View our livestream of today's SRA meeting here. The meeting began at noon and is expected to run late into the evening.
Read up on the agenda and the order of special events (including Speaker and MSU Vice President elections) here.
Accessibility is clearly not a priority when it comes to issues that exist on campus. At least, that’s the impression I left with after the General Assembly had adjourned.
The majority of the General Assembly was spent arguing over which motions deserved to be debated first. Specifically, both the BDS motion supporters, as well as the Anti-BDS motion supporters in room were adamant on having their motions debated first, as they opposed each other.
Personally, I submitted four motions to the General Assembly that called for: better accessibility at the Athletic and Recreation Centre, prioritizing ramp clearing during the winter, having a new ramp installed in front of the Burke Science Building, and having a survey administered to Student Accessibility Services users, focused on accessibility issues that are not directly related to academics (i.e. Welcome Week, and barriers of entry into campus buildings).
Wanting to get through to all of the items on the agenda, I suggested that the motions be discussed in the order they were received by the speaker, so that we could get to each motion fairly without further discussion about logistics. This would place the BDS motion first on the agenda, the accessibility motions second, the motion about Kosher and Halal food at Bridges third, and the Anti BDS motion last.
The majority of the room agreed with this amendment, and this is where things started to take a turn for the worst. Those who were against having the BDS motion discussed first, made another amendment, this time using my accessibility motions in order to politically manipulate the situation. A massive amount of people started to argue that my accessibility motions were more important than the other student issues on the agenda, using these statements to solely aid the argument that the BDS motions should be discussed after the Anti BDS motion, as long as the accessibility motions were discussed first.
Though I agreed that accessibility should be made a priority, I felt used. I was disappointed and disagreed with the concept of using accessibility issues at McMaster University as a way to get one political issue spoken about before the other at the Assembly. On top of that, those using my motions in their argument undermined and ignored the fact that I already voiced, twice, that I wanted the motions to be discussed in the order they were received by the speaker.
When this amendment failed, a significant amount of people on the Anti BDS side refuted this, making yet another amendment. This time, the majority of people who originally claimed they wanted accessibility to be priority, scratched this argument. They demanded that both the political motions be completely taken off the agenda. When this amendment also failed to pass, they left the room. This back-and-forth wasted so much time that no other issues on the agenda was discussed. I felt like my accessibility motions weren’t taken seriously by the people feigning so much support for them. The walk out killed time, disrupted quorum, and showed little respect for the other motions on the agenda.
I was not expecting the lack of accessibility on campus to be used at the General Assembly solely to cause advantages or disadvantages to other motions. I was not expecting to be denied speaking time because of agenda ordering. As an incoming Social Science SRA representative, I do plan to bring these accessibility issues up at future Student Representative Assembly meetings, but the fact that a lot of students at the General Assembly either placed these issues on the back burner, or used them to achieve their own political goals, has caused me to question whether accessibility on campus really is important to students at McMaster University.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
This year’s MSU General Assembly proved the venue can be both effective and inefficient in providing a democratic forum for the student membership to “show up and speak out.”
Attendance at the Assembly peaked at 630, three members from quorum. Compared to last year’s peak attendance of 60 students and to a string of non-quorate assemblies from 1996 to 2011, this year’s turnout was impressive.
But even though seven motions were on the original agenda, none were voted on until the two-hour Assembly was slotted to end due to time restrictions for Burridge Gym. The gym is the only room on campus that can accommodate more than 600 students.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
None of the motions were debated in a substantive way despite an engaged-and politically divided-student audience. Amendments to the agenda were discussed for more than an hour, with numerous motions to call the Assembly to question (where members vote on whether to vote).
At the beginning of the meeting, Salah Abdelrahman, who submitted the McMaster BDS motion, moved to have his placed ahead of the broader motion on the ‘MSU stance on international crises’. The former was approved before the latter, prompting some to feel the agenda should be re-ordered.
“Many of us are here to discuss the McMaster BDS motion. Let’s discuss this motion and proceed,” Abdelrahman said.
“I think the motions on the agenda should be ordered in the order they were submitted,” said Sarah Jama, who had submitted four motions on improved accessibility. “I put a lot of work into my motions and they were moved down, so I agree with him.”
A motion was then brought forward, though not by Jama, to have the motions regarding accessibility moved up.
“The two top motions are not student issues. We should focus on things that directly affect students,” one student argued.
After more discussion, Sarah Silverberg, who submitted the motion that the MSU not take a stance on international crises, moved to strike both hers and the McMaster BDS motion off the agenda.
“There are other forums and maybe the GA is not the assembly to be discussing such motions. I think it’s important for us to take a lot of time to think about these motions and having an on-the-spot vote at the GA is not the appropriate forum to be able to do that,” Silverberg said, adding that committees could be set up to discuss BDS and Israeli-Palestinian conflict over a longer period of time.
At around 6:30 p.m., just before the Assembly voted to adopt the agenda and attendance was announced to be 621, many students against BDS got up to leave the gym, ensuring that quorum would not be reached.
“The problem is that many students feel uncomfortable and should have the right to leave and not be counted in the vote,” said an anti-BDS student after a call to question was announced and the chair ordered the doors to be sealed for voting. The tension in the room was most palpable at that point.
By 6:40 p.m., the number of voting members in the gym was reduced to 520. About 20 minutes were spent on condensed reports from MSU president David Campbell and Engineering Without Borders President Kathryn Chan.
The motion for the MSU to endorse BDS against Israel and commit to ethical purchasing policies was up for discussion 10 minutes before adjournment was scheduled. It was passed by a simple majority (360 in favour, 23 opposed and 135 abstentions) and is not binding on the MSU because quorum was not reached.
However, the Student Representative Assembly will consider the McMaster BDS motion and any motions brought to the SRA that were not discussed at the General Assembly.
A policy has also recently been passed by the SRA to strike a committee to discuss how the General Assembly should be run and promoted. The policy will be enacted in 2014-15.
The full video of the General Assembly is available here.
View the 2014 MSU General Assembly here.
View the agenda and more information here.
For context and a little bit of what to expect, read the Sil's GA primer, here.
Despite underwhelming promotion for this year’s MSU General Assembly, there are seven motions on the agenda for Wednesday's two-hour meeting in Burridge Gym. The General Assembly, held once a year in March, is the only venue for MSU members to submit motions whose votes are binding on the MSU if quorum is reached. It’s a way for full-time undergraduate students to directly affect change in the union they pay fees every year to be part of.
Quorum this year is 633, and the MSU would be hard-pressed to get that many students to fill Burridge Gym if reliant solely on a dismal promotional effort leading up to the Assembly. But the first two motions on the agenda--the first arguing the MSU should “refrain from taking political and polarizing stances on international crises, conflicts and concerns” and the second requesting that students vote yes to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel--are likely to draw students to the event. Whether or not the polarizing debate will be enough to make quorum--and sustain it for two hours--is up in the air.
Motions on the agenda
Incoming SRA Social Science Sarah Jama introduced four motions on the agenda having to do with improved accessibility of the Pulse, priority clearing of ramps on campus, a proposed MSU survey to assess the Student Accessibility Service, and a proposed ramp in front of BSB.
The first motion listed on the agenda resolves that the MSU not take any stance on international crises, crises and conflicts “so as to remain a credible and representative voice of the entire student body.”
The McMaster BDS motion resolves that the MSU should endorse the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions global movement and “commit to identifying and divesting from companies that support or profit from Israeli war crimes, occupation and oppression of Palestinians….” The BDS motion stands in opposition to the first motion.
The final motion on the agenda resolves that the MSU advocate and work with Hospitality Services for Bridges Cafe to offer Halal and Kosher food and adhere to other “major religious dietary laws.”
Contention around BDS at recent SRA meeting
At Sunday’s SRA meeting (full video available here), the contention surrounding the first two General Assembly motions set the tone for the four-hour meeting.
SRA Social Science Ryan Sparrow, an outspoken advocate of BDS, voiced concern about the order of the motions, saying the pro-BDS motion should be listed first because it was submitted first. A tense back-and-forth ensued, where MSU speaker Maria Daniel was asked numerous times to provide the order in which the motions were submitted. (The McMaster BDS motion was approved on March 11 and the other was approved on March 19.)
“The role of the speaker is to be neutral and impartial. The order of the agenda doesn’t seem to reflect that in that this motion was publicized to students prior to there being the second motion. ... I think the order of the agenda is a bit politicized in this regard,” Sparrow said.
Daniel said she felt it made sense to have the motions going from overarching to more specific, and said there was no rule that stated the motions had to be in order of submission date. She ruled that the order would stay the same unless participants in the General Assembly were to vote otherwise.
A separate motion was tabled at the beginning of the meeting by SRA Science Anser Abbas, requesting that MSU board of directors refrain from using their credentials to endorse a position on General Assembly motions before the event.
MSU VP Finance Jeffrey Doucet was singled out in the SRA’s discussion for endorsing the ‘Vote No to BDS’ position publicly as VP Finance. At one point, an observer at the SRA meeting demanded that Doucet “retract his statements” with his credentials attached.
Doucet defended his decision by saying he was “obligated” and had the right to share with students his position on an issue that would affect the MSU’s finances, though that was debated extensively by the SRA over the next hour.
Ultimately, the motion requesting MSU board of directors to refrain from using their credentials to endorse General Assembly motions failed.
Meeting Quorum
Getting more than 600 students to fill a gym to discuss motions they may or may not have read has been a challenge for the MSU historically.
The last time quorum was reached for the General Assembly was in 2012, when former MSU president Matthew Dillon-Leitch launched a spirited and in-your-face promotional campaign marketed as the ‘601’. But after quorum was reached and the first motion on the Welcome Week fee, initiated by Dillon-Leitch, was passed, students began to file out. The Assembly lost quorum and votes on subsequent motions were not binding on the MSU.
Before 2012, the quorum had not been reached since 1995.
Last year, attendance at the General Assembly peaked at 60 students, and most of those who voted were either MSU executives, SRA members or Silhouette staff covering the event. There was a sole motion on the agenda asking the MSU to advocate for the university’s divestment from fossil fuel companies, which was passed by a 14-7-7 vote but was not binding. The MSU currently does not advocate for institutional divestment from fossil fuel companies.
Last year’s low attendance sparked a debate about the way the MSU promotes the General Assembly, but this year’s promotional efforts have not been appreciably different.
In an e-mail, MSU speaker Daniel wrote: “In terms of promotional efforts, I, along with David Campbell, have worked with a number of staff and outlets to facilitate the promotion of GA. We've followed a comprehensive model used by MSU Services for event promotions, which includes large format printing, posters across campus, digital displays on screens across campus, rave cards, promo team distribution, social media strategies, and a web presence. Also, there has been a strong effort within the student body to promote GA.”
As of Tuesday afternoon, about 252 people were listed as ‘going’ to an MSU General Assembly event on Facebook.
This year’s General Assembly will take place from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 26 at Burridge Gym. Eligible voters will need to validate their full-time status with their student ID cards. MSU members will be seated in front of the bleachers to ensure accurate counting of votes. The agenda for the event is available in full here.
The results of the 2014 SRA general election were released on March 13 after two days of online polling. With the results, the Elections Department also revealed they had miscalculated the number of seats in Nursing and Science: Nursing should have two seats instead of one, and Science should have six seats instead of seven.
According to a memo from the Elections Department, the mistake was "admittedly the result of human error."
The error was brought to the Elections Committee, who voted to hold another election for a second Nursing representative. Despite the mix-up, the committee determined that a separate election will not be held for Science representatives. The top six candidates for SRA Science will be part of the Assembly, while the seventh, Mike Cheung, will not. Cheung was separated by four votes from Patricia Kousoulas, the sixth-place Science representative elected.
Before polling took place, a number of seats had already been acclaimed. The maximum number of seats for Kinesiology (2), Engineering (6) and Arts & Science (1) were acclaimed, and one seat of two for Nursing was acclaimed.
The results of the election are as listed below (elected representatives bolded). Candidates have five business days to make appeals before the results are made official.
SRA Business Representatives
Nolan Harrison (152 votes, 34.5%)
Tambakis, John (92 votes, 20.9%)
Mohamed, Sarah (86 votes, 19.5%)
Cheng, David (82 votes, 18.6%)
Laniado, Ari (28 votes, 6.4%)
Total votes: 262
Abstain: 32 (12.2%)
SRA Health Science Representatives
Mordhorst, Alexa 179 (44.1%)
Chivukula, Pardh 155 (38.2%)
Berditchevskaia, Inna 72 (17.7%)
Total votes: 235
Abstain: 12 (5.1%)
SRA Humanities Representatives
Soubas, Jessica 182 (21.4%)
King, Sara 127 (14.9%)
Lehwald, Katie 123 (14.5%)
Oliveros, Daymon 123 (14.5%)
Filice, Simon 122 (14.3%)
Towers, Matthew 110 (12.9%)
McGowen, Kara 64 (7.5%)
Total votes: 349
Abstain: 33 (9.5%)
SRA Social Science Representatives
Paul, Tristan 218 (16.9%)
Craig, Lindsay 192 (14.9%)
D'Angela, Daniel 187 (14.5%)
Gillis, Eric 163 (12.6%)
Jama, Sarah 156 (12.1%)
Thamphirasan, Nilen 133 (10.3%)
Ibe, Gerald 109 (8.4%)
Jamieson-Eckel, Esmonde 71 (5.5%)
Galindo, Cam 63 (4.9%)
Total votes: 485
Abstain: 29 (6.0%)
SRA Science Representatives
Brodka, Jacob 547 (15.5%)
Tweedie, Victoria 413 (11.7%)
Gill, Mike 393 (11.1%)
Mazza, Mirella 361 (10.2%)
Guarna, Giuliana 315 (8.9%)
Kousoulas, Patricia 294 (8.3%)
Cheung, Mike 290 (8.2%)
Abbas, Anser 284 (8.0%)
Hutchinson, Marty 254 (7.2%)
Clayton, Miranda 187 (5.3%)
Le, Paul 112 (3.2%)
Baiden, Gilbert 89 (2.5%)
Total votes: 836
Abstain: 18 (2.2%)
Arts and Science
* Acclaimed: Spencer Nestico-Semianiw
Engineering
* Acclaimed: Vikas Chennabathni
* Acclaimed: Ethan D’Mello
* Acclaimed: Alex Dufault
* Acclaimed: Jay Modi
* Acclaimed: Shen Seevaratram
*Acclaimed: Ehima Osazuwa
Kinesiology
* Acclaimed: Raymond Khavane
* Acclaimed: Taylor Wilson
Nursing
* Acclaimed: Mitchell Gillies
1 vacant
This article has been corrected to show that all six SRA engineering positions were acclaimed. The MSU's website listed only five names at the time of the article's publication.
As my year as Vice-President Finance of the McMaster Students Union draws to a close, I have been doing a lot of reflecting, thinking about what I have been exposed to in this role. What stands out the most to me are the interactionsI have had with so many impressive student leaders from all different parts of the student body.
Unfortunately, I find myself spending too much time in my role defending the value of student leadership to some members of the University administration, even to those who work closely with student leaders, delivering important programming throughout the year.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Many important initiatives on this campus have been launched by student leaders. These initiatives are inspired and guided by students’ holistic understanding of the needs and wants of their peers. Virtually every service that the MSU offers came from ideas created and developed by students, for students. We talked about sexual health when the University did not want to (SHEC). We started a medical response team from McKay Hall when a student realized that there was a gap in medical services for students on campus (EFRT). We negotiated a bus pass because we know students need an affordable way to commute to campus.
Similar ideas have been developed by student leaders at the faculty level. Recently, the McMaster Engineering Society launched a Peer Tutoring initiative, the first of its kind at McMaster. Students have been so receptive to the idea, that two of our MSU Presidential candidates championed a similar concept hoping to implement it across the campus.
Students are likely to think outside the box, try new things. And sometimes, they fail. Placing students in positions of leadership has its risks, but I am confident that the rewards outweigh them significantly.
As with any organization, we need to minimize our risk and ensure that groups are behaving and operating in a responsible manner. The MSU has long supported University efforts to develop consistent expectations of student societies and student groups. These include examples such as the development of responsible event planning guidelines, as well as the implementation of rigorous financial accountability mechanisms.
That said, as my term winds to its conclusion I worry that University administration is beginning to devalue the work that student groups do, focusing solely on potential risk. What happened with the Engineering Redsuits’ songbook is tragic, and the group(s) involved need to be held accountable.
Yet this culture does not reflect a campus-wide problem with student leadership, and it will be inappropriate if the University reacts by curtailing student responsibilities both during Welcome Week and at large during the school year.
When harassment at the faculty level was reported in the Degroote Faculty of Business, the University appropriately suspended and disciplined those who were responsible. The tenure system was not broken, suspended or destroyed in response. Rather, specific individuals who had acted inappropriately were identified and the situation was dealt with professionally. Why should issues at the student level operate any differently?
McMaster is a community of 22,000 students and sometimes things go awry. When they do, it’s important that we consider those accidents in the greater context; that we remember all the amazing work done by students on campus.
The University must balance their desire to keep students safe, with the reality that students can and should falter occasionally – this is just part of the learning process. When left to their own devices, students’ successes will far, far outshine the negatives.
The student experience will only truly be enhanced when student leaders are in the positions of decision making and authority over student life. Student leaders have the best understanding of the needs, wants and issues that face undergrads at McMaster University.
I was pleased to read the President’s Page in last week’s Silhouette, dealing with the university’s budget-setting priorities. The column by MSU vice-presidents Jeff Doucet (Finance) and Spencer Graham (Education) reminded me of what a genuine pleasure it is to work with students who are so actively engaged in their educational experience.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The column and various conversations we’ve had over the year show that they appreciate the complexities and dynamics of setting a budget in a large multi-dimensional institution like McMaster. It has been my good fortune as McMaster’s provost to work with MSU leaders who share a passion for improving the quality of the student experience, and approach this with both a short and long term perspective. Collaboration between student leaders and university administration is a fine McMaster tradition, and one that I believe makes a significant contribution to producing the best outcomes for all.
I was pleased to see the headline “McMaster’s Budget Should Be Student-Centred”, because I agree wholeheartedly and because I also believe our budget demonstrably is student-centred. As I read the column, I was reminded of how much agreement there is between those of us charged with setting the university’s budget and the recommendations of the two student vice-presidents.
Certainly McMaster faces a range of challenges and must balance all aspects of what it means to be a “research-focused student-centred” institution. Budgets are naturally constrained by the resources we have from tuition, government grants and other funding sources. However, we have continued to invest in and make major commitments in many areas that are directly aligned with students’ priorities and which address emerging opportunities to improve the quality of education at McMaster.
Here are some of them:
- McMaster will be increasing its contribution to the Student Affairs budget this year.
- The university is quadrupling its funding for deferred maintenance over the next few years.
- We are undertaking a study to determine the kinds of classroom upgrades will best meet the changing demands of modern pedagogy.
- We have increased the library budget, by well over $1 million annually, providing students with greater access to resources and guidance on how to use them.
- We created the McMaster Institute for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (MIIETL) with a budget that is over $1.5-million greater than its predecessor (Centre for Leadership in Learning). Amongst other initiatives MIIETL is committed to enhanced pedagogical training for faculty and TAs.
- We have introduced the Learning Portfolio to help students capture and reflect on their own learning experiences.
- In partnership with the province, we are investing in the development of blended learning and online courses, providing student with more flexible pathways.
- Within our capital budget planning, a top priority is a new Living, Learning, Leading building that will add to our undergraduate residence and classroom capacity and add collaboration spaces.
There is not an exhaustive list. Nor am I fully satisfied with what we are able to do. I expect our students to hold us to account, and I am pleased they are actively engaged in advocating for their education. I want to assure them that wherever we have flexibility in our budget processes, improving the quality of teaching and learning is a high priority.
Setting budgets is challenging work – work that is made lighter by the inspiring and thoughtful contributions of our partners. I encourage all our students to take an active interest in our efforts to assure that we are providing the best possible education for McMaster students.
The Student Representative Assembly elections opened their online polls on 8:00 a.m. Thursday, March, 12 and will stay open until Thursday, March 13 at 5:00 p.m.
During this election time, full-time students will vote to fill 31 seats of the MSU’s legislative body.
Those 31 seat-holders will then vote in the three vice-presidents that will join Teddy Saull in filling the Executive Board that makes up the remaining four seats of the SRA.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Emails will be sent to students via their McMaster email account with a secure link to the online voting system.
A plurality system is used in SRA elections, rather than the preferential system used for the MSU Presidential election. This means that humanities students will receive four votes each (one for each seat) and the four candidates, of the seven in the contention, with the highest number of votes will be elected.
While most faculties contain many candidates, leading to competitive races, the Faculties of Nursing, Kinesiology and Arts and Science received only enough nominated candidates to fill their seats, so all candidates will be acclaimed as members of the SRA. The Faculty of Engineering only received nominations for five candidates despite being allotted six seats. All five nominees will also be acclaimed without a vote being cast in their name.
Graphic by: Ben Barrett-Forrest / Multimedia editor
With the SRA general election underway (polling on March 12 and 13, 2014), we wondered how much McMaster students really know about their Student Representative Assembly.
