Photo by Kyle West

By: Tanvi Pathak

In March, McMaster Students Union is slated to release its second annual municipal budget submission to Hamilton city council.

According to Shemar Hackett, the MSU associate vice president (Municipal Affairs), the budget submission will prioritize transit, student housing, student employment, bylaws and enforcement and lighting.

After consulting students and reviewing data from The Your City survey, the MSU decided these key areas were ones that stood out as issues that needed immediate attention.

The committee’s decision to focus on these areas is also linked to the rising demand for off-campus housing.

According to Andrew Parashis, a property manager at Spotted Properties, the largest property management in the McMaster community, demand for student housing has soared in recent years.

Parashis notes that with the increase of local and international students attending McMaster, the waiting list for students seeking accommodations through Spotted Properties has tripled in the last year alone.

The municipal budget submission will also focus on accessible employment opportunities.

The union’s education department and municipal affairs committee’s recommendations aim to offer proactive solutions for each issue and improve Hamilton’s attractiveness to students and recent McMaster grads.

One of the committee’s recommendations is for the city of Hamilton to implement a lighting audit across Ward 1.

Hackett emphasized that there are neighborhoods off-campus substantially lacking in visibility. As a result, many students do not feel comfortable walking home late at night after classes.

A lighting audit would reduce these issues in these neighborhoods and identify priority locations for new street lights.

The committee reached out to the Ward 1 councilor Maureen Wilson, who was receptive to the committee’s recommendation and is confident that the proposal will be valuable to McMaster and Ward 1.

Another recommendation calls for city council to move forward with the landlord licensing project discussed in December.

Hackett and Stephanie Bertolo, MSU vice president (Education), articulated their stance on landlord licensing to Ward 8 city councilor Terry Whitehead, who sits on the Rental Housing sub-committee.

Since then, the motion to implement a pilot project was brought to council and endorsed by many councilors.

Prior to the development of the budget submission, the committee consulted city officials.

The committee plans to continue to meet with the city staff and councillors to push for their recommendations and make them a priority for the council.

Thus far, they have met with Terry Cooke, CEO of the Hamilton Community Foundation, to discuss student engagement and retention and the ways in which organizations can support one another in the future.

The municipal affairs committee has also been successful in implementing its Landlord Rating system, a platform developed by the MSU education department.

The landlord licensing project, which the committee has also been lobbying for, got the Hamilton city council rental housing sub committee’s stamp of approval and will be put forth into discussion during the next city council meeting.

“The council has been extremely receptive to all our points about the agreements we put forth,” said Hackett, adding that the MSU budget submission has proven to be a valuable resource for lobbying municipal stakeholders.

Over the next few weeks, the municipal affairs committee will meet with city councilors and community stakeholders to advocate for their budget submission proposals.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Photo from Silhouette Photo Archives

By: Lauren Olsen

Last January, McMaster University’s president Patrick Deane took a stand and banned all forms of smoking on school grounds, making McMaster Ontario's first 100 per cent tobacco and smoke free campus. This included banning the on-campus use of cigarettes, cigars, hookah, pot and most importantly, the ever-popular vape pens.

The ban on campus was a welcome sight for those opposed to tobacco, however, the ineffectiveness of enforcing this policy rendered the ban as a bland suggestion rather than a legitimate rule.

You can witness this phenomenon simply by walking around campus. You won’t make it far before encountering students vaping in direct violation of the McMaster ‘ban’, with their discretion being non-existent. Students can be found vaping in classrooms, lecture halls, residences and around campus.

Recently, there was an opening of the 180 Smoke Vape Shop in Westdale which will only further support and make accessible the habits of smokers. The store offers everything including e-cigarettes, vape juice, pens and portable vaporizers, and is located just a short walk from McMaster University.  

They are attracting not only smokers who may be trying to quit, but others who lack the proper information about the hazards associated with vaping, and may only be concerned with becoming part of the current trend. They are promoting this product as a commercialized, socially-acceptable activity rather than a helpful addiction quitting strategy for tobacco smokers.

For McMaster students, it’s just a short stroll to a readily-available addiction which is now a booming industry. According to BBC News, the number of vapers has increased rapidly from about seven million in 2011 to 35 million in 2016. The global vaping products market is now estimated to be worth up to $22.6 billion USD.

The rapid growth of the industry is not a victimless development. New products need new users and stores like 180 Smoke Vape Shop will likely be getting their customer base from McMaster.  

Other than perpetuating the ‘look’ and fueling the industry, students are playing with fire and risking addiction. Although e-cigarettes do not contain any tar, carbon monoxide or other chemicals found in tobacco smoke, they still mimic the familiar action of a smoker and can be addictive. What used to be a method to quit is now becoming a method to start, and making smoking acceptable again.

The smoking population who are slowly cutting back their nicotine addiction to quit smoking have made way for the young adults who are peer-pressured by the new “cool” thing to do and, in turn, are becoming dependent on the addictive drug.

Harvard Health Publishing describes the side effects of vaping to include the potential of diabetes, loss of impulse control, impairment of brain development and elevated heart rate and blood pressure. Thus, the antidote is quickly becoming the poison.

I am not advocating that McMaster shutdown 180 Smoke Vape Shop, or campaign to influence public policy. Rather, the university should enforce the very rule they promised in early 2018, in order to make McMaster a safer environment and community.

Creating a ban was a novel idea, but not following is more than just lazy enforcement — it is potentially dangerous to student health.

More and more youth will be exposed and persuaded to try vaping, which easily perpetuates an addiction whose lasting health implications are still being determined. Moreover, the campus itself is not an inviting space with smoke billowing from its hallways and paths. It’s time to inhale the future and start enforcing the smoking ban on campus.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Photos C/O Housing & Conference Services

Graphic by Sukaina Imam

 

In recent years, questions of bylaw enforcement have been at the forefront of the McMaster Students Union presidential elections. While most students may not concern themselves with the details of election rules, past years’ rulings show us that while infractions may seem minor, enough violations may cast the integrity of the election into question.

A look back at last year

In the 2018 election, the elections committee voted to disqualify two candidates, Rabeena Obaidullah and MSU president Ikram Farah.

According to the Jan. 25 elections committee meeting minutes, Obaidullah’s disqualification resulted from an accumulation of bylaw infractions, including campaigning in closed Facebook groups, using the McMaster logo in promotional material and misrepresenting expenses.

At the first elections committee meeting, Farah received fines for rule violations but was not disqualified. However, after another candidate brought forward additional complaints against her, the elections committee reconvened and voted to disqualify Farah due to the repeated nature of rule violations.

Both candidates made appeals to overturn their disqualifications. The MSU electoral appeal board determined that the violations did not harm the integrity of the election and therefore reinstated both candidates, allowing Farah to win the election.

Who counts as a campaign team member?

A candidate’s campaign team consists of MSU members that actively campaign on their behalf.

Campaign team members must be MSU members, which means that part time students, graduate students, potential students, and community members are not able to publicly voice support for presidential candidates.

According to the MSU elections department, rules regarding campaign team members exist to monitor campaign activity so that individuals and groups cannot use their monetary resources or positions of power to unduly influence the results of the election.

Responsibility for team members

The presidential election rules state that a candidate is responsible for the actions of their campaign team members, and can be fined, and in some cases disqualified, for actions taken by their team members.

A consistent question that has come up throughout elections committee meetings and appeals processes was whether it is the responsibility of the candidate or the elections department to ensure that both team members and the larger student population are abiding by the campaign rules.

According to the presidential election regulations, it is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that their campaign team plays by the rules. In practice, however, this can be complicated.

Given that the elections committee can retroactively add people from outside the campaign team if they appeared to be publicly supporting the candidate, it is not always enough for the candidate to educate their campaign team about the election rules.

In the appeals process, a candidate petitioned against the fines that they had received, stating that it was unfair to be held responsible for violations outside of their control.

At the March 11 Student Representative Assembly meeting in 2018, former vice president (Administration) Shaarujaa Nadarajah stated that there could be more formalized rules to address how to respond when candidates rectify issues, especially when violations are committed by non campaign team members.

Additionally, the rulings of the elections committee regarding campaigning of non team members have differed year to year.

In 2016, a non-team member used the MSU logo to post on behalf of Mike Gill, one of the presidential candidates. The use of the MSU logo in campaign material is prohibited, as is campaign material released by a non team member. Since Gill took the steps to have the post taken down, the charges were dismissed.

However in 2018, individuals who were not on Farah’s campaign team posted endorsements on Snapchat and Instagram stories, both of which were not permitted for promotion. In contrast to the 2016 decision, the individuals were retroactively added to the campaign team and the candidate was subsequently fined.

The restriction of involvement of individuals from outside the campaign team was criticized during the appeals process during the 2018 election. A candidate expressed that public support from people from outside the campaign team meant that students who had never before been involved in elections were getting engaged.

The rules for this upcoming election seem to provide more leeway for involvement of non campaign members through the introduction of “campaign supporters” who show support for a candidate but do not belong to a campaign team.

However, campaign supporters still have to be MSU members. Additionally, the elections committee can determine that a campaign supporter is in fact a campaign representative.

A candidate is also subject to receiving a fine for a serious violation if their campaign supporter engages in harassment. Given these restrictions, it remains to be seen whether the addition of the “campaign supporter” category will increase opportunities for involvement in elections.

Grounds for Disqualification

Since 2016, the elections committee has voted to disqualify three different presidential candidates for violating the election rules. One disqualification occurred in 2016 and two occurred in 2018.

Violations ranged from campaigning in Facebook groups, to bad taste violations to misrepresentations of expenses.

The electoral appeal board voted to overturn all three disqualifications because the integrity of the election had not been sufficiently affected, thus reinstating the candidates.

The original decisions to disqualify candidates resulted from the accumulation of standard and severe violations that were deemed to violate the integrity of the election.

The integrity of an election is difficult to quantify, and has therefore been left up to the interpretation of the election committee. Since the elections committee is made up of SRA members, there is a high rate of turnover, meaning that the interpretation of rules can vary significantly from year to year.

This year, a new clause has been added to the election rules that removes some ambiguity from the disqualification process. Section 7.12.1. outlines conditions under which a candidate will be automatically disqualified.

These violations include deliberately sabotaging another candidate’s campaign, accumulating fines over half the spending limit, or accumulating five severe or 15 standard violations.

Had this rule been in place last year, two candidates had enough violations that they would have been automatically disqualified.  

While the 2019 bylaws clear up some of the uncertainty that existed last year regarding what constituted cause for disqualification, larger issues surrounding the rules and the appeals process remain.

During the March 7 electoral appeal board meeting Farah criticized the validity and justice of the appeals process. She stated that she had not been given the opportunity to respond to appeals made against her. Additionally, she criticized the appeals process for being non transparent and for demonstrating conflicts of interest.

Additionally, during the 2018 appeals process, multiple candidates expressed concern that candidates could use the complaints process as a tactic to get their competition disqualified. Given that the 2019 rules provide grounds for automatic disqualification, this may remain a problem.

The presidential election bylaws are meant to ensure an equal playing field for all candidates, while also ensuring that rules are not so restrictive that they discourage participation. In the upcoming election, both candidates and the elections department will be held to a high level of scrutiny to ensure that rules are being publicized, interpreted, and enforced fairly.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2022 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.
magnifiercrossmenu