Student Representative Assembly Meeting 13O Sunday, February 23
Student Representative Assembly Meeting 13O Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 6:30 pm Council Chambers, GH 111
Called to Order at 6:31 pm CALL OF THE ROLL Present
Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair
Abbas, Brodka, Campbell, Chennabathni, Cicchi, A. D’Angela, D. D’Angela, Dicenzo, D’Mello, Doucet, Gillis, Graham, Guarna, Harper, Hetz, Jeyasingham, Leslie, Long, Mallon, Morrow, Narro Perez, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Paul, Pullen, Sparrow, Tichenkov, Wolwowicz Mackinnon, Rheaume, Traynor, Wilson Loewig Garasia Inemesit Etokudo (Maroons Coordinator), Ryan MacDonald (MSU Member), Kara McGowen (IRC President), Lindsey Craig (MSU Member), Teddy Saull (MSU President-Elect), Miranda Clayton (McMaster Marching Band President), Sukhibir Thind (OPIRG), Jeremy Cochrane (MSU Member), Carly Hunter (OPIRG), Patricia Kousoulas (MSU Member), Lindsey Huff (CRO), Jacob Klugsberg (TAC Coordinator), David Rios (MSU Member), Rachel Fleming Sullivan (MSU Member), Amina Suhrawrdy (OPIRG), Randy Kay (OPIRG), Victoria Tweedie (MSU Member), Mike Gill (MSU Member), SpencerNestico-Semianiw (SASS Observer), Inna Berditchevskaia (FYC), Kristina Udawal (OPIRG), Edward Lovo (OPIRG), Linda Dao (OPIRG), Shelley Porteous (OPIRG), Cecilia Irazuzta (OPIRG), Anna Kulesza (FYC), Alish Sunderji (OPIRG), Alexandra Epp (OPIRG), Kojo Dampty (OPIRG), V. Scott (Recording Secretary) Maria Daniel
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Moved by Pullen, seconded by Sparrow that the Assembly adopt the agenda as amended. Amendment Moved by Sparrow, seconded by Gillis that a 10 minutes Delegation from the Floor be added for OPIRG to present.
Sparrow explained that OPIRG would like to outline their concerns with BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS, which would be helpful for the discussion tonight. A. D’Angela asked if Sparrow could elaborate on why they couldn’t discuss this during the actual motion. Sparrow responded that OPIRG has a brief presentation that they would like to give. Doucet explained that the last time the bylaw was presented all groups came and did a presentation on the work. He stated that any discussion on the motion at hand should be reserved when the motion is being discussed. Sparrow stated that the presentation won’t be long and it would be quicker to present it than having this discussion. The Speaker stated that Delegation from the Floor is to present to the Assembly, but if it’s for debate or opinion for a motion later on the best time to discuss would be during the debate itself. Campbell asked if there was any way during the discussion of the motion could they have the presentation during their turn speaking. The Speaker stated that it was possible. Doucet felt that this was awkward, and felt that it would be in the best interest for OPIRG it would be easier to present when the motion is being discussed. He felt that people could cede their speaking rights to them.
SRA 13O Page 2 February 23, 2014
Vote on Amendment In Favour: 18 Opposed: 7 Abstentions: 4 Opposed: A. D’Angela, Doucet, Graham, Wolwowicz, Paul, Long, Cicchi Abstained: Guarna, Brodka, Mallon, D. D’Angela Motion Passes Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by Pullen that the following motion be considered under Business: “Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by ___ that the Assembly rescind OPERATING POLICY 1.3.2.1 – PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING COMMITTEE (PAC)”
A. D’Angela explained that it didn’t make the deadline for the agenda, but the documentation has been circulated.
Vote on Amendment Passes by General Consent Vote to Adopt Passes by General Consent ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR
The Speaker reminded that all caucuses are to complete and submit their respective Vlogs as per the Vlog schedule. This semester, the Vlogs scheduled to be submitted are as follows: Engineering and Nursing: February 8 Science: March 8
DELEGATION FROM THE FLOOR 1.
OPIRG – Alexandra Epp and Kojo Dampty presented (handout attached)
Epp gave the background on OPIRG at McMaster, which was referenced on the handout. She explained when OPIRG was founded there were accountability measures put forward, as it came to existence through the General Assembly, which is the highest governing body of the MSU. Epp felt that BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS infringed on their autonomy of the organization. They felt that this was unconstitutional and out of order. Dampty stated that they have accountability measures put in place at OPIRG. They have a Board of Directors and have annual General Meetings open to all undergraduate students and the community. Dampty added that they have their audited statements available online for students to look at it, and copies in their office. Dampty circulated the OPIRG budget for more background. Dampty explained that one of the accountability measures in place for students is the opt-out policy, and the other is that they have to be accountable to the University as well. Dampty explained that they do their best to publicize everything in The Silhouette, on campus, and for all faculties. Epp stated that they agree with the accountability issue in the spirit of Bylaw 5, but that they would like to be able to present their budget and audited statements on a voluntary basis. Epp felt that OPIRG shouldn’t be mandated to do so.
REPORT PERIOD 1.
Arts & Science Caucus – Pullen presented
SRA 13O Page 3 February 23, 2014
2.
Pullen summarized the report. Business Caucus – Mallon presented
Mallon summarized the report.
Questions Doucet asked if there was any intention to discuss concerns with DCS with the Faculty Administration. Mallon responded that they haven’t talked about it yet, but they will be discussing it amongst themselves. Mallon stated that one big concern is whether or not the person is still an executive member, and that they shouldn’t be and be held accountable for their actions. 3.
Engineering Caucus – D’Mello Presented
4.
D’Mello summarized the report. Bylaws & Procedures Commissioner – Jeyasingham presented
5.
Jeyasingham summarized the report. Operations Commissioner – Pullen presented
6.
Pullen summarized the report. Services Report – Brodka presented
7.
Brodka summarized the report. Executive Board – Harper presented
8.
Harper summarized the report. Vice-President (Administration) – A. D’Angela presented
A. D’Angela summarized the report.
INFORMATION PERIOD
Narro Perez reported that tomorrow would be the first day in their social media mental health campaign. He explained that this has been in the works for the past couple of months, so please share everything related to the campaign in the next week. Narro Perez added that a detailed email will be sent out, and there will be a table in front of Starbucks from Monday to Thursday. On Friday, they will be hiding elephants around campus and they hope that people will share the elephants when found. Friday will also be the MSU Mental Health Showcase, which will feature 15 MSU services, 15 MSU Clubs, and University organizations. Campbell updated the Assembly on the Engineering Welcome Week Reps. An email was sent out stating that students who were reps in ’12 and ’13 would not be eligible to be part of the teams. Campbell stated that he wasn’t sure how long the suspension will stand, but he will be speaking to the Dean of Students about how the MSU thinks this was the wrong decision. A. D’Angela announced that there will be a contest tomorrow on the MSU and You radio show, giving away two tickets to the Monster Truck show.
SRA 13O Page 4 February 23, 2014
Graham read out the following statement: “Dear members of the assembly, The average expected post-graduation student debt in Ontario is 26,887 dollars. More than one-third of students will graduate with over $20,000 in debt. And students with debt are statistically less likely to own a home, have savings, or investments while paying off their debt. Members of the assembly, postsecondary education is the surest investment that an individual and the government can make into a brighter future for all. The unfortunate reality is that many students must dig themselves into thousands of dollars of debt, which they must pay off for years and years after graduation. Students have had enough. I ask that everyone show support for a campaign that will be run at schools across the country this upcoming week, called Wall of Debt. This campaign will be focused at our federal government, and increasing the eligibility and amounts of needs-based, upfront grants for students through the Canada Student Grants Program. We want to shine a light on the difficulties that are faced by students and families who are financially burdened after graduation. With your help, we will be building a physical wall out of bricks, on which students will share their expected debt. As our walls grow larger, so too does the realness of the problem. The Advocacy Street team will be across campus this week to help build the wall. Students can also contribute online by adding their debt to our virtual wall at wallofdebt.ca and tweeting using the hashtag #WallOfDebt. By coordinating nationwide through CASA, our voices are stronger and more powerful as we take these messages to the federal government. Thank you for your support, and I hope to see action and participation from assembly members this upcoming week.” Doucet reported that the University administration will be looking at selling Halloween costumes this year, and they would like student feedback from members of the SRA on which costumes should be sold. He stated that he hasn’t heard from anyone yet, but if they are interested in this oversight process to please contact him. Sparrow announced that the Labour Studies Student Association will be putting on an event in MDCL on Thursday at 5. They will be discussing minimum wage and having a questions and answers period. Harper reported that he and Jeyasingham had been having a hard time reaching out to other Faculty Societies, as they couldn’t find the information anywhere. The information has now been moved on the MSU website to the info tab. He asked the VPs and Admin to update the information. Palczewski stated that tomorrow will be MUNSS spirit day and all are welcome to attend. It will take place from noon until three and there will be free cupcakes.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mallon asked Doucet when the Costume Committee meetings will be held. He stated that this may be an issue for next year’s Assembly. Doucet responded that it will be formed within the next month, and McMaster is hoping to be ordering costumes in the summer. Pullen asked Doucet if this Committee was for SRA members only, or if could MSU members be a part of it. Doucet responded that MSU members are welcome.
BUSINESS 1.
OPERATING POLICY 2.2 – EMPLOYMENT WAGES
Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by D’Mello that the SRA approve changes to OPERATING POLICY 2.2 – EMPLOYMENT WAGES.
A. D’Angela went over the memo with the Assembly.
Vote on Motion In Favour: 27 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 2
SRA 13O Page 5 February 23, 2014
Abstained: Pullen, Gillis Motion Passes 2.
Welcome Week Levy
Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving a higher allocation of the Welcome Week levy.
Paul went over the memo with the Assembly. He felt that despite their best efforts for advocating for a higher allocation, there was a negative response from university admin on the Welcome Week Committee. Paul stated that bringing this forward to the Assembly will help the MSU keep pushing on the issue. D. D’Angela stated that Faculty Societies have a 33.5% recovery rate for Welcome Week. Having this amount of recovery for a student group is wrong, and he hoped that next year’s Assembly and Board keep pushing on this issue. Sparrow stated that he was approached by a student before today’s meeting and asked for the motion to be amended to include the IRC.
Amendment Moved by Sparrow, seconded by Osazuwa that the motion be amended to read “Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies and the IRC receiving a higher allocation of the Welcome Week levy.”
Sparrow ceded to Kara McGowen. McGowen stated that the idea behind IRC receiving funding is because they currently don’t receive funding from the levy. The original belief was that they would be included in Res Life, but the IRC is autonomous from Res Life. She explained that they pay for Welcome Week activities from their budget that they receive. McGowen stated that in years past they have worked to involve faculties and SOCS so that their events aren’t just for Res students. She added that they would like to expand how much they receive. Campbell asked what the IRC’s Welcome Week budget was. McGowen responded that last year it was around $2,500 at the maximum. She stated it was broken down to be $600 for bed racers repairs, and around $2,200 on equipment rental. Campbell stated that he would like to see the IRC supported in funding, but with Faculty Societies having to pull from their central funding the MSU should be focusing on one thing at a time. He explained that all of their conversations with the University so far have been about Faculty Societies, and with extensive research put into this, as well as the memo being outlined for Faculty Societies only. He felt that they should have more conversations with the IRC before lumping them in with another group. Doucet stated that these are two separate issues. He explained that there are groups other than the IRC who believe they should be receiving money from the WW levy. Doucet stated that the discussions with University administrators have been about Faculty Societies, and added that they were even staying away from MSU discussions. He appreciated the concerns from the IRC, and while they are important issues, this is falling outside of the scope of the motion and memo. Sparrow stated that this was the logic given to him from the IRC, and he felt that this would only strengthen their position on recovering the fees, as there will be more people on the table making the same demands. The fee should be spent on students and not subsidizing University operations. Paul explained that he did have a conversation with the IRC President about this, and while it was productive, he felt that more research could be done so that they can reach a result for the IRC specifically. McGowen stated that they would never ask for student money without serious documented proof. She added that she would still support the Faculty Societies receiving the money even if the IRC wasn’t included.
Vote on Amendment
SRA 13O Page 6 February 23, 2014
In Favour: 1 Opposed: 20 Abstentions: 7 Opposed: Campbell, Doucet, Graham, Hetz, Wolwowicz, Leslie, Garasia, Morrow, Abbas, Narro Perez, Brodka, Chennabathni, D’Mello, Harper, Jeyasingham, D. D’Angela, Paul, Mallon, Long, Gillis Abstained: Guarna, Osazuwa, Tichenkov, Pullen, Palczewski, Dicenzo, Cicchi Motion Fails Discussion on Main Motion Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving a higher allocation of the Welcome Week levy.
Guarna asked where the number came from, and if the Student Success Centre was aware of this. Doucet responded that the SSC had been consulted extensively on this. He explained that the numbers came from the update about Welcome Week finances, this highlighted the issue and it was raised with SSC and the appropriate advisory committees. Doucet stated that they proposed three percent and it still wouldn’t be a lot of recovery for the societies, but it was better than nothing. Paul stated that he would like to see a number close to 50 percent for cost recovery. Brodka asked if the Board could provide information to the Assembly on the rationale of the SSC saying no. Doucet responded that they didn’t receive much rationale. He stated that it was frustrating as they thought they had presented a strong case by showing the loss that Faculty Societies have each year, but the expected levels of programming had the Faculty Societies taking money away from their operating budgets. They were saying that it’s just the way it is and that the Faculty Societies should be coming to the table to come up with ways to save money. Doucet added that since cost recovery is so low, even if the Faculty Societies go out and save money on things they still wouldn’t come close to recovering their costs. Abbas asked about the timeline of discussions. A. D’Angela stated that there is a meeting of the Welcome Week Advisory Committee next week and that she will put this on the agenda, depending on how the vote goes. She explained that the Memorandum stipulates that this would be set for the next year and would have to be reviewed for the next cycle. Sparrow asked why the MSU didn’t pursue that the MSU collects the fee, and not the University. Doucet responded that in terms of the MSU collecting the fee is that all fees are collected by the University and then remitted to the groups. He explained that if all the money was sent to the MSU they would still have to follow the MOU. Doucet added that there are ways to change the fees through governing procedures if they felt that it would need to go through that route. Graham stated that he was in favour of this motion. He explained that in comparison to other schools Welcome Week is very removed from faculties and that these other schools get more time with their faculties. Graham explained that connections are important to moving forward and students value the relationships that come out of Welcome Week. Doucet stated that larger faculties have the bigger challenges because of space for thousands of first year students are more expensive. He added that Faculty Societies are the only ones who have to contribute from operating fees. Doucet stated that if the University value Welcome Week they shouldn’t rely on ancillary from first year students. Morrow spoke in favour of this motion. He did the calculations for a three percent change, and the cost recovery would be around 45% for Faculty Societies, and the SSC would be 93 percent. Morrow added that he would like to see more but this would be a step in the right direction.
Amendment Moved by D. D’Angela, seconded by Paul that the motion be amended to read “Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving an additional five percent allocation of the Welcome Week levy.” Discussion on Amendment
SRA 13O Page 7 February 23, 2014
D. D’Angela stated that while three percent was good, five percent was fair. Osazuwa asked if the five percent would be coming from SSC. D. D’Angela stated that it wouldn’t have to, but that it would be something to be advised from the Welcome Week Advisory Committee, and decided by. Brodka stated that he would be more in favour of a statement of support, not a percentage. He felt that though the statement would be better as they could sit down and negotiate. Harper asked who sits on the Welcome Week Advisory Committee and how do they make the decisions. A. D’Angela responded that there are quite a few committees for Welcome Week and she sits on them all. She explained that the advisory board has Doucet, herself, Al Legault, Jen Kleven, Gina Robinson, Michelle Corbeil, and Kevin Beatty. A. D’Angela stated that the group is meant to provide direction and set targets, but the MOU is signed by the MSU and SSC which consists of the Board of Directors, Sean Van Koughnett, Gina Robinson, and two others. Doucet stated that the SRA taking a firm stance on an amount would be helpful. This would give them direction on what the Assembly is feeling and what undergraduates feel on the issue. This won’t handcuff the MSU on the issue but gives them leverage. Saull agreed with Brodka and felt that putting dollar amounts on the motion is why the MSU would receive resistance. He added that all groups involved in Welcome Week are losing money. He felt that they were moving in the right direction but they need to be careful of their stance. D. D’Angela thought that it would be better for the MSU to come in with a number, and then work with the University Administration.
Moved by Sparrow, seconded by Brodka to Call to Question In Favour: 10 Opposed: 8 Abstentions: 5 Opposed: Doucet, Graham, Garasia, Morrow, Harper, Jeyasingham, Gillis, Cicchi Abstained: Long, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Wolwowicz, Chennabathni Motion Passes Vote on Amendment In Favour: 13 Opposed: 8 Abstentions: 7 Opposed: Brodka, Osazuwa, Harper, Jeyasingham, Palczewski, Pullen, Mallon, Long Abstained: A. D’Angela, Garasia, Morrow, Abbas, Guarna, Sparrow, Narro Perez Motion Passes Vote on Main Motion Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving an additional five percent allocation of the Welcome Week levy. In Favour: 27 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 1 Abstained: Osazuwa Motion Passes Moved by Campbell, seconded by A. D’Angela that the Assembly recess for 10 minutes. Passes by General Consent Recessed at 7:57 pm Called to Order at 8:07 pm CALL OF THE ROLL Present
Abbas, Brodka, Campbell, Chennabathni, Cicchi, A. D’Angela, D. D’Angela, Dicenzo, D’Mello, Doucet, Garasia, Gillis, Graham, Guarna, Harper, Hetz, Jeyasingham, Leslie,
SRA 13O Page 8 February 23, 2014
Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair 3.
Long, Mallon, Morrow, Narro Perez, Osazuwa, Paul, Pullen, Sparrow, Tichenkov, Wolwowicz Mackinnon, Rheaume, Traynor, Wilson Loewig Palczewski Inemesit Etokudo (Maroons Coordinator), Ryan MacDonald (MSU Member), Kara McGowen (IRC President), Lindsey Craig (MSU Member), Teddy Saull (MSU President-Elect), Miranda Clayton (McMaster Marching Band President), Sukhibir Thind (OPIRG), Jeremy Cochrane (MSU Member), Carly Hunter (OPIRG), Patricia Kousoulas (MSU Member), Lindsey Huff (CRO), Jacob Klugsberg (TAC Coordinator), David Rios (MSU Member), Rachel Fleming Sullivan (MSU Member), Amina Suhrawrdy (OPIRG), Randy Kay (OPIRG), Victoria Tweedie (MSU Member), Mike Gill (MSU Member), Spencer Nestico-Semianiw (SASS Observer), Inna Berditchevskaia (FYC), Kristina Udawal (OPIRG), Edward Lovo (OPIRG), Linda Dao (OPIRG), Shelley Porteous (OPIRG), Cecilia Irazuzta (OPIRG), Anna Kulesza (FYC), Alish Sunderji (OPIRG), Alexandra Epp (OPIRG), Kojo Dampty (OPIRG), Elise Milani (MAPS Member), V. Scott (Recording Secretary) Maria Daniel
OPERATING POLICY 1.3.2.1 – PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING COMMITTEE (PAC)
Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by Pullen that the Assembly rescind OPERATING POLICY 1.3.2.1 – PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING COMMITTEE (PAC)
A. D’Angela went over the memo with the Assembly. She explained that they weren’t eliminating the function of PAC; it was just being transitioned to Underground Media and Design.
Vote on Motion Passes by General Consent COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1.
BYLAW 14 – GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Moved by Jeyasingham that the Assembly adopt BYLAW 14 – GENERAL ASSEMBLY as circulated, to take effect on April 1, 2014.
Jeyasingham went over the memo with the Assembly. He pointed out that he made the changes that were asked of him from issues raised at the last meeting.
Vote on Motion Passes Unanimously 2.
BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
Moved by D. D’Angela that the Assembly approve the changes to BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.
D. D’Angela went over the memo with the Assembly. He explained that the process took about five months and the Finance Committee spent around five to six hours of meeting with groups to go over the proposed changes. D’Angela clarified that the Bylaw doesn’t give the VP Finance or the Finance Committee any power over these groups. He explained that these groups work best autonomously. Graham asked if Appendix A would have to be passed.
SRA 13O Page 9 February 23, 2014
D. D’Angela responded that it’s already listed on the website and lists fees. Brodka asked if they could get confirmation that these changes are within their jurisdiction. The Speaker asked Brodka to clarify. Brodka asked if it passes would this be binding to the groups, and within the MSU’s jurisdiction. Doucet responded that this bylaw went through the B&P Committee to be evaluated, and to make sure that it was. The Speaker stated that this was brought forward and found in order. Jeyasingham stated that if this bylaw was in conflict of the General Assembly decision for OPIRG it would have been ruled out of order. Sparrow felt that this bylaw change violated the decision of the GA, and that decision was binding on the SRA. He felt that if this decision passes then it would weaken autonomous organizations. Sparrow stated that section 3.1.3 says that the VP Finance and the Finance Committee would determine if the administration of the fee was appropriate, and if not then the penalty would be to send the fee to referendum. Sparrow asked how they could be able to determine if the fee was spent appropriately or not. He felt that this bylaw could be unconstitutional in regards to other groups, and would open the organization to a legal challenge. Sparrow stated that he would like the Speaker to make a specific ruling on this. The Speaker asked if he meant the referendum question that was circulated as Figure 2. Sparrow responded that the one about being autonomous. The Speaker stated that Figure 2 showed the referendum question that was brought forward in 1995 and that the referendum didn’t meet quorum. The Speaker stated that, on the second page of the document, Figure 3 showed the motion that was brought forward to the General Assembly in 1995, and that this motion was what carried at General Assembly. As per this motion, the bylaw coming forward is not out of order in respect to the GA motion. D. D’Angela wanted to clarify Sparrow’s statement. He stated that if an organization failed to meet the requirement a motion would be submitted for consideration to send to referendum, this doesn’t mean that it will be automatically sent to referendum. Campbell asked OPIRG which issues weren’t reconcilable. Campbell ceded his time to Alexandra Epp. Epp stated that they felt that the SRA doesn’t have jurisdiction to mandate groups to report. She understood that not all groups in the bylaw are equal or the same and felt that the bylaw wasn’t the appropriate policy. Gillis stated that giving presentations doesn’t affect the autonomy of an organization, but mandating them to do so does. He explained that OPIRG was willing to address the Assembly by request and mandating them shouldn’t be necessary. Graham asked OPIRG about the CAF Agreement, and if OPIRG wasn’t a part of it then wouldn’t this mean OPIRG wouldn’t be allowed to bring this question to the students again. Graham ceded his time to Kojo Dampty. Dampty stated that the ancillary fee doesn’t fit, but it doesn’t mean any student can’t submit a petition to the SRA. He stated that he didn’t think that OPIRG not being under the CAF Agreement takes away the right of students to bring this forward. Doucet stated that the CAF agreement was put together because of legislation passed in provincial parliament, that there must be agreements between parties with compulsory fees going to the University. He stated that in the CAF Agreement the principles apply to all student groups, and that the MSU is the body for going to get fees levied for all undergraduate students. Doucet stated that the MSU is the mechanism to get the fees passed, and that’s why every fee on the list went through MSU procedures. He added that if OPIRG felt that this shouldn’t be the case, it’s not the MSU’s fault they should have gone to the University to tell them that they didn’t want to be a part of it. Doucet stated that the bylaw is purely information sharing. It mandates that information be shared between student organizations on campus. Doucet felt that this was a reasonable expectation. With the SRA passing this they are saying that yes, they are a student group with autonomy but they would like hear from them on a yearly basis. Doucet felt that this was a good step in ensuring that all undergraduate elected representatives know where student money is going. It’s about being as open and accountable as they can be. Doucet added that through this process they he had learned a lot more of what the organizations do than he knew from the past.
SRA 13O Page 10 February 23, 2014
Sparrow stated that there is a difference between asking a group to present on an annual basis, and having it mandated that they come and give presentations. He stated that this was demanding them to do so. Sparrow stated that he felt that there was still an issue of legality of this motion and it would create problematic relations with other groups on campus. Paul stated that he was in support of this bylaw and that the discussion has been very OPIRG centered, and wondered if any other groups would like to speak to the bylaw. Paul ceded his time to Miranda Clayton. Clayton stated that the way that the bylaw is written now, the McMaster Marching Band supported it. She explained as a MSU club they are already bound by similar regulations, and the only new requirement would be to have an easily accessible budget online. She stated that they are a MSU group and they take pride in being involved in the University, and that the bylaw should define groups as such. Pulled ceded to Dampty. Dampty stated that the motion at the GA gave specific provisions for the fee. He explained that they aren’t listed as an ancillary fee, but as a misc fee. Students went to GA and established the fee, which is highlighted in the handout. He explained that all the groups are different and do different things on campus for the student body. Dampty felt it was important for the SRA and the Board to reach out to OPIRG to see what they’re doing and when they are coming up with policies and bylaws that affect student groups. Mallon stated that section 3.1.2.1 was added specifically for OPIRG stating that requirements already met would be in place of their financial reporting. Mallon stated that he was confused as to why OPIRG states they are willing to present but don’t want it in writing. He felt that this would make everything transparent and accountable. He added that in the rare case that there was group who misused their funds, the Finance Committee would be the whistleblower and present their findings to the SRA. The SRA would then look at if they need to send them to referendum or not. Gillis stated that this isn’t an issue of going against GA, it’s it an issue of autonomy and going against the constitution. He felt that it was justified that OPIRG did not want to be under the MSU’s thumb. Doucet felt that the discussion was getting circular. He affirmed that expectations were being placed on groups, but it’s up to the SRA to decide on what are reasonable expectations. Doucet felt that these were reasonable expectations and it’s not too large of a burden. Harper ceded to Elise Milani. Milani wanted clarification on a few issues. She stated that she was confused as to why section 3.3 stated that they would have a discussion in Committee of the Whole, was it for the SRA to discuss this openly without order. She asked if they could change section 3.4 in the future. She ceded her remaining time to Doucet. Doucet felt that Committee of the Whole would allow the SRA to discuss the item with no corresponding motion attached. Osazuwa ceded to Epp. Epp stated that there is a lot of argument on autonomy. She quoted the memo from the Finance Commissioner stated that each group has to report. Epp stated that it sounds like infringement on autonomy. She added that she felt that the tone of the Assembly was indicating that they don’t perceive OPIRG as being transparent.
Moved by Paul, seconded by Leslie to Call to Question In Favour: 9 Opposed: 15 Abstentions: 4 Opposed: Campbell, Garasia, Wolwowicz, Guarna, Brodka, Chennabathni, D’Mello, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Pullen, Gillis, Sparrow, Mallon Abstained: Long, D. D’Angela, Morrow, Narro Perez Motion Fails Back to Discussion on Main Motion
Sparrow felt that having this during Delegation from the Floor would have given time for questions. It would have been the most appropriate time to do so. He stated that if these powers already exist then why do they need to have to put it in a bylaw. He urged the Assembly to vote against this and just ask the organizations to present to the SRA.
SRA 13O Page 11 February 23, 2014
D’Mello ceded to David Rios. Rios asked if the responsibility of putting the financial documents online would be on the MSU or the organizations. D. D’Angela stated that the interpretation was that it would be on the organization’s own personal site. D. D’Angela ceded to Dampty. Dampty stated that OPIRG was transparent and they know it’s important for students knowing where their money was going. He explained that if the MSU wanted to know information and partner with OPIRG then they just have to ask. Dampty stressed that they shouldn’t be mandated, it should be voluntary. Guarna ceded to Milani. Milani agreed with the spirit of the bylaw as financial transparency was important. She felt that there have been interesting points from OPIRG though. All groups have stated that they were willing to present when asked, Milani asked why do they have to fully mandate it if they were willing to present. D. D’Angela stated that all groups have been willing, but the bylaw was written to codify it for the SRA. He added that they can only recommend a motion to send a fee to referendum, they can’t force it through. Campbell wanted to emphasize that in a referendum he would always vote for OPIRG. He believed that as the body with approval of student fees the SRA has a fiduciary and moral duty of creating awareness of the fees that students pay. Campbell stated that he was in favour of the bylaw as the group who is in charge of the approval of fees. Wolwowicz ceded to Randy Kay. Kay stated that they would be losing autonomy by coming to the SRA to give a report and an accounting of OPIRG. Kay felt that autonomy would be having students go to OPIRG’s AGM and asking questions and making suggestions. He felt insulted that it was being insinuated that OPIRG aren’t already accountable. Kay stated that they exceed expectations on the reporting front. Kay stated that they already report to the University and are accountable to them. Jeyasingham stated that this forces the SRA to continue asking for reporting annually. Brodka addressed Kay’s comments. He stated that while he appreciated the work and reporting to the University, this bylaw is being changed to create the accountability and self governance with the students. Osazuwa ceded to Milani. Milani asked if they changed the wording under section three and ask the SRA to ask the organizations to come and present, would this be something that they could compromise on. Epp stated that it would be in fine in regards for the SRA presentation, but that the presentation wasn’t the only reason why they were in conflict with the bylaw.
Moved by Leslie, seconded by Mallon to Call to Question In Favour: 21 Opposed: 5 Abstentions: 3 Opposed: Sparrow, Gillis, Dicenzo, Pullen, Palczewski Abstained: A. D’Angela, D’Mello, D. D’Angela Motion Passes Vote on Main Motion Moved by D. D’Angela that the Assembly approve the changes to BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS. In Favour: 25 Opposed: 3 Abstentions: 1 Opposed: Sparrow, Gillis, Dicenzo Abstained: Chennabathni Motion Passes 3.
Support of 88 Forsyth
Moved by Long that the MSU supports the purchase of 88 Forsyth and endorses its use for enhancing student life.
Long went over the memo with the Assembly. He added that this was to tell the University that they are excited and will support them as long as this enhanced student life. Graham stated that he supported this motion, as space on campus is a huge issue.
SRA 13O Page 12 February 23, 2014
Vote on Motion In Favour: 27 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 1 Abstained: Palczewski Motion Passes TIME OF NEXT MEETING March 9, 2014 6:30pm Council Chambers, GH 111 CALL OF THE ROLL Present
Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair
Abbas, Brodka, Campbell, Chennabathni, Cicchi, A. D’Angela, D. D’Angela, Dicenzo, D’Mello, Doucet, Garasia, Gillis, Graham, Guarna, Harper, Hetz, Jeyasingham, Leslie, Long, Mallon, Morrow, Narro Perez, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Paul, Pullen, Sparrow, Tichenkov, Wolwowicz Mackinnon, Rheaume, Traynor Wilson Loewig Inemesit Etokudo (Maroons Coordinator), Ryan MacDonald (MSU Member), Kara McGowen (IRC President), Lindsey Craig (MSU Member), Teddy Saull (MSU President-Elect), Miranda Clayton (McMaster Marching Band President), Jeremy Cochrane (MSU Member), Patricia Kousoulas (MSU Member), Lindsey Huff (CRO), Jacob Klugsberg (TAC Coordinator), David Rios (MSU Member), Rachel Fleming Sullivan (MSU Member), Victoria Tweedie (MSU Member), Mike Gill (MSU Member), Spencer Nestico-Semianiw (SASS Observer), Inna Berditchevskaia (FYC), Anna Kulesza (FYC), Elise Milani (MAPS Member), V. Scott (Recording Secretary) Maria Daniel
ADJOURNMENT Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by Cicchi that the meeting be adjourned. Motion Passes by General Consent Adjourned at 9:43 pm /vs
Called to Order at 6:31 pm CALL OF THE ROLL Present
Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair
Abbas, Brodka, Campbell, Chennabathni, Cicchi, A. D’Angela, D. D’Angela, Dicenzo, D’Mello, Doucet, Gillis, Graham, Guarna, Harper, Hetz, Jeyasingham, Leslie, Long, Mallon, Morrow, Narro Perez, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Paul, Pullen, Sparrow, Tichenkov, Wolwowicz Mackinnon, Rheaume, Traynor, Wilson Loewig Garasia Inemesit Etokudo (Maroons Coordinator), Ryan MacDonald (MSU Member), Kara McGowen (IRC President), Lindsey Craig (MSU Member), Teddy Saull (MSU President-Elect), Miranda Clayton (McMaster Marching Band President), Sukhibir Thind (OPIRG), Jeremy Cochrane (MSU Member), Carly Hunter (OPIRG), Patricia Kousoulas (MSU Member), Lindsey Huff (CRO), Jacob Klugsberg (TAC Coordinator), David Rios (MSU Member), Rachel Fleming Sullivan (MSU Member), Amina Suhrawrdy (OPIRG), Randy Kay (OPIRG), Victoria Tweedie (MSU Member), Mike Gill (MSU Member), SpencerNestico-Semianiw (SASS Observer), Inna Berditchevskaia (FYC), Kristina Udawal (OPIRG), Edward Lovo (OPIRG), Linda Dao (OPIRG), Shelley Porteous (OPIRG), Cecilia Irazuzta (OPIRG), Anna Kulesza (FYC), Alish Sunderji (OPIRG), Alexandra Epp (OPIRG), Kojo Dampty (OPIRG), V. Scott (Recording Secretary) Maria Daniel
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Moved by Pullen, seconded by Sparrow that the Assembly adopt the agenda as amended. Amendment Moved by Sparrow, seconded by Gillis that a 10 minutes Delegation from the Floor be added for OPIRG to present.
Sparrow explained that OPIRG would like to outline their concerns with BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS, which would be helpful for the discussion tonight. A. D’Angela asked if Sparrow could elaborate on why they couldn’t discuss this during the actual motion. Sparrow responded that OPIRG has a brief presentation that they would like to give. Doucet explained that the last time the bylaw was presented all groups came and did a presentation on the work. He stated that any discussion on the motion at hand should be reserved when the motion is being discussed. Sparrow stated that the presentation won’t be long and it would be quicker to present it than having this discussion. The Speaker stated that Delegation from the Floor is to present to the Assembly, but if it’s for debate or opinion for a motion later on the best time to discuss would be during the debate itself. Campbell asked if there was any way during the discussion of the motion could they have the presentation during their turn speaking. The Speaker stated that it was possible. Doucet felt that this was awkward, and felt that it would be in the best interest for OPIRG it would be easier to present when the motion is being discussed. He felt that people could cede their speaking rights to them.
SRA 13O Page 2 February 23, 2014
Vote on Amendment In Favour: 18 Opposed: 7 Abstentions: 4 Opposed: A. D’Angela, Doucet, Graham, Wolwowicz, Paul, Long, Cicchi Abstained: Guarna, Brodka, Mallon, D. D’Angela Motion Passes Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by Pullen that the following motion be considered under Business: “Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by ___ that the Assembly rescind OPERATING POLICY 1.3.2.1 – PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING COMMITTEE (PAC)”
A. D’Angela explained that it didn’t make the deadline for the agenda, but the documentation has been circulated.
Vote on Amendment Passes by General Consent Vote to Adopt Passes by General Consent ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR
The Speaker reminded that all caucuses are to complete and submit their respective Vlogs as per the Vlog schedule. This semester, the Vlogs scheduled to be submitted are as follows: Engineering and Nursing: February 8 Science: March 8
DELEGATION FROM THE FLOOR 1.
OPIRG – Alexandra Epp and Kojo Dampty presented (handout attached)
Epp gave the background on OPIRG at McMaster, which was referenced on the handout. She explained when OPIRG was founded there were accountability measures put forward, as it came to existence through the General Assembly, which is the highest governing body of the MSU. Epp felt that BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS infringed on their autonomy of the organization. They felt that this was unconstitutional and out of order. Dampty stated that they have accountability measures put in place at OPIRG. They have a Board of Directors and have annual General Meetings open to all undergraduate students and the community. Dampty added that they have their audited statements available online for students to look at it, and copies in their office. Dampty circulated the OPIRG budget for more background. Dampty explained that one of the accountability measures in place for students is the opt-out policy, and the other is that they have to be accountable to the University as well. Dampty explained that they do their best to publicize everything in The Silhouette, on campus, and for all faculties. Epp stated that they agree with the accountability issue in the spirit of Bylaw 5, but that they would like to be able to present their budget and audited statements on a voluntary basis. Epp felt that OPIRG shouldn’t be mandated to do so.
REPORT PERIOD 1.
Arts & Science Caucus – Pullen presented
SRA 13O Page 3 February 23, 2014
2.
Pullen summarized the report. Business Caucus – Mallon presented
Mallon summarized the report.
Questions Doucet asked if there was any intention to discuss concerns with DCS with the Faculty Administration. Mallon responded that they haven’t talked about it yet, but they will be discussing it amongst themselves. Mallon stated that one big concern is whether or not the person is still an executive member, and that they shouldn’t be and be held accountable for their actions. 3.
Engineering Caucus – D’Mello Presented
4.
D’Mello summarized the report. Bylaws & Procedures Commissioner – Jeyasingham presented
5.
Jeyasingham summarized the report. Operations Commissioner – Pullen presented
6.
Pullen summarized the report. Services Report – Brodka presented
7.
Brodka summarized the report. Executive Board – Harper presented
8.
Harper summarized the report. Vice-President (Administration) – A. D’Angela presented
A. D’Angela summarized the report.
INFORMATION PERIOD
Narro Perez reported that tomorrow would be the first day in their social media mental health campaign. He explained that this has been in the works for the past couple of months, so please share everything related to the campaign in the next week. Narro Perez added that a detailed email will be sent out, and there will be a table in front of Starbucks from Monday to Thursday. On Friday, they will be hiding elephants around campus and they hope that people will share the elephants when found. Friday will also be the MSU Mental Health Showcase, which will feature 15 MSU services, 15 MSU Clubs, and University organizations. Campbell updated the Assembly on the Engineering Welcome Week Reps. An email was sent out stating that students who were reps in ’12 and ’13 would not be eligible to be part of the teams. Campbell stated that he wasn’t sure how long the suspension will stand, but he will be speaking to the Dean of Students about how the MSU thinks this was the wrong decision. A. D’Angela announced that there will be a contest tomorrow on the MSU and You radio show, giving away two tickets to the Monster Truck show.
SRA 13O Page 4 February 23, 2014
Graham read out the following statement: “Dear members of the assembly, The average expected post-graduation student debt in Ontario is 26,887 dollars. More than one-third of students will graduate with over $20,000 in debt. And students with debt are statistically less likely to own a home, have savings, or investments while paying off their debt. Members of the assembly, postsecondary education is the surest investment that an individual and the government can make into a brighter future for all. The unfortunate reality is that many students must dig themselves into thousands of dollars of debt, which they must pay off for years and years after graduation. Students have had enough. I ask that everyone show support for a campaign that will be run at schools across the country this upcoming week, called Wall of Debt. This campaign will be focused at our federal government, and increasing the eligibility and amounts of needs-based, upfront grants for students through the Canada Student Grants Program. We want to shine a light on the difficulties that are faced by students and families who are financially burdened after graduation. With your help, we will be building a physical wall out of bricks, on which students will share their expected debt. As our walls grow larger, so too does the realness of the problem. The Advocacy Street team will be across campus this week to help build the wall. Students can also contribute online by adding their debt to our virtual wall at wallofdebt.ca and tweeting using the hashtag #WallOfDebt. By coordinating nationwide through CASA, our voices are stronger and more powerful as we take these messages to the federal government. Thank you for your support, and I hope to see action and participation from assembly members this upcoming week.” Doucet reported that the University administration will be looking at selling Halloween costumes this year, and they would like student feedback from members of the SRA on which costumes should be sold. He stated that he hasn’t heard from anyone yet, but if they are interested in this oversight process to please contact him. Sparrow announced that the Labour Studies Student Association will be putting on an event in MDCL on Thursday at 5. They will be discussing minimum wage and having a questions and answers period. Harper reported that he and Jeyasingham had been having a hard time reaching out to other Faculty Societies, as they couldn’t find the information anywhere. The information has now been moved on the MSU website to the info tab. He asked the VPs and Admin to update the information. Palczewski stated that tomorrow will be MUNSS spirit day and all are welcome to attend. It will take place from noon until three and there will be free cupcakes.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mallon asked Doucet when the Costume Committee meetings will be held. He stated that this may be an issue for next year’s Assembly. Doucet responded that it will be formed within the next month, and McMaster is hoping to be ordering costumes in the summer. Pullen asked Doucet if this Committee was for SRA members only, or if could MSU members be a part of it. Doucet responded that MSU members are welcome.
BUSINESS 1.
OPERATING POLICY 2.2 – EMPLOYMENT WAGES
Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by D’Mello that the SRA approve changes to OPERATING POLICY 2.2 – EMPLOYMENT WAGES.
A. D’Angela went over the memo with the Assembly.
Vote on Motion In Favour: 27 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 2
SRA 13O Page 5 February 23, 2014
Abstained: Pullen, Gillis Motion Passes 2.
Welcome Week Levy
Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving a higher allocation of the Welcome Week levy.
Paul went over the memo with the Assembly. He felt that despite their best efforts for advocating for a higher allocation, there was a negative response from university admin on the Welcome Week Committee. Paul stated that bringing this forward to the Assembly will help the MSU keep pushing on the issue. D. D’Angela stated that Faculty Societies have a 33.5% recovery rate for Welcome Week. Having this amount of recovery for a student group is wrong, and he hoped that next year’s Assembly and Board keep pushing on this issue. Sparrow stated that he was approached by a student before today’s meeting and asked for the motion to be amended to include the IRC.
Amendment Moved by Sparrow, seconded by Osazuwa that the motion be amended to read “Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies and the IRC receiving a higher allocation of the Welcome Week levy.”
Sparrow ceded to Kara McGowen. McGowen stated that the idea behind IRC receiving funding is because they currently don’t receive funding from the levy. The original belief was that they would be included in Res Life, but the IRC is autonomous from Res Life. She explained that they pay for Welcome Week activities from their budget that they receive. McGowen stated that in years past they have worked to involve faculties and SOCS so that their events aren’t just for Res students. She added that they would like to expand how much they receive. Campbell asked what the IRC’s Welcome Week budget was. McGowen responded that last year it was around $2,500 at the maximum. She stated it was broken down to be $600 for bed racers repairs, and around $2,200 on equipment rental. Campbell stated that he would like to see the IRC supported in funding, but with Faculty Societies having to pull from their central funding the MSU should be focusing on one thing at a time. He explained that all of their conversations with the University so far have been about Faculty Societies, and with extensive research put into this, as well as the memo being outlined for Faculty Societies only. He felt that they should have more conversations with the IRC before lumping them in with another group. Doucet stated that these are two separate issues. He explained that there are groups other than the IRC who believe they should be receiving money from the WW levy. Doucet stated that the discussions with University administrators have been about Faculty Societies, and added that they were even staying away from MSU discussions. He appreciated the concerns from the IRC, and while they are important issues, this is falling outside of the scope of the motion and memo. Sparrow stated that this was the logic given to him from the IRC, and he felt that this would only strengthen their position on recovering the fees, as there will be more people on the table making the same demands. The fee should be spent on students and not subsidizing University operations. Paul explained that he did have a conversation with the IRC President about this, and while it was productive, he felt that more research could be done so that they can reach a result for the IRC specifically. McGowen stated that they would never ask for student money without serious documented proof. She added that she would still support the Faculty Societies receiving the money even if the IRC wasn’t included.
Vote on Amendment
SRA 13O Page 6 February 23, 2014
In Favour: 1 Opposed: 20 Abstentions: 7 Opposed: Campbell, Doucet, Graham, Hetz, Wolwowicz, Leslie, Garasia, Morrow, Abbas, Narro Perez, Brodka, Chennabathni, D’Mello, Harper, Jeyasingham, D. D’Angela, Paul, Mallon, Long, Gillis Abstained: Guarna, Osazuwa, Tichenkov, Pullen, Palczewski, Dicenzo, Cicchi Motion Fails Discussion on Main Motion Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving a higher allocation of the Welcome Week levy.
Guarna asked where the number came from, and if the Student Success Centre was aware of this. Doucet responded that the SSC had been consulted extensively on this. He explained that the numbers came from the update about Welcome Week finances, this highlighted the issue and it was raised with SSC and the appropriate advisory committees. Doucet stated that they proposed three percent and it still wouldn’t be a lot of recovery for the societies, but it was better than nothing. Paul stated that he would like to see a number close to 50 percent for cost recovery. Brodka asked if the Board could provide information to the Assembly on the rationale of the SSC saying no. Doucet responded that they didn’t receive much rationale. He stated that it was frustrating as they thought they had presented a strong case by showing the loss that Faculty Societies have each year, but the expected levels of programming had the Faculty Societies taking money away from their operating budgets. They were saying that it’s just the way it is and that the Faculty Societies should be coming to the table to come up with ways to save money. Doucet added that since cost recovery is so low, even if the Faculty Societies go out and save money on things they still wouldn’t come close to recovering their costs. Abbas asked about the timeline of discussions. A. D’Angela stated that there is a meeting of the Welcome Week Advisory Committee next week and that she will put this on the agenda, depending on how the vote goes. She explained that the Memorandum stipulates that this would be set for the next year and would have to be reviewed for the next cycle. Sparrow asked why the MSU didn’t pursue that the MSU collects the fee, and not the University. Doucet responded that in terms of the MSU collecting the fee is that all fees are collected by the University and then remitted to the groups. He explained that if all the money was sent to the MSU they would still have to follow the MOU. Doucet added that there are ways to change the fees through governing procedures if they felt that it would need to go through that route. Graham stated that he was in favour of this motion. He explained that in comparison to other schools Welcome Week is very removed from faculties and that these other schools get more time with their faculties. Graham explained that connections are important to moving forward and students value the relationships that come out of Welcome Week. Doucet stated that larger faculties have the bigger challenges because of space for thousands of first year students are more expensive. He added that Faculty Societies are the only ones who have to contribute from operating fees. Doucet stated that if the University value Welcome Week they shouldn’t rely on ancillary from first year students. Morrow spoke in favour of this motion. He did the calculations for a three percent change, and the cost recovery would be around 45% for Faculty Societies, and the SSC would be 93 percent. Morrow added that he would like to see more but this would be a step in the right direction.
Amendment Moved by D. D’Angela, seconded by Paul that the motion be amended to read “Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving an additional five percent allocation of the Welcome Week levy.” Discussion on Amendment
SRA 13O Page 7 February 23, 2014
D. D’Angela stated that while three percent was good, five percent was fair. Osazuwa asked if the five percent would be coming from SSC. D. D’Angela stated that it wouldn’t have to, but that it would be something to be advised from the Welcome Week Advisory Committee, and decided by. Brodka stated that he would be more in favour of a statement of support, not a percentage. He felt that though the statement would be better as they could sit down and negotiate. Harper asked who sits on the Welcome Week Advisory Committee and how do they make the decisions. A. D’Angela responded that there are quite a few committees for Welcome Week and she sits on them all. She explained that the advisory board has Doucet, herself, Al Legault, Jen Kleven, Gina Robinson, Michelle Corbeil, and Kevin Beatty. A. D’Angela stated that the group is meant to provide direction and set targets, but the MOU is signed by the MSU and SSC which consists of the Board of Directors, Sean Van Koughnett, Gina Robinson, and two others. Doucet stated that the SRA taking a firm stance on an amount would be helpful. This would give them direction on what the Assembly is feeling and what undergraduates feel on the issue. This won’t handcuff the MSU on the issue but gives them leverage. Saull agreed with Brodka and felt that putting dollar amounts on the motion is why the MSU would receive resistance. He added that all groups involved in Welcome Week are losing money. He felt that they were moving in the right direction but they need to be careful of their stance. D. D’Angela thought that it would be better for the MSU to come in with a number, and then work with the University Administration.
Moved by Sparrow, seconded by Brodka to Call to Question In Favour: 10 Opposed: 8 Abstentions: 5 Opposed: Doucet, Graham, Garasia, Morrow, Harper, Jeyasingham, Gillis, Cicchi Abstained: Long, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Wolwowicz, Chennabathni Motion Passes Vote on Amendment In Favour: 13 Opposed: 8 Abstentions: 7 Opposed: Brodka, Osazuwa, Harper, Jeyasingham, Palczewski, Pullen, Mallon, Long Abstained: A. D’Angela, Garasia, Morrow, Abbas, Guarna, Sparrow, Narro Perez Motion Passes Vote on Main Motion Moved by Paul, seconded by D. D’Angela that the MSU supports Faculty Societies receiving an additional five percent allocation of the Welcome Week levy. In Favour: 27 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 1 Abstained: Osazuwa Motion Passes Moved by Campbell, seconded by A. D’Angela that the Assembly recess for 10 minutes. Passes by General Consent Recessed at 7:57 pm Called to Order at 8:07 pm CALL OF THE ROLL Present
Abbas, Brodka, Campbell, Chennabathni, Cicchi, A. D’Angela, D. D’Angela, Dicenzo, D’Mello, Doucet, Garasia, Gillis, Graham, Guarna, Harper, Hetz, Jeyasingham, Leslie,
SRA 13O Page 8 February 23, 2014
Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair 3.
Long, Mallon, Morrow, Narro Perez, Osazuwa, Paul, Pullen, Sparrow, Tichenkov, Wolwowicz Mackinnon, Rheaume, Traynor, Wilson Loewig Palczewski Inemesit Etokudo (Maroons Coordinator), Ryan MacDonald (MSU Member), Kara McGowen (IRC President), Lindsey Craig (MSU Member), Teddy Saull (MSU President-Elect), Miranda Clayton (McMaster Marching Band President), Sukhibir Thind (OPIRG), Jeremy Cochrane (MSU Member), Carly Hunter (OPIRG), Patricia Kousoulas (MSU Member), Lindsey Huff (CRO), Jacob Klugsberg (TAC Coordinator), David Rios (MSU Member), Rachel Fleming Sullivan (MSU Member), Amina Suhrawrdy (OPIRG), Randy Kay (OPIRG), Victoria Tweedie (MSU Member), Mike Gill (MSU Member), Spencer Nestico-Semianiw (SASS Observer), Inna Berditchevskaia (FYC), Kristina Udawal (OPIRG), Edward Lovo (OPIRG), Linda Dao (OPIRG), Shelley Porteous (OPIRG), Cecilia Irazuzta (OPIRG), Anna Kulesza (FYC), Alish Sunderji (OPIRG), Alexandra Epp (OPIRG), Kojo Dampty (OPIRG), Elise Milani (MAPS Member), V. Scott (Recording Secretary) Maria Daniel
OPERATING POLICY 1.3.2.1 – PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING COMMITTEE (PAC)
Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by Pullen that the Assembly rescind OPERATING POLICY 1.3.2.1 – PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING COMMITTEE (PAC)
A. D’Angela went over the memo with the Assembly. She explained that they weren’t eliminating the function of PAC; it was just being transitioned to Underground Media and Design.
Vote on Motion Passes by General Consent COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1.
BYLAW 14 – GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Moved by Jeyasingham that the Assembly adopt BYLAW 14 – GENERAL ASSEMBLY as circulated, to take effect on April 1, 2014.
Jeyasingham went over the memo with the Assembly. He pointed out that he made the changes that were asked of him from issues raised at the last meeting.
Vote on Motion Passes Unanimously 2.
BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
Moved by D. D’Angela that the Assembly approve the changes to BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.
D. D’Angela went over the memo with the Assembly. He explained that the process took about five months and the Finance Committee spent around five to six hours of meeting with groups to go over the proposed changes. D’Angela clarified that the Bylaw doesn’t give the VP Finance or the Finance Committee any power over these groups. He explained that these groups work best autonomously. Graham asked if Appendix A would have to be passed.
SRA 13O Page 9 February 23, 2014
D. D’Angela responded that it’s already listed on the website and lists fees. Brodka asked if they could get confirmation that these changes are within their jurisdiction. The Speaker asked Brodka to clarify. Brodka asked if it passes would this be binding to the groups, and within the MSU’s jurisdiction. Doucet responded that this bylaw went through the B&P Committee to be evaluated, and to make sure that it was. The Speaker stated that this was brought forward and found in order. Jeyasingham stated that if this bylaw was in conflict of the General Assembly decision for OPIRG it would have been ruled out of order. Sparrow felt that this bylaw change violated the decision of the GA, and that decision was binding on the SRA. He felt that if this decision passes then it would weaken autonomous organizations. Sparrow stated that section 3.1.3 says that the VP Finance and the Finance Committee would determine if the administration of the fee was appropriate, and if not then the penalty would be to send the fee to referendum. Sparrow asked how they could be able to determine if the fee was spent appropriately or not. He felt that this bylaw could be unconstitutional in regards to other groups, and would open the organization to a legal challenge. Sparrow stated that he would like the Speaker to make a specific ruling on this. The Speaker asked if he meant the referendum question that was circulated as Figure 2. Sparrow responded that the one about being autonomous. The Speaker stated that Figure 2 showed the referendum question that was brought forward in 1995 and that the referendum didn’t meet quorum. The Speaker stated that, on the second page of the document, Figure 3 showed the motion that was brought forward to the General Assembly in 1995, and that this motion was what carried at General Assembly. As per this motion, the bylaw coming forward is not out of order in respect to the GA motion. D. D’Angela wanted to clarify Sparrow’s statement. He stated that if an organization failed to meet the requirement a motion would be submitted for consideration to send to referendum, this doesn’t mean that it will be automatically sent to referendum. Campbell asked OPIRG which issues weren’t reconcilable. Campbell ceded his time to Alexandra Epp. Epp stated that they felt that the SRA doesn’t have jurisdiction to mandate groups to report. She understood that not all groups in the bylaw are equal or the same and felt that the bylaw wasn’t the appropriate policy. Gillis stated that giving presentations doesn’t affect the autonomy of an organization, but mandating them to do so does. He explained that OPIRG was willing to address the Assembly by request and mandating them shouldn’t be necessary. Graham asked OPIRG about the CAF Agreement, and if OPIRG wasn’t a part of it then wouldn’t this mean OPIRG wouldn’t be allowed to bring this question to the students again. Graham ceded his time to Kojo Dampty. Dampty stated that the ancillary fee doesn’t fit, but it doesn’t mean any student can’t submit a petition to the SRA. He stated that he didn’t think that OPIRG not being under the CAF Agreement takes away the right of students to bring this forward. Doucet stated that the CAF agreement was put together because of legislation passed in provincial parliament, that there must be agreements between parties with compulsory fees going to the University. He stated that in the CAF Agreement the principles apply to all student groups, and that the MSU is the body for going to get fees levied for all undergraduate students. Doucet stated that the MSU is the mechanism to get the fees passed, and that’s why every fee on the list went through MSU procedures. He added that if OPIRG felt that this shouldn’t be the case, it’s not the MSU’s fault they should have gone to the University to tell them that they didn’t want to be a part of it. Doucet stated that the bylaw is purely information sharing. It mandates that information be shared between student organizations on campus. Doucet felt that this was a reasonable expectation. With the SRA passing this they are saying that yes, they are a student group with autonomy but they would like hear from them on a yearly basis. Doucet felt that this was a good step in ensuring that all undergraduate elected representatives know where student money is going. It’s about being as open and accountable as they can be. Doucet added that through this process they he had learned a lot more of what the organizations do than he knew from the past.
SRA 13O Page 10 February 23, 2014
Sparrow stated that there is a difference between asking a group to present on an annual basis, and having it mandated that they come and give presentations. He stated that this was demanding them to do so. Sparrow stated that he felt that there was still an issue of legality of this motion and it would create problematic relations with other groups on campus. Paul stated that he was in support of this bylaw and that the discussion has been very OPIRG centered, and wondered if any other groups would like to speak to the bylaw. Paul ceded his time to Miranda Clayton. Clayton stated that the way that the bylaw is written now, the McMaster Marching Band supported it. She explained as a MSU club they are already bound by similar regulations, and the only new requirement would be to have an easily accessible budget online. She stated that they are a MSU group and they take pride in being involved in the University, and that the bylaw should define groups as such. Pulled ceded to Dampty. Dampty stated that the motion at the GA gave specific provisions for the fee. He explained that they aren’t listed as an ancillary fee, but as a misc fee. Students went to GA and established the fee, which is highlighted in the handout. He explained that all the groups are different and do different things on campus for the student body. Dampty felt it was important for the SRA and the Board to reach out to OPIRG to see what they’re doing and when they are coming up with policies and bylaws that affect student groups. Mallon stated that section 3.1.2.1 was added specifically for OPIRG stating that requirements already met would be in place of their financial reporting. Mallon stated that he was confused as to why OPIRG states they are willing to present but don’t want it in writing. He felt that this would make everything transparent and accountable. He added that in the rare case that there was group who misused their funds, the Finance Committee would be the whistleblower and present their findings to the SRA. The SRA would then look at if they need to send them to referendum or not. Gillis stated that this isn’t an issue of going against GA, it’s it an issue of autonomy and going against the constitution. He felt that it was justified that OPIRG did not want to be under the MSU’s thumb. Doucet felt that the discussion was getting circular. He affirmed that expectations were being placed on groups, but it’s up to the SRA to decide on what are reasonable expectations. Doucet felt that these were reasonable expectations and it’s not too large of a burden. Harper ceded to Elise Milani. Milani wanted clarification on a few issues. She stated that she was confused as to why section 3.3 stated that they would have a discussion in Committee of the Whole, was it for the SRA to discuss this openly without order. She asked if they could change section 3.4 in the future. She ceded her remaining time to Doucet. Doucet felt that Committee of the Whole would allow the SRA to discuss the item with no corresponding motion attached. Osazuwa ceded to Epp. Epp stated that there is a lot of argument on autonomy. She quoted the memo from the Finance Commissioner stated that each group has to report. Epp stated that it sounds like infringement on autonomy. She added that she felt that the tone of the Assembly was indicating that they don’t perceive OPIRG as being transparent.
Moved by Paul, seconded by Leslie to Call to Question In Favour: 9 Opposed: 15 Abstentions: 4 Opposed: Campbell, Garasia, Wolwowicz, Guarna, Brodka, Chennabathni, D’Mello, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Pullen, Gillis, Sparrow, Mallon Abstained: Long, D. D’Angela, Morrow, Narro Perez Motion Fails Back to Discussion on Main Motion
Sparrow felt that having this during Delegation from the Floor would have given time for questions. It would have been the most appropriate time to do so. He stated that if these powers already exist then why do they need to have to put it in a bylaw. He urged the Assembly to vote against this and just ask the organizations to present to the SRA.
SRA 13O Page 11 February 23, 2014
D’Mello ceded to David Rios. Rios asked if the responsibility of putting the financial documents online would be on the MSU or the organizations. D. D’Angela stated that the interpretation was that it would be on the organization’s own personal site. D. D’Angela ceded to Dampty. Dampty stated that OPIRG was transparent and they know it’s important for students knowing where their money was going. He explained that if the MSU wanted to know information and partner with OPIRG then they just have to ask. Dampty stressed that they shouldn’t be mandated, it should be voluntary. Guarna ceded to Milani. Milani agreed with the spirit of the bylaw as financial transparency was important. She felt that there have been interesting points from OPIRG though. All groups have stated that they were willing to present when asked, Milani asked why do they have to fully mandate it if they were willing to present. D. D’Angela stated that all groups have been willing, but the bylaw was written to codify it for the SRA. He added that they can only recommend a motion to send a fee to referendum, they can’t force it through. Campbell wanted to emphasize that in a referendum he would always vote for OPIRG. He believed that as the body with approval of student fees the SRA has a fiduciary and moral duty of creating awareness of the fees that students pay. Campbell stated that he was in favour of the bylaw as the group who is in charge of the approval of fees. Wolwowicz ceded to Randy Kay. Kay stated that they would be losing autonomy by coming to the SRA to give a report and an accounting of OPIRG. Kay felt that autonomy would be having students go to OPIRG’s AGM and asking questions and making suggestions. He felt insulted that it was being insinuated that OPIRG aren’t already accountable. Kay stated that they exceed expectations on the reporting front. Kay stated that they already report to the University and are accountable to them. Jeyasingham stated that this forces the SRA to continue asking for reporting annually. Brodka addressed Kay’s comments. He stated that while he appreciated the work and reporting to the University, this bylaw is being changed to create the accountability and self governance with the students. Osazuwa ceded to Milani. Milani asked if they changed the wording under section three and ask the SRA to ask the organizations to come and present, would this be something that they could compromise on. Epp stated that it would be in fine in regards for the SRA presentation, but that the presentation wasn’t the only reason why they were in conflict with the bylaw.
Moved by Leslie, seconded by Mallon to Call to Question In Favour: 21 Opposed: 5 Abstentions: 3 Opposed: Sparrow, Gillis, Dicenzo, Pullen, Palczewski Abstained: A. D’Angela, D’Mello, D. D’Angela Motion Passes Vote on Main Motion Moved by D. D’Angela that the Assembly approve the changes to BYLAW 5 – FINANCIAL AFFAIRS. In Favour: 25 Opposed: 3 Abstentions: 1 Opposed: Sparrow, Gillis, Dicenzo Abstained: Chennabathni Motion Passes 3.
Support of 88 Forsyth
Moved by Long that the MSU supports the purchase of 88 Forsyth and endorses its use for enhancing student life.
Long went over the memo with the Assembly. He added that this was to tell the University that they are excited and will support them as long as this enhanced student life. Graham stated that he supported this motion, as space on campus is a huge issue.
SRA 13O Page 12 February 23, 2014
Vote on Motion In Favour: 27 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 1 Abstained: Palczewski Motion Passes TIME OF NEXT MEETING March 9, 2014 6:30pm Council Chambers, GH 111 CALL OF THE ROLL Present
Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present
Chair
Abbas, Brodka, Campbell, Chennabathni, Cicchi, A. D’Angela, D. D’Angela, Dicenzo, D’Mello, Doucet, Garasia, Gillis, Graham, Guarna, Harper, Hetz, Jeyasingham, Leslie, Long, Mallon, Morrow, Narro Perez, Osazuwa, Palczewski, Paul, Pullen, Sparrow, Tichenkov, Wolwowicz Mackinnon, Rheaume, Traynor Wilson Loewig Inemesit Etokudo (Maroons Coordinator), Ryan MacDonald (MSU Member), Kara McGowen (IRC President), Lindsey Craig (MSU Member), Teddy Saull (MSU President-Elect), Miranda Clayton (McMaster Marching Band President), Jeremy Cochrane (MSU Member), Patricia Kousoulas (MSU Member), Lindsey Huff (CRO), Jacob Klugsberg (TAC Coordinator), David Rios (MSU Member), Rachel Fleming Sullivan (MSU Member), Victoria Tweedie (MSU Member), Mike Gill (MSU Member), Spencer Nestico-Semianiw (SASS Observer), Inna Berditchevskaia (FYC), Anna Kulesza (FYC), Elise Milani (MAPS Member), V. Scott (Recording Secretary) Maria Daniel
ADJOURNMENT Moved by A. D’Angela, seconded by Cicchi that the meeting be adjourned. Motion Passes by General Consent Adjourned at 9:43 pm /vs
