendt, Zuchowski Bergen, Graham, Wyngaarden Bifano, Bober-Inoue, Granat, Helie-Masters, Mohamed, Palczewski, Ung Sam Colbert (The Silhouette), Mallory Fitz-Ritson (SASS Observer), Talia Kollek (MSU Member), Aissa Boodhoo-Leegsma (The Silhouette), Steven Thompson (CRO), Dave Moore (MSUAA), Joey Coleman (Community Blogger & Journalist), Amy Hutchinson
SRA 12N Page 14 February 3, 2013
Chair ADJOURNMENT
(FAM) J. Bauman (Recording Secretary) Simon Gooding-Townsend
Moved by Govardhanam, seconded by Zuchowski that the meeting adjourn. In Favour: 19 Opposed: 1 Abstentions: 0 Opposed: Zuchowski Motion Passes Adjourned at 4:16 pm /jb
Call to Order at 1:04 p.m. CALL OF THE ROLL Present Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair
Armstrong, Campbell, Cheung, Cicchi, Collins, Daniel, Doucet, Helie-Masters, Jamieson, Jeyasingham, Kanani, Khaja, Milani, Morrow, Narro Perez, Neves, Palczewski, Pullen, Stewart, Wayne-Phillips, Yendt, Zuchowski Bergen, Graham, Wyngaarden Bifano, Bober-Inoue, Govardhanam, Granat, Lobsinger, Long, Mohamed, Ung Paul, Saeed Sam Colbert (The Silhouette), Mallory Fitz-Ritson (SASS Observer), Talia Kollek (MSU Member), Aissa Boodhoo-Leegsma (The Silhouette), Steven Thompson (CRO), Dave Moore (MSUAA), Joey Coleman (Community Blogger & Journalist), Amy Hutchinson (FAM) J. Bauman (Recording Secretary) Simon Gooding-Townsend
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Moved by Campbell, seconded by Cicchi that the agenda be adopted. Passes Unanimously ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR
The Chair congratulated all Presidential candidates for running great campaigns, and announced David Campbell as the MSU President-Elect. The Chair noted that the meeting is attempting to be live streamed, and asked the Assembly to focus on the meeting rather than engaging in the chat forum.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Cicchi, seconded by Jamieson that the Assembly adopt the minutes from 12M as circulated and amended. In Favour: 21 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 1 Abstentions: Campbell Motion Passes DELEGATION FROM THE FLOOR Moved by Milani, seconded by Stewart that the parameters for the Women and Trans* Centre delegation be set at ten (10) minutes for the presentation and ten (10) minutes for questions. Passes Unanimously
1.
Women and Trans* Centre (WTC) Update – Milani and Hutchinson presented
SRA 12N Page 2 February 3, 2013
Milani and Hutchinson summarized the report (attached).
Questions Neves thanked the presenters for the work the ad hoc committee has done. Neves noted the scope of the centre seems to be taking on many different issues, such as sexual assault, advocacy, safe space, and education. Neves asked how it would work if someone wanted to use the centre as a safe space but it is also being used as an advocacy space. Hutchinson responded that there is an operations sub-committee that is looking into these types of issues. Hutchinson used the Queer Students Community Centre (QSCC) as an example, where QSCC will run a promotional campaign while still being a safe space. The QSCC is set up as a resource library where people walk in, but there is a separate room that is used as a safe space. Hutchinson noted many services can provide different things at the same time. Stewart asked how the WTC how they decided what community and McMaster groups would be contacted. Milani reported that the committee drafted a list of groups who they felt should be involved in the project, and meetings have occurred with interested groups who have responded back to the WTC. Doucet asked what the WTC expected to have completed by the end of the semester. Milani stated she is hoping to have an operational structure, what services would be offered, and an idea of where funding could come from established. Location is still something that needs to be investigated further. Jamieson asked what funding models have been considered. Milani noted the funding research is just starting, but some ideas that have been floating around are partnership with SACHA (Sexual Assault Centre Hamilton Area), a student levy, and research grants. Moved by Khaja, seconded by Kanani that the parameters for the HighRise delegation be set at twenty (20) minutes for the presentation and twenty (20) minutes for questions. Passes by General Consent 2.
Highrise – Khaja and Saeed presented
Saeed and Khaja demonstrated how Highrise could be used by the Assembly. Highrise allows users to keep detailed records of correspondence in an easy-to-view format, similar to the news feed on Facebook. Commissioners and caucus leaders would be given accounts. The purpose of Highrise is to increase transition, to ensure project information is carried forward to the follow years.
Questions Doucet asked if the usage would be mandatory, and if someone would be policing Assembly members, telling them they have to be on Highrise and using this resource. Doucet noted that with all of this new technology, there are many different avenues for people to interact. If members are using different media, the MSU will not be getting the investment from Highrise. Khaja stated the usage of Highrise could be written into an operating policy. All SRA members are mandated to write a year plan, but many choose to not complete the task. Khaja noted it is the Assembly’s responsibility to put information out to students in an accessible form. Saeed added that policing SRA members has been a problem in the past couple of years since the House Leader position was removed. Saeed stated he has found it difficult to ask the VP Administration to police the SRA because of the dynamic. Saeed thought that the use of Highrise would be put into the operating policy, and someone would be in charge of policing its use. If it is general SRA members who are using the program, it could fall to the Commissioners to police, or if it were commissioners using the program, the Board would police.
SRA 12N Page 3 February 3, 2013
Neves stated that in theory, it seems like a good idea. Neves stated he could see there being resistance to using the program, because someone would have to sit down and plug in all of the contacts. There is no reason to use it initially if there is nothing there. Neves asked if Saeed and Khaja had thought of allocating hours or putting it into someone’s job description to start this project. Neves noted that when the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) uses Highrise, there are people who go through and make sure all entries are up to date and accurate. Neves asked if that would happen within the MSU as well. Saeed stated that there have been discussions at the Board level about creating a full time researcher position, so managing Highrise could fall into that portfolio. Saeed noted that for the rest of the year, Khaja and the Research Assistant could help in getting the database up and running. Saeed stated that in the end, he would have to sit down with various people to discuss where it would be housed. Saeed noted those conversations have not occurred yet because this is just a preliminary discussion, and those ideas would be fleshed out in the operating policy. Zuchowski asked which plan Saeed would like to purchase. Saeed stated he would like to go with the Premium Plan, which is $99 a month, which would allow the MSU to have up to 40 users, 30GB of storage, and have up to 30,000 unique contacts. Zuchowski asked if instead of spending $1200 a year if Saeed and Khaja had considered asking the website designer to make a module. Khaja stated he spoke with J. Bauman (Administrative Assistant) and P. Taggart (Network Administrator), and they had proposed that idea as well. Khaja noted with the current website, we could install a tab for SRA member only. Khaja stated there is a similar functionality built into the website, and it would be a matter of figuring out what the Assembly would like the module to look like and what its functionality should be. Khaja stated the benefit of using Highrise is that everything is already created, and it is a bit more intuitive to use. Saeed added that the MSU would be asking a company to create something from scratch when another company has already spent a lot of time and money designing the same product. Whenever something is created from scratch, it is not feasible. Saeed stated he would send factor[e] an email to see what the cost would be. Saeed added that depending on the module, it could be quite expensive. Pullen asked if there would be an evaluation process next year where Highrise is looked at to determine if it has been beneficial. Khaja stated it would be up to next year’s Operations Commissioner to look at if it has been successful and if the program should be expanded or cancelled. Daniel observed that Highrise seems to currently be directed towards usage from the Board of Directors and commissioners. Daniels asked what the prospects were for Highrise if members of the MSU wanted to access it, and if there would be any problems with that. Khaja stated that if it were to be expanded to all MSU members, added security measure would have to be added, because the program is open source. Khaja noted he would like the project to start small, and if things work well, he could see MSU members accessing Highrise as a possibility down the road.
REPORT PERIOD 1.
Nursing Caucus – Palczewski presented
2.
Science Caucus – Daniel presented
3.
Palczewski summarized the report.
Daniel summarized the report.
Social Science Caucus – Doucet presented
SRA 12N Page 4 February 3, 2013
Doucet summarized his report.
Questions Stewart asked if Doucet had more information on the MSSS scholarship. Kanani stated it is not a scholarship, but an award for social sciences students who have been actively engaged in the community. Kanani noted applications are due at midnight. 4.
Bylaws & Procedures Committee – Jamieson presented
5.
Services Committee – Milani presented
6.
Milani summarized her report.
Executive Board – Morrow presented
7.
Jamieson summarized his report.
Morrow summarized his report.
President’s Report – Stewart presented
Stewart summarized her report.
Questions Cicchi asked if the Peer Support Line was confidential. Stewart responded that yes, it was confidential. INFORMATION PERIOD
Stewart informed Daniel that regarding her previous question about Highrise, she thinks SRA members could use it to track projects. Some projects come up year after year, so it would be helpful for caucuses to track what previous members have been able to do. Milani reported that the Cybernetic Orchestra will be performing at Art Crawl on Friday, and they will be giving away CDs. Milani added they will also be representing McMaster in Germany at the end of April. Thompson advised the SRA seat allocation memo was distributed on Thursday. Thompson noted there was an error in the enrolment numbers, but the total seats allocated were correct. Cicchi noted he had looked at the seat allocation and thinking about the Highrise presentation, he does not think the Premium choice would be right for the MSU because there is a cap on users. Cicchi stated that if there are 31 seats on the SRA, plus commissioners and the Board, there are not enough users available. Stewart congratulated the Communications Studies and Multimedia students on the murder mystery event. Stewart stated it was a fantastic event. Stewart added that if anyone is running an event and they would like her or a Board member to attend, all they have to do is ask. Daniel advised that Union Market is going to be launching a Facebook page in the next week or two. Khaja noted that not every SRA member would get a personal Highrise account. Members would go into a general account and make changes. Khaja stated there are ways around it so not everyone needs their own account. Helie-Masters stated that the Kinesiology Society is now an MSU club. The Kin Society is having its first MSU club event tonight at the London Tap House, and it is a Superbowl party. Saeed reported he attended a disability activism forum, where most of the talk was about how students do not know where to go when they are having accommodation issues. Saeed stated that the Assembly is
SRA 12N Page 5 February 3, 2013
failing as representatives if so many students are unaware of where they can go. Saeed stated that the Board could help students get access to the Provost, VP Administration, VP Academic, or any of the Deans. Saeed added that if there is ever an issue regarding an education issue that students are having with their professor or supervisor, they are welcome to come to the MSU, as the MSU can provide them with some direction. Saeed asked members to talk to their friends and constituents to see if they are having issues with accommodations, such as inaccessible classrooms. Doucet thanked the SRA members who have been taking the time to promote the MSU’s events, such as the Make A Break campaign. Doucet reminded commissioners that the MSU has the tools, such as an online chat forum, which can assist in soliciting student feedback.
QUESTION PERIOD
Cicchi asked Helie-Masters if there was an admission cost for the Kin event. Helie-Masters advised there is no admission fee, but there are raffles that require a ticket to be purchased. Cicchi asked Helie-Masters if the Kin event was an all-ages event. Helie-Masters noted it was an all-ages event, and a wristband policy is in effect. Armstrong asked Stewart if a student was interested in looking at the green roof conceptual drawings, where should they be directed. Stewart advised that the drawings would be available online as part of the upcoming green roof survey. Khaja asked Doucet if a commissioner were interested in hosting an online chat, how that would work. Doucet stated the online chat is very easy to use. Doucet would be the moderator, and the commissioner would sign in as a panelist. The time, date, topic, and goal of the chat are set up through Doucet as well. Doucet added that the largest peak in usage is around 8pm. Stewart asked Palczewski if she knew the process of implementing changes discussed at the nursing conference into the curriculum. Stewart noted that there are always discussions from other faculties about increasing engagement. Palczewski stated the delegation was open to all students, but there are specific Canadian Nursing Students’ Association (CNSA) representatives. Palczewski stated she was unsure if the recommendation went from the CNSA to the McMaster University Nursing Student Society (MUNSS) President, or if MUNSS went straight to the faulty. Zuchowski asked if there were any updates on the Wentworth House relocation. Campbell noted he spoke with the Muslim Student Association and MACycle, and he will be meeting with both groups next week. Campbell stated he does not have any updates right now, but he will send out an email. Saeed added that he had recently heard that the McMaster Child Care centre would be moving into a new temporary building that will go into the parking lot in front of T28 and T29. Saeed noted he thought the MSA and MACycle would also have space in that building. Moore asked Campbell to confirm the date for Student Recognition Night, as he had heard conflicting dates. Campbell advised Student Recognition Night is scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 2013. Khaja asked if the university is building another temporary building. Stewart stated that no motion has been made, and nothing has been approved, but the rumour is that the university will be building another temporary building.
BUSINESS 1.
Operating Policy 1.9.7 – Diversity Services
Moved by Campbell, seconded by Milani that the Assembly approves changes to OPERATING POLICY 1.9.7 – MSU DIVERSITY SERVICES as circulated.
SRA 12N Page 6 February 3, 2013
Campbell summarized the changes. Campbell highlighted that the goal is to clarify roles and contact points. The Assistant Director will be administrative help and will organize volunteers, while the Director is the face of the service and will attend any required meetings. Milani added that the Services Committee worked on this project. The current co-Directors agreed that there is too much work for one person to do, but that the current structure is too confusing, and there is no clear division of roles. Milani hopes these changes will assist in role clarity. Stewart thanked the Services Committee for the work they put in, and for talking to the current coDirectors and Executive Board for feedback. Stewart noted it is important for the Assembly to be aware of what is happening in our services and to do what is needed to support them.
Vote on Motion Passes Unanimously 2.
Clubs Ratification
Moved by Cicchi, seconded by Neves that the Assembly ratifies the clubs as recommended by the Clubs Administrator as circulated. Passes Unanimously 3.
Aboriginal Students Policy Paper
Moved by Saeed, seconded by Doucet that the Assembly approves the MSU Aboriginal Students Policy Paper.
Saeed explained that this paper is coming forward because according to OUSA and CASA, there are certain underrepresented groups that need to be addressed specifically, and Aboriginal students are one of these groups. Saeed stated his hope is that this if the first in a line of policy papers that will address some of these underrepresented groups. The paper is separated into two themes. The first is funding, where we are asking the provincial government that the Aboriginal bursary program be expanded and that there be more funding for Aboriginal support services. At the federal level it is an issue because Aboriginal students usually fall under the federal government for funding. Saeed explained that the funding for the program has been capped, but there are more people applying and the population has increased. There has been a lot of support from the opposition, but not a lot from the Conservatives. Saeed has spoken with the Indigenous Studies department, and they agreed that the way funding is distributed is strange. For example, a single mother is less likely to receive funding than a single male. Saeed added he tried to avoid discussing how funding is allocated, because he does not think it is the MSU’s position to decide who should or should not receive funding. Saeed stated the second theme of the paper is cultural in nature, as it deals with the feeling of alienation on post-secondary education campuses. Saeed noted there should be some sort of institutional message that we need to be more cognizant of different perspectives, and this fits in with Forward With Integrity. Doucet stated his concern is that the MSU does not think its role is to discuss how funding is allocated, but it does not seem like anyone else wants to touch the problem. Doucet asked that if the MSU is not going to bring up the issue, who would. Doucet stated he would like to see more teeth in this paper, and to see the MSU make a stronger recommendation on the subject, and other subjects like this. Saeed explained he did not include the funding aspect because papers should be based on the climate of the government at the time. Saeed noted that from his lobbying experiences, people start to walk away from the conversation because it goes back to Aboriginal rights. If the MSU were to ask for the funding model to be changed, that would challenge the Aboriginal right to self-governance.
SRA 12N Page 7 February 3, 2013
Vote on Motion Passes Unanimously
Gooding-Townsend declined the Chair. Campbell assumed the Chair.
4.
SRA Seat Reform
a)
Moved by Milani, seconded by Neves that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 2 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of the necessary bylaw amendments.
Milani ceded to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend summarized the circulated memo. Neves stated he circulated an email that addressed how he felt about this motion. Neves took a straw poll of the Assembly to see if there was an appetite to make changes regarding SRA seat allocation, which showed there was very little interest. Neves noted this issue was brought up last year and was spearheaded by a few members, but stated it does not appear that there is the appetite to make change right now. Neves stated he thinks it is a waste of time for the SRA to pass something only a few members believe is a worthwhile venture. Neves disagreed with the proposal, and stated thereare few democracies that are based on pure proportionality. Neves stated that this proposal reduces smaller faculties to oneperson caucuses, which is troubling, and thinks there are better ways of dealing with the issue. Moore suggested that given the straw poll Neves conducted, the next member should move to postpone this motion indefinitely and stop wasting the Ad Hoc Committee’s time.
Moved by Neves, seconded by Doucet that this motion be postponed indefinitely.
Neves explained that this would kill the topic for the current committee, and the issue would not be brought back up to this Assembly. Doucet stated there have been a number of people working on this project for a while. Doucet stated the SRA has been very apathetic regarding issues being brought forward to the SRA. Doucet doubted members even read the documents. Doucet stated that the Assembly needed to step up and take issues more seriously. Pullen asked what happened to the discussion on meritocracy. Neves stated there had been attendance issues, and as a result, it had not yet been discussed. Neves stated that in itself is a bit worrying. Neves stated he does not want to keep rehashing this issue, which is why he is moving to end the discussion. Milani stated she did not think the conversation should end just because a few people would not be happy with the outcome. Milani suggested the Assembly vote down this motion and have the seat allocation conversation. Jamieson noted he made a rough draft regarding meritocracy, but due to the timing of the committee meetings, he has been unable to attend. Khaja ceded to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend noted he reviewed the minutes from SRA 12K and there was no mention of meritocracy. Neves reiterated that this discussion has been going on for two years, and he does not think that having another conversation will spark interest from the Assembly. Neves stated this conversation has already occurred, and there have been very few people show up to the Ad Hoc Committee meetings. The SRA has not had an issue with the current seat allocation methodology. Neves noted that the Assembly is quite cohesive, and the issues brought to the Assembly are not specific to one caucus. Neves asked if anyone on the Assembly could share a real reason why some caucuses should have more or fewer members.
SRA 12N Page 8 February 3, 2013
Milani noted that there are proportionality issues with the current seat allocation methods. Milani stated there should be equity between constituents and with having someone to whom they can speak. Milani stated there has been a lot of work done by the committee, and it is valid for the Assembly to have this discussion. Khaja asked if by postponing this discussion, the meritocracy conversation could still happen. The Chair explained that the motion to postpone indefinitely is specific to this motion, so the meritocracy conversation could still occur. Neves stated he does not think this proposal is equitable. Smaller areas will always have more representation. Neves stated he thinks things are fine how they are. In almost all democratic systems, there are other things tied to proportionality. Wayne-Phillips stated there is no harm in having the seat allocation discussion. Daniel stated the Assembly is starting to comment on the main motion. Daniel speculated that many members have not attended the Ad Hoc Committee meetings due to class and other commitments, and not because of disinterest. Daniel thought the discussion on why the seat allocation system should stay the same or change is a valuable one for the Assembly to have. Daniel stated that even if it means voting the motion down later, at least the Assembly would have had that conversation. Zuchowski stated he spoke to a number of engineering students, and they do not think it is fair that there is over- and under-representation on the Assembly, but they also did not have a solution.
Moved by Wayne-Phillips, seconded by Neves to call to question. In Favour: 19 Opposed: 3 Abstentions: 1 Opposed: Stewart, Saeed, Milani Abstentions: Daniel Motion Passes Moved by Neves, seconded by Doucet that this motion be postponed indefinitely. In Favour: 3 Opposed: 14 Abstentions: 1 Opposed: Helie-Masters, Wayne-Phillips, Milani, Morrow, Daniel, Narro Perez, Khaja, Zuchowski, Jamieson, Yendt, Pullen, Doucet, Paul, Long Abstentions: Armstrong Motion Fails Main Motion
Jamieson stated he would not expect many of the Assembly members to go out and make changes to seat allocation, because that is the job of the Ad Hoc Committee. When changes are brought forward, that is when the Assembly can vote for or against the ideas. Pullen read out the following statement: As an unofficial sometimes-attendee of the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform, I voted against Option 2 for SRA Seat Re-allocation. I am certainly not against re-allocation and I recognize the gross disparities in representation; I have essentially one reason for voting No, and while it may not be enough to override the pros of proceeding with Option 2 I think it is important to call attention to. This reason is the resultant four one-person caucuses, and the associated obstacles. While having the very handy Arts & Science SRA Ex-officio to observe meetings, hold office hours, and discuss with, this person is not an SRA member and is not required to fulfill the obligations of one. As a result, being essentially alone coming into the SRA is incredibly difficult. It absolutely impacted my productivity,
SRA 12N Page 9 February 3, 2013
participation, and general comfort with the SRA and MSU. That is obviously also on me, but not having either an experienced fellow member or even someone to figure things out with definitely negatively affected me as an SRA member. Perhaps with four such caucuses, this would be lessened by encouraging collaboration, but I just wanted to bring this potential issue to the attention of those voting. In addition, while criticizing this option, I cannot think of a better solution apart from more seats, which is really not an option and could cause even more problems, so I apologize for that.
Pullen added that if the issue is representation, she does not think this proposal makes it better for everyone. Neves stated he was happy talking about the issue, and would like to see someone demonstrate why proportional representation is the best democracy. Neves agreed that one-person caucuses are bad for the SRA and it makes it difficult for the affected members to become engaged. Neves thinks the model should be left as it is, or the Assembly needs to come up with ideas on how to make things more equitable. Just having more students and stating that as a reason for more seats is a bad reason. Pullen cedes to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend stated that in terms of looking at the numbers, when the numbers are higher, it means that it is harder for students to find a representative. Moore clarified that option 2 is not a pure proportionality. It is moving closer, but recognizes that each academic division would be granted one seat. Moore explained that currently, there are caucuses on the SRA that have twice as much voting power because of the misrepresentation. Moore asked if any member had a better way of fixing the issue to bring that idea forward, as there has been two years of worth put into the proposal before the Assembly. Doucet stated it is not fair to compare the SRA to provincial or federal representation models. Doucet is not convinced that the seat allocation needs to be changed. Doucet noted that during his time on the Assembly, he has not seen a motion come forward that would dramatically affect one faculty differently than another. Doucet does not think that inequality is evident. Saeed stated there are two sides to this argument. One is that idealistically, students should have a fair and equal representation. Saeed has found that in practice, it does not matter if your social network needs an SRA member to have their voice heard. Whenever the Assembly is making decisions, they are making decisions that benefit the student body as a whole. Saeed stated he did not think that having two extra caucus members when he was on the SRA would have made his caucus more effective. Saeed stated this would make sense if members were talking to every single student in the faculty, but the SRA does not operate like that. Neves noted he is hearing a disagreement between which model is more equitable. Neves stated he feels there are serious disadvantages to reducing some caucuses to one seat. Neves stated the Assembly could agree that one-member caucuses are bad, and that there are more cons than pros with this proposal. Jamieson stated that if members were not currently representing constituents based on caucus, then moving to a numeric based model would not be a bad thing. Jamieson stated he thinks the entire model needs to be revamped, but agrees with option 2 over anything else. Neves disagreed that a caucus of six people should be able to say it is not a problem, when the Assembly has heard from the one-person caucus who has stated it would be a negative thing. Stewart noted people are looking at this from the perspective of begin able to adequately represent their constituents. Stewart urged the Assembly to consider this motion both ideologically, as well as what is being done in practice. Pullen stated her experience would have been much different if she had more caucus members. Jamieson asked what had gone wrong that made Pullen think she would have been better off having another person on her caucus. Jamieson wanted to know why it is so detrimental to be a one-person caucus. Pullen stated getting into the SRA, becoming comfortable enough to speak, and just figuring out what she is able to do would have been easier with at least one other person. Pullen asked what the engineering caucus does and asked how they collaborate. Jamieson responded they work individually.
SRA 12N Page 10 February 3, 2013
Pullen stated that is still six people working on projects for engineering students. There is much less that she can do as one-person for her constituents. Collins urged the Assembly to heed Pullen’s testimony before voting. Collins stated it has been very important for him to rely on Helie-Masters and to work on things together. Collins noted that if people are worried about the Assembly being apathetic, they should consider Pullen’s testimony. Collins stated he thinks the base allocation for seats should be two, to ensure teamwork. Doucet recommended that people stop being elected by faculty and just have 31 people elected at large. Doucet stated members come to the SRA with a unique reason, ideals, and personal drive and it does not matter what faculty is being represented. Doucet stated that maybe the Assembly should reevaluate voting for people by faculty. Doucet thought the conversation was going in circles, and the Assembly should stick with the status quo. Saeed stated that if the engineering caucus are not collaborating with one another, he would say that they are not doing their jobs as representatives properly. Saeed noted that events for constituents require a whole team of people, and that is why Saeed does not think that having a one-person caucus is beneficial. It is easier to ask for help from a fellow caucus member. Zuchowski stated that as the engineering caucus leader, he solicits feedback from other members. Zuchowski stated it is difficult to bring six people into one meeting. Zuchowski noted that the engineering caucus goes to the McMaster Engineering Society (MES) for help, because they are better at communicating with students. Zuchowski noted that engineering students are concerned that they are underrepresented, yet collectively pay more in student fees. Zuchowski stated he would like to see faculties who are being underrepresented pay less in student fees. Zuchowski noted that students are paying the same fees but do not have the same vote at the SRA. Jeyasingham stated that in Health Sciences, there is an emphasis on group work, and the most effective groups consist of 3-4 people. When the group expands to be 6 or 8 people, they become less effective. Jeyasingham does not think that more seats would make a caucus more effective. Jeyasingham stated that dropping from two seats to one is a bigger change than increasing a caucus from six to seven members. Khaja stated that the end benefit of having two extra science members and losing a Health Sciences and Kinesiology representative is not worth it. Long noted there are many good things that can come out of the SRA, and those are at risk if the Assembly chooses to cut caucuses down to one seat. Jamieson thought that a one-person caucus would allow the member to engage more with the faculty society. Jamieson asked why it has taken the Assembly to have this conversation. Jamieson stated the ad hoc committee could have done so much more if this conversation had been had earlier. Jamieson stated the Assembly needed to start talking about the issues. Jamieson stated he would still like the reallocation to pass. Zuchowski stated that he has personally gone to the Board of Directors for support. He does not think that a single person caucus would be alone on the Assembly, as there are members who are willing to collaborate. Neves stated that the issue of people not doing their work was a negative comment. Neves stated some members have put the effort into attending the meetings, and the Assembly needs to trust in the experiences of the people who are raising issues. Fitz-Ritson stated that she attends the SRA meetings to support and help Pullen. If other caucuses are reduced to one person, Fitz-Ritson recommended those faculty societies consider formally creating an exofficio position. Milani noted there seemed to be a consensus that the Assembly does not like this anymore, and the conversation is becoming redundant. Milani stated if these concerns had been brought up sooner, there could have been more work done at the committee level, and a proposal that everyone agreed with could have been created. Milani stated this conversation should end. Khaja noted that it is not guaranteed that there will be a great ex-officio who is willing to come out and support their member every year. Khaja stated that having two people in a caucus guarantees support.
SRA 12N Page 11 February 3, 2013
Stewart stated that this conversation has touched on a number of other issues, such as reaching out to students and caucus collaboration. Stewart noted the Assembly needs to being thinking about how to address these issues.
Moved by Milani, seconded by Neves that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 2 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of the necessary bylaw amendments. In Favour: 0 Opposed: 22 Abstentions: 2 Opposed: Stewart, Saeed, Helie-Masters, Collins, Wayne-Phillips, Morrow, Daniel, Narro Perez, Khaja, Lobsinger, Jamieson, Zuchowski, Cheung, Neves, Jeyasingham, Pullen, Doucet, Armstrong, Paul, Kanani, Long, Cicchi Abstentions: Milani, Govardhanam Motion Fails b) Moved by Narro Perez, seconded by Morrow that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 5 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of necessary bylaw and Constitutional amendments.
Narro Perez stated that something that goes along with this motion is the creation of new academic divisions. There has been a lot of discussion at the Ad Hoc Committee, and he has done his due diligence by bringing other members from iSci to the meeting to discuss why they should have a separate seat. iSci is growing as a program, and Narro Perez would like to see iSci have the chance to have a seat on the Assembly. The MSU is always looking for student involvement, and there are number of people in the iSci program who are interested in having a seat on the SRA. Morrow stated that since the Assembly has made it clear they do not want to reallocate seats, this motion addresses that issue. Morrow stated he does not feel comfortable representing iSci students because their course structure is so academically and culturally different from other science programs. Zuchowski ceded to Gooding-Townsend. Gooding-Townsend summarized the background information provided in the report. Milani stated this is coming forward because currently, if the Assembly wanted to create a new academic division, the seat would come from someone else, and the Assembly has just discussed how they do not want this. This motion would create a new seat if a new academic division were created. Govardhanam cautioned the Assembly against passing this motion, as it is a dangerous path. The Assembly would have to define what constitutes an academic division. Govardhanam reported he could think of 20 different programs in engineering that are very culturally and academically different. Saeed asked if Moore could describe the history of Social Work having a seat on the SRA, why it was taken away, and if it was carved out from the Social Sciences caucus. Moore explained that the School of Social Work had a distinct seat on the Assembly until as recently as 2007. Partly due to disinterest from social work students, the Assembly voted to remove the seat. That seat was then reallocated into the general pool, and all social work students are now able to run as social sciences students. The SRA has the power to decide what the academic divisions may be. Whether it is one of the big faculties or something smaller, every fee-paying member will fall into one of these categories. Jamieson stated this would take a long time to implement, and there are many things to consider. For example, if a new seat is created and then enrollment drops, would that seat remain or not.
SRA 12N Page 12 February 3, 2013
Doucet stated he thinks the definition of an academic division should be left to the university. The SRA should not be having that discussion. If the university decides to recognize iSci as separate from science, the SRA can then have that discussion. Daniel asked what the process would be to create an academic division. Campbell stated there is currently an outline, and it has been intentionally left a bit ambiguous. This motion does not reference how academic divisions are created, just how the seat should be allocated. Moore noted that the SRA should be addressing what should be done when there is a new academic division created and not what the rules should be. Moore stated this discussion is about if and when it happens, how will the Assembly respond to that. Moore noted that the Ad Hoc Committee looked at the model the University Senate has, and it expands to satisfy entirely new creations, not just fracturing a current one. Stewart stated she is happy the Assembly is starting to have conversations that are about root issues. Stewart noted she appreciates the comments from all members. Neves stated he thinks that this is a good idea because the Assembly just finished a conversation regarding the issues of seat reallocation, and this seems like an appropriate alternative. Helie-Masters noted the debate is about where do seats for new academic divisions come from. HelieMasters asked what would happen if each of the programs in science were to ask for a seat. Would the science caucus shrink, or would they retain the current six representatives in addition to any new academic divisions that are created. Campbell noted that it would be dependent on the size of the program that is looking for a seat. Gooding-Townsend explained that it would ultimately be up to the SRA to decide if they wanted to create so many different seats. Another conversation should be whether the members want the SRA increase in size. Zuchowski stated that if the Assembly went with this model, and Comp Sci wanted a seat and they have 800 students, would that also mean they are considered in the count for the distribution of seats where they could get an extra seat. Zuchowski stated he thinks it is weird to add seats, and the Assembly should stick with the current model, as it seems like the most reasonable way to do things. Daniel noted there is a lot of conversation about fragmenting faculties, but this motion is relevant to new faculties as well, as how that would play out. Daniel stated that the creation of new faculties needed to be considered when having this conversation. Khaja reiterated that the Assembly just decided they do not like the idea of reallocating seats. Khaja stated this motion is not about discussing the logistics, but whether or not the Assembly would like to potentially expand the number of seats available. Stewart noted that she sees the issue of an already existing department asking for a seat as a different argument than the university creating a new faculty. Stewart stated the Assembly has not discussed about how they would like seats allocated, if the SRA will model the university or if they will stay with what is currently in place. Stewart felt that if there is a completely new faculty, they should be recognized, but she has a different mentality for departments looking for a seat. Milani stated that with the motion on the table, they are being looked at as the same. Govardhanam stated that if new faculties are created, new seats should be added to the SRA. If a new department is looking for a seat, there is the potential that faculties could be grossly overrepresented. Zuchowski stated if the university were to create a new faculty, the SRA would be given enough time to adequately prepare. Stewart asked if the Assembly was prepared to align their system up with the university. If a new faculty is created, the university will create a new seat on the Senate. If a new program is created, they are housed under someone else. Stewart stated the Assembly needed to decide, but that she would personally be voting against this motion. Stewart stated the Assembly needed to consider if academic divisions line up with the university, or if the SRA creates them based on culture and whatever else they decide. Milani stated the discussion is about whether a seat will be reallocated or added if a new academic division is created. The criteria for how to create an academic division is a separate conversation, and the SRA should be talking about how the numbers are going to fit together.
SRA 12N Page 13 February 3, 2013
Neves noted that part of why this has been brought up is because the university creates new seats for new faculties, but that is only part of it. Neves stated that the Assembly has already decided that academic division should have a unique cultural aspect. Narro Perez stated that this motion would open the avenue for a student group who is hoping to become engaged and represented on the SRA. Narro Perez added that he thinks it comes to the discretion of the SRA to decide how to create an academic division.
Moved by Narro Perez, seconded by Morrow that the Assembly approves the change to SRA seat allocation methodology as per option 5 as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform and to direct the Bylaws & Procedures Committee to develop and serve notice of necessary bylaw and Constitutional amendments. In Favour: 16 Opposed: 5 Abstentions: 2 Opposed: Stewart, Govardhanam, Cheung, Yendt, Doucet Abstentions: Helie-Masters, Collins
Campbell declined the Chair. Gooding-Townsend assumed the Chair.
Motion Passes
NEW BUSINESS 1.
Open Seats on Other Committees
Moved by Zuchowski, seconded by Pullen, that the Assembly consider the following motion: “Moved by Zuchowski, seconded by ______, that the Assembly open one (1) MSU seat on the Elections Committee.” Vote to Consider Passes Unanimously Moved by Zuchowski, seconded by Govardhanam, that the Assembly open one (1) MSU seat on the Elections Committee. Passes Unanimously TIME OF NEXT MEETING Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:30 pm Council Chambers, Gilmour Hall 111 CALL OF THE ROLL Present Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Armstrong, Campbell, Cheung, Cicchi, Collins, Daniel, Doucet, Govardhanam, Jamieson, Jeyasingham, Kanani, Khaja, Lobsinger, Long, Milani, Morrow, Narro Perez, Neves, Paul, Pullen, Saeed, Stewart, Wayne-Phillips, Yendt, Zuchowski Bergen, Graham, Wyngaarden Bifano, Bober-Inoue, Granat, Helie-Masters, Mohamed, Palczewski, Ung Sam Colbert (The Silhouette), Mallory Fitz-Ritson (SASS Observer), Talia Kollek (MSU Member), Aissa Boodhoo-Leegsma (The Silhouette), Steven Thompson (CRO), Dave Moore (MSUAA), Joey Coleman (Community Blogger & Journalist), Amy Hutchinson
SRA 12N Page 14 February 3, 2013
Chair ADJOURNMENT
(FAM) J. Bauman (Recording Secretary) Simon Gooding-Townsend
Moved by Govardhanam, seconded by Zuchowski that the meeting adjourn. In Favour: 19 Opposed: 1 Abstentions: 0 Opposed: Zuchowski Motion Passes Adjourned at 4:16 pm /jb
