[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Esther Chatul is not your typical MSU Presidential candidate. Despite having more likes on Facebook than two of the candidates in the running this year, she is not on your presidential ballot. This is not because she doesn’t have a platform, but because of blatant speciesism. Esther Chatul, to put it simply, is a cat.
In The Silhouette’s one-on-one interview with Esther, we learned a lot about the feline behind the non-human equity movement sweeping the campus. For an animal so vocal on social media, Esther is incredibly quiet and shy in person, burying herself in the lap of her human assistant. Perhaps this is because the five-year-old domestic long hair has had a rough upbringing. She has half a tail after an accident early in her life, and has been through three foster homes before finally being adopted from Pride Rescue by her current owner.
Her owner, Sophie Geffros, helps run Esther’s social media accounts, and translated Esther’s meows into English during the interview. Esther’s human assistants are very committed to the cause, helping her with day-to-day life, and doing everything from taking Esther on the bus to scooping litter boxes. After all, not having opposable thumbs in a world for people with opposable thumbs is very difficult. “We raise her voice, because there’s nothing wrong with being a cat. It’s not that she is any less of a qualified candidate than any of the human candidates. It’s that the world is simply not built to accommodate cats,” said Esther’s human assistants.
Esther’s troubled past, however, has not deterred her from pursuing the presidency. Her ambitious platform includes leveling the entire campus to make it accessible. On this controversial platform point, Esther purrs, “The one thing we don’t know is just where the [expletive] we’ll have classes. It’ll be very difficult to accomplish, but definitely worth it once it happens. It’s sort of like building another student centre that you swear is totally going to get done.”
While her opponents have pigeonholed Esther as solely fighting for non-humans, this is not true. Another pillar of Esther’s campaign is to close the demon portal in the basement of KTH to protect humans who have classes there. Cats can see the demons, but cannot be affected by them. “It’s a bit of a tricky situation where the only animals who can blow the whistle are not in fact the victims of the situation. So it’s really important for me to speak up in these situations. I believe very strongly in responsible whistle blowing. [Upon learning about the demons], students became very distressed so I decided to include providing services for survivors of the demon portal in my platform. I believe in demon portal survivors.”
Esther’s critics have also drawn attention to the fact that the feline inclines to use profane language on Twitter. In response to these criticisms, Esther pawed angrily, “It is inappropriate for people in positions of privilege to tone police me. When you are not in a position of privilege it is your right to make your voice heard in whatever way you can. Before I started using more profane language, I simply wasn’t being heard. It’s unfortunate that it took that much for people to recognize my concerns as legitimate.”
Esther struts with the compassion of an animal who has experienced injustice borne from being a cat in a world made for people. She also has the strength and aggression borne from being a cat. Esther Chatul may not have claws, but her “claws” are out in the fight against injustice.
#EqualityMeow
In her words…
Most ambitious platform point
Leveling campus
Sandwich she would make you
Tuna & gravy
Candidate platform you are critical of
Devante’s washroom improvements
“The fact that people can continue to ignore the need for gender neutral litter boxes is very distressing.”
For or against VP Referendum
For
Opponent you would vote for
“Sarah Jama”
“She actively recognized non-human equity.”
Website
Photo Credit: Jason Woo/Lifestyle Editor
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Critique: Devante Mowatt’s MSU Office Hours
Critique: Jonathon Tonietto’s lack of tuition advocacy
Critique: Justin Monaco-Barnes’ coursewares
Critique: Mike Gill’s “Build our McMaster”
Critique: Sarah Jama’s food and healthy living
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
This is an argument independent of the opinions of the Presidential candidates.
But when it comes to the referendum on VPs at-large, it's clear that it's unfashionable to be against an at-large vote.
To catch anyone up: until now, the Student Representative Assembly has internally elected the McMaster Students Union’s three vice presidents. The three VPs, along with the President, make up the Board of Directors that deal with the daily concerns of the MSU on a full-time basis.
However, after a push from students that began last year, the student body will be voting in a referendum on whether or not they want VP elections to be open to the general student body.
YES, for VP elections to move to an open vote.
NO, for VP elections to remain decided by the SRA.
So on one hand, it's understandable why it's unpopular to be against VP elections at-large. By saying no, are you against the opinions of the students? Are you against what democracy stands for? Are you saying that students can't decide for themselves what is right?
But this is a perversion of what a "no" argument entails: that a body of evidence indicates a host of issues with moving to an at-large system for VPs.
Sure, correlation does not equal causation, but voter turnout has steadily declined at Western University by 50 percent after moving away from internally elected VPs.
And by running a slate model (where candidates must run in teams) at-large, Queen's University has had its Board-equivalent acclaimed for the past two years.
Anecdotally speaking, this fatigue shouldn't come as a surprise if students are asked to make an informed vote on their MSU President, their Vice-Presidents, their SRA members and the various positions on their faculty societies, usually within the span of a month.
I have zero allegiance to the SRA, and if I felt that there was real, tangible evidence on why moving at-large is healthy for the democratic process, I would support it.
And yet there is none.
I am not defending the SRA's right to decide our VPs. I am defending our right to hold the SRA accountable.
Because if we argue that the SRA is unable to make appropriate decisions on our behalf, then we are arguing about a much larger problem; that our student representatives no longer represent our opinions.
If the SRA is biased or unrepresentative, what about the other decisions they make on our behalf? Should the introduction of every MSU service be decided by a public vote? Each new service involves the hiring of a paid, Part-Time Manager, and the impact of a service arguably lasts far longer than the one-year term of a VP.
I am glad that a service like WGEN was voted in unanimously by the SRA, instead of held to an open, at-large vote where toxic and sexist comments might have been made in ignorance.
And while I'm voting no, I want to clarify my stance, as I still want to see two major changes to the VP elections process.
The first change is for the VP elections to be decided by an open ballot, where the votes of each SRA member are transparent to the body of students they represent.
My representatives should not be afraid to explain their choices if they claim to represent my interests, and they should be accountable for the decisions they make on my behalf.
And the second change I want implemented is for the VP candidates to begin their internal campaigns at the same time that SRA positions open up.
Why does this matter, if the general student population isn't voting for our VPs?
Primarily because it forces individuals running for the SRA to be informed and accountable about our VP candidates.
Even if I invest my time to learn about each of the VP candidates, I'm not concerned if I prefer VP candidate X, while my prospective SRA representative prefers VP candidate Y. What I care about is that the people who claim to represent my interests have put in the time to have an informed opinion, and it's an opportunity for someone to prove just how serious they are.
This is not telling you that voting YES is wrong. If you're frustrated with the SRA, that's more than fair. I am still irritated by the SRA’s decision to remain neutral and it makes me wonder how that could possibly be helpful to the student body.
You should expect more from your SRA, and you should want to hold them accountable. Moving VP elections to an at-large system is ignoring a problem rather than fixing one.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
MSU Presidential candidate Justin Monaco-Barnes has a long history of working for the Underground Media + Design, a printing and media service provided by the MSU. He started as a part-time employee and now works full-time as the Services Manager, a student opportunity position offered through the Union.
Monaco-Barnes has a platform point on reducing courseware fees by 30 to 50 percent by printing through the Underground. While the Underground provides reasonable printing fees for the student body, the Campus Store, through Media Production Services — the current primary courseware printer — is currently the cheapest printing service on campus. For example, Underground currently charges eight cents for printing one black and white page, while the Campus Store charges five cents per black and white page.
The printing of coursewares, from any organization or printer, has a few main, consistent costs: the physical costs of printing paper, ink and binding, copyright license fees per article and a cost mark-up that accounts for miscellaneous fees such as labour and other business factors.
While physical printing fees play a role in Campus Store’s low costs, Monaco-Barnes’ promise to reduce the cost of coursewares by printing with the Underground may never be able to come into fruition primarily because of the Underground’s treatment of copyright licenses.
“The price itself, there’s no bias in it, it’s a straight formula. We don’t assign a copyright license fee to pages that we can get under fair [dealing], and that’s something we always do. The goal is the lowest price for a coursepack we can get for our students,” said Deidre Henne, McMaster’s Chief Financial Officer and Associate Vice President (Administration).
The Campus Store, through Media Production Services, has been able to provide the lowest costs for page printing on campus, as they have removed any access copyright fees associated with printing, a fee no longer required for reprinting according to a new law that was implemented by the Ontario government this past December.
“I make [our staff] check all of the pricing in all of the surrounding area, even in Toronto,” said Henne in regards to how The Campus Store calculates their printing fees each year.
The Campus Store is currently able to charge less in regards to copyright licenses because of their Library License Agreement that is provided by the University. This means any article that is offered digitally through McMaster’s library system does not need license fees applied to it when printed in a courseware. This is a luxury only available to The Campus Store at this time, due to their connection to the university. The Underground unfortunately has to charge a license for all articles used, unless McMaster is prepared to extend this Library License to an MSU service.
In an effort to prove to the student body that The Campus Store does in fact charge the lowest price, the store conducted a test to compare their costs to those of the Underground. They purchased three coursewares from the Underground at standard retail price, and calculated how much their version of the same book would cost given their pricing structure:
In addition to arguing that the cost would be lower, which at this time appears to be false, Monaco-Barnes also claims that selling through the Underground can increase the budgets of student services. This claim is also misleading as The Campus Store does currently foot a large bill for Student Affairs, a university service that helps fund Accessibility Services, Housing, Off-Campus Services, International Student Services and more. To imply that The Campus Store is providing less for students than what the Underground could is misleading. While the Underground could technically route more money back to the MSU, it is important to remember that the MSU is a non-profit organization and the goals of its services is to have a break-even budget, not necessarily to make a profit for increased servicing.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
If nothing else, Jonathon Tonietto has been honest throughout his campaign. The MSU presidential candidate made it clear in his conversation with The Silhouette that he has not spent time analyzing his fellow candidates’ platforms, instead choosing to focus on his own campaign.
Tonietto has also made it clear that he cannot lower tuition. His expanded platform, posted online over the weekend, has a full section on Mac Discount, the introduction to which reads: “Unleash Financial Shackles of Student life: I cannot make the promise of lower tuition but I can lower the cost of student living.” Having been a McMaster student for six years himself, Tonietto is no stranger to the wide range of costs incurred by being a university student.
While Tonietto does address these concerns, through the implementation of a “Marauder Price Cut Card” and a more cost-effective textbook rental program, no component of his platform addresses the elephant in the boardroom. While the current Board of Directors has not promised to lower tuition at McMaster or across the province, the MSU and the Ontario University Student Alliance is in the process of lobbying the provincial government for a tuition freeze.
According to the current VP (Education) Spencer Nestico-Semianiw, the 2016-17 BoD will need to continue the advocacy initiated by this year’s MSU President and VPs. “Since there will likely be a consultation process for the new framework, it will fall to the new team during the remainder of 2016 and early 2017 to advocate for these changes in the new framework,” he said in an email.
It is concerning to see that for all his talk of maintaining communication between BoDs, Tonietto’s platform lists very few of these initiatives. While the goal of his Mac Flow initiative is to improve this communication, the tuition freeze is mentioned once at the end of his manifesto. In his interview with The Silhouette, Tonietto stated that he had met with five of the six previous MSU presidents, including current President Ehima Osazuwa, whose most buzz-worthy platform point was his commitment to discussing Ontario’s tuition framework. Despite all that research, Tonietto’s inability to conceive of future plans about tuition advocacy leaves a major gap in his platform that speaks to his priorities as a candidate.
Tonietto’s approach to the presidential campaign has been honest, but perhaps to a fault. While it is refreshing to read, and for that matter write about a politician who is not afraid to admit their lack of insight on a topic, Tonietto’s shrug of a response to the ongoing lobbying for lower tuition is one of multiple points he has maintained a neutral position on. He is the only candidate still neutral on the question of electing VPs at large, an issue he says students should be able to make themselves.
Tonietto promises to bring change to the MSU if elected its president and CEO. He claims his perspective, as someone outside the “MSU bubble,” is advantageous to the portfolio he is proposing for the upcoming year. However, it remains to be seen whether he has the expertise on current MSU initiatives to bring the change he wants to see within the Union.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
There's a lot to unpack when examining Mike Gill’s plan to "Build our McMaster" in both scope and depth of research, and it's fair to say that it's by far the most comprehensive plan in this year’s presidential election.
As a short recap for the unfamiliar, Gill's biggest platform point is a $75 million plan that extends over the next 30 years. He's hoping to allocate about $60 million of that towards a brand new building akin to a second student centre, and the other $15 million toward Athletics & Recreation initiatives including a Pulse expansion and a roof for an outdoor field.
Now, with such a detailed financial plan, Gill makes some necessary assumptions.
The first is that the full-time undergraduate student population will grow by one percent each year. Since the number of students directly informs how much the MSU accumulates in student fees, it's an important quantity to be aware of.
Based on enrolment statistics provided by the university over the past decade, while the exact growth of the student population fluctuates from year to year, one percent is a fair estimate for student growth. Although VP (Finance) Daniel D'Angela did note that post-secondary enrolment over the next several years is expected to slow, a flat student population growth would at most leave a gap of about $4 million.
It's certainly not pennies, but it's not a ruinous amount either; tacking on a couple of extra years would solve this as a potential issue.
A second assumption is the inflation rate. Gill applies a two percent inflation rate to the fees collected from students year to year, which is a slight overestimate of the current Canadian inflation rate according to tradingeconomics.com, but is still a reasonable approximation of overall trends.
However, an important, accompanying assumption isn't detailed in Gill's financial breakdown: the interest rate collected by the banks through the mortgage made on any kind of building plan.
Gill has noted this in conversation with The Silhouette, explaining that the university "can take out loans at a very low rate, and right now interest rates are really low to begin with, so it's a good time to do that sort of thing."
But the $75 million or so that Gill is proposing to use is misleading in terms of today's real dollars.
As Gina Robinson, Assistant Dean at Student Affairs and Director of the Student Success Centre, puts it in an email, "In borrowing we must pay interest to compensate the lender for the time it will take to pay back the loan. Essentially the amount of money that you have today is worth more than the same money that you are promised at some future date."
Ultimately, what this means is that while $75 million in capital funding will be accumulated over the life of the plan, if one assumes the mortgage is made in 2020 at a 2.7 percent interest rate, this actually only amounts to about $47 million in today's real dollars.
Even if one applies a more modest 2 percent interest rate, approximately only $51 million will be available with the proposed funding model to cover both the Student Life Centre as well as Ath&Rec upgrades.
All of this is said with the understanding that the provided financial breakdown is not meant as a final plan, nor does it ask for students to commit to spending any more than they currently do.
But these rough calculations do raise questions as to whether or not an efficient budget exists for a functional building to be built, and in a good and useful location. While Gill pointed to T-13 as his favourite spot for the new building, D'Angela noted that T-13's location is not ideal and would need further consideration.
While it might be a bit alarming to see student fees covering costs until 2047, it's worth noting that this is neither unusual nor irresponsible, according to both D'Angela and Robinson. In fact, Robinson still expressed an enthusiasm for a Student Life Centre based on the proposed budget, and the Living and Learning Centre planned for 2019 will also be using this type of funding model.
But along with the various proposed Ath&Rec upgrades, it's implausible for all of the various proposals to be implemented; with the current budget, the building won't nearly match up to the grand expectations it inspires. Based on what students vote for, it remains to be seen if a new Student Life Centre is a building worth building.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
About an hour and a half into this year’s MSU Presidential Debate, candidates were asked about the dissolving of MacGreen and how candidates would continue to focus on sustainability on campus. Sustainability is nowhere to be found on candidate Devante Mowatt’s platform, and so he replied with the following: “In order to get more information on the subject, I’d like to look to the students that are surrounding me right now. I’d like to host campus talks alongside representatives that know a bit more about sustainability than I do. I want to make sure you guys can tell me what you want to see in terms of sustainability.”
Although a bit a sidestep, Mowatt’s answer was really the best he could do given the lack of a direct strategy or platform point. Nonetheless, public campus talks and open MSU office hours are not going to properly address issues that are otherwise left out of his platform.
Mowatt’s platform seems to include the bare minimum platform points needed to address fundamental student issues such as sustainability, student and university finances, equity and accessibility. As much as these can be thrown around as buzzwords during the leadership race, they should be present in everyone’s platform because they represent the wide-ranging concerns of the student constituency.
Mowatt defends the limited scope of his platform by stressing its feasibility. It is relatively easy to implement, and he is committed to asking the students how they want to address some of the larger issues through a reimagining of MSU office hours. These public hours will be hosted as town hall style forums in a variety of open spaces around campus. According to Mowatt’s website:
“Unless they actively seek out opportunities to do so, students often do not have a forum to make their beliefs heard. To change this, I would like to revitalize the idea of Presidential Office Hours to allow students to talk to the President about pressing issues on campus, in a way that is easy and accessible for them. I would like to hold bi-weekly sessions in different buildings on campus, prepared with topics of discussion that are of crucial importance to the student body (mental health, financial accessibility, etc.).”
The platform point is in all likelihood, completely feasible (barring the bi-weekly frequency). Town hall style meetings were a component of last year’s second place candidate Tristan Paul, and while both critics and fellow candidates questioned student interest and participation, the need to pursue more face-to-face student engagement with the MSU is still a problem that the Union has to address.
The issue lies in his attempt to use this point as a sort of buffer for the lack of focused initiatives to try and address the different areas of student issues. There is simply not enough time for a president to hold an appropriate number of meetings to formulate specific strategies for the organization and then implement them. Platforms are already supposed to be developed in collaboration with students and administration, and are meant to represent a potential yearlong strategy for the Board of Directors. Students deserve a candidate that is prepared to maximize their short-term, and using a well prepared, researched platform is the best way to do so in the current system.
While campaign season should not be the only time that students feel that their voices are actively being listened to, the reality is that this is one of the few times where the constituency is this widely engaged. Turning over feedback, while balancing a directed, personal set of goals for the Union is no easy task, but it is necessary for students to understand how their candidate will run the MSU, and it is important to go into the position with a relatively determined strategy for a one-year timeframe.
Chalking up the most important goals to “letting the students decide” does not give voters any reason to believe that Mowatt will actually successfully address their concerns if voted in, and if he would have time to provide results. Mowatt is a candidate of small-scale improvements for your McMaster mobile, Frost Week and washroom experience, and his plan to introduce another avenue of voicing your complaints is unlikely to address those issues in any substantial way.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Sarah Jama's entire platform is arguably centered on accessibility, whether through MSU services, food and living accommodations or improved financial accessibility.
However, there are a couple of key concerns that are embedded in Jama's platforms on improving food and healthy living.
With Jama's Emergency Meal Plan, the basic premise of her idea is to create an emergency meal card for students that will be provided on a first-come, first-serve needs basis.
But immediately, the explanation provided for this platform is questionable, as Jama’s website states:
"The cost of food is expected to rise in Hamilton up to three hundred percent within the next two years (source)."
With no actual source provided, it's troubling to see this cited as a real statistic when it falls apart under a simple application of logic. If a basic meal at Centro costs $8, conservatively, it seems ludicrous to imagine it costing anywhere near $32 in two years.
Now, it's worth noting that regardless of whether or not the statistic is true, it does not invalidate the desire for an emergency meal plan fund. Jama pointed to the massive demand for the MSU Emergency Bursary as tangible evidence of students' needs on campus.
But a number of logistical issues remain unanswered and the flimsy statistic does nothing to help the seemingly shallow research.
For example, it's unclear how exactly such a plan would be implemented; in particular, what an individual needs to reveal about their financial situation in order to be eligible.
It seems both necessary and yet onerous to ask an individual to divulge their financial standing to be eligible, but it's an inevitable problem that as of yet has no tangible solution.
For now, Jama explained that she plans to work with both Hospitality Services and the Faculty of Social Work to develop a solution.
There are also a number of potential issues with a first-come, first-serve distribution. An individual who is in need of funding in April has a disadvantage to receive funding compared to an individual in need in November, even if the financial need is equal.
In addition, both Gina Robinson (Assistant Dean at Student Affairs and Director of the Student Success Centre) and VP (Finance) Daniel D'Angela confirmed that for students in need, the Financial Aid Office can provide assistance in a number of ways including a week-long loaded meal card. However, Jama explained that she wants to expand that aid for students who might need assistance for longer than a week, and D’Angela indicated that these options for students could certainly be advertised more effectively.
It's a nuanced issue, but with a month-long meal card being worth somewhere around $400-500, Jama must present a plan with a better balance between addressing a need and implementing a responsible system.
Jama's platform on a $5 meal plan also seems like a challenging issue to push through, although it's worth noting that a similar plan is currently being implemented at Ryerson University. But when the plan involves hiring students to cook meals for students, as both a cheap and healthy option, it seems like the combination of one too many ideas to be feasible.
Ultimately, providing affordable food options to students is an admirable goal to have in mind, and the same goes for a plan to provide financial aid for students in need.
But Jama's platform does not adequately address how these programs can actually be implemented, and the research behind them feel somewhat flimsy upon close examination.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Gabi Herman
This election, there has been a lot of thinking about mental health. Why is it such a huge issue, and what does each candidate have to say about it?
The problem:
According to the Canadian Association of Colleges and University Student Services, more students with mental health issues are pursuing post-secondary education than ever before. In addition, students say mental health issues have the greatest impact on their academic success. 57.9 percent of students feel overwhelming anxiety, and 40 percent have felt too depressed to function.
MSU initiatives, clubs and the university all have services in place to address mental health issues. The MSU has a number of peer support services, where student volunteers go through training to actively listen, provide advice and sometimes refer students to applicable professionals. A number of clubs also advocate for mental health. COPE, a student mental health initiative club, held their annual “Elephant in the Room” campaign last week, in efforts to reduce mental health stigma. Finally, the University’s Student Wellness Centre has one psychiatrist and a psychiatry resident, a number of counsellors and social workers and group counselling resources.
However, these services still do not meet students’ needs on campus. Many peer support services are notoriously underutilized. Some are difficult to find, and no directory exists with a listing of all peer support services. Student clubs can work to create community, but do not have the ability to directly help those who need trained professionals. The Student Wellness Centre has extremely long wait times for appointments, and students who cannot afford to see a private counsellor are often left without options.
Candidates have different ideas of how to address these problems.
Devante Mowatt
Mowatt hopes to address mental health issues by discussing them with students first. His Campus Chats initiative will bring presidential office hours to discuss issues like mental health and accessibility. He will also use MacTV, an MSU television initiative, to advertise mental health services.
Jonathon Tonietto:
Tonietto hopes to strengthen current initiatives by consulting with managers of peer support services, and says that talking about mental health is important. He wants to give peer support volunteers more training, give peer support more funding, and create a McMaster community that is a safe space for those with mental health issues. He has consulted with Student Accessibility Services.
Justin Monaco-Barnes
Monaco-Barnes hopes to reduce wait times at the student centre by hiring another psychiatrist. He also wants to build a McMaster community that is supportive of those with mental health issues through awareness initiatives and training. He consulted with SAS.
Mike Gill
Gill wants to be a part of re-writing the SAS policy. He hopes to allow students the option not to disclose a mental health diagnosis. He wants SAS to be responsible for communicating with students’ professors, and he would like to get rid of yearly intake appointments for those registered with SAS. He has discussed this point with multiple people, including MSU Maccess coordinator Alex Wilson and Tim Nolan, the SAS director. He wants to introduce a formal policy on academic leave for mental health concerns, create a minimum counsellor-to-student ratio, and put all peer support services in one location, a point he has consulted with several parties on, including Associate Vice-President and Dean of Students Sean Van Koughnett.
Sarah Jama
Jama has a short term and a long-term plan. Short term, she hopes to hire one counsellor for the North Quad, and one for the West Quad. She would like them to interact with students in residence. Long term, she hopes to hire counsellors for each faculty, a system she says is already in place at Waterloo. She also wants to create a peer support centre with centralized training and services. She has consulted with SAS, the Student Wellness Centre, and a number of initiatives.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Gabi Herman and Isaac Kinley
From Jan. 26-28, in addition to electing their next McMaster Students Union President, McMaster students will be able to vote in a referendum concerning the election of MSU Vice Presidents. The MSU has three Vice Presidents: Administration, Education and Finance. Currently, the Vice Presidents are elected by the Student Representative Assembly, a student council that includes faculty representatives and the current MSU President and Vice Presidents.
The current referendum will allow students to vote in favour of keeping the current system or switching to an at-large vice presidential election. Since this change would require altering the MSU constitution, the “yes” side will have to garner at least two thirds of the vote in order for it to pass.
The motion was put forward by Eric Gillis (SRA Social Sciences) at the 2015 MSU General Assembly in March. Earlier this school year, the Student Mobilization Syndicate uploaded a petition to Change.org asking that the question of direct election of Vice Presidents be put to McMaster students in a referendum. The petition gathered more than 800 written signatures and subsequently, the SRA voted to hold the referendum. However, going into the campaign period, they voted to maintain a neutral position on the referendum question. Looking forward, students will have to decide where they stand on the issue.
The referendum question, as it will appear on the ballot, is:
This referendum concerns the MSU Vice President elections. Currently, the three Vice President positions are elected through the Student Representative Assembly (SRA). A proposal has been put forth to move the Vice President elections away from the current system to an at large election. The format of this at large election is currently undefined and can take on many forms.
This is a constitutional referendum, which means it requires two thirds of the vote to pass. Abstentions will not be included in calculating the vote.
Are you in favour of changing the MSU Constitution to include an at large MSU Vice President Election?
Yes
No
Abstain
For more information, visit https://www.msumcmaster.ca/services-directory/31-elections-department/referendum-2016. Information on the “Yes” side campaign is available at http://www.vpref.ca/
Below, two Silhouette contributors examine the advantages and drawbacks of both positions.
The “Yes” side:
There are a number of problems with the current system. For one, while a respectable 42 percent of eligible students turned out to vote in the 2015 presidential election, most faculties saw turnouts below 30 percent in the SRA elections. This means that the people tasked with choosing vice-presidents are themselves only elected by a small minority of MSU members.
Furthermore, there’s little anonymity in a group as small at the SRA. If its members know Vice Presidential candidates personally, this will likely bias their vote and impede their ability to make a disinterested choice on behalf of all McMaster students.
Allowing the entire MSU membership to elect its Vice Presidents would solve both these problems. If voter turnout for vice presidential elections is close to that of our presidential elections, this would make VPs not only directly elected by McMaster students, but elected by a larger proportion of them than are represented in the SRA.
Additionally, vice presidential candidates would have to make their cases to the student body directly rather than behind closed doors to the SRA, increasing the transparency of the election and giving students a better idea of the platforms of student government hopefuls.
It seems odd to have people as powerful as the Vice Presidents elected by an intermediary group that only represents a small minority of eligible voters. Voting “yes” in the upcoming referendum will allow McMaster students to have a greater say in the decisions affecting them.
The “No” side:
Selecting a vice presidential team is no easy job. The election process for each Vice President is a long process. Every candidate is required to meet individually with each member of the SRA. This allows every SRA member to gain a deep understanding of each candidate’s platform, one that would be near impossible to achieve for every student at large. In fact, the job has become so difficult that last year’s meeting lasted 22 hours. A motion for all MSU members to be eligible to vote for VPs will be voted on in a referendum this coming election, but many believe it would not be the right decision.
An at-large vote would require VP candidates to campaign, which many report make VP positions less accessible to prospective candidates. Robyn Fishbein, a fourth year Sociology student, was a voting member of the VP Election Reform Ad-Hoc Committee last summer. “It’s not the VP’s job to be the face of the organization, and I think that makes a really big difference,” says Fishbein. Vice Presidents work mostly behind the scenes, while the MSU President and SRA members have inherently public roles. The highly public nature of the campaign creates a barrier to students who are ultimately interested in holding leadership roles that are less public than the President and SRA members.
The challenges of allowing all MSU members to vote also include student disengagement. The Ad-Hoc Committee report points out that at-large voters may be vulnerable to “voter fatigue,” which might contribute to a lower voter turnout. The VP elections would also require many names and positions on one ballot; with more names on a ballot, voters are more likely to vote at random. And, says Fishbein, “let’s face it, so many elections can get annoying.”
Although counterintuitive, many believe that the MSU democracy functions best without more opportunities to vote. Regardless of the result of the referendum, major restructuring will have to take place to prevent more inefficient, daylong meetings.
