Two long weeks after The Silhouette released an article regarding the gaps within the McMaster Students Union sexual violence disclosure processes, MSU President Ikram Farah finally released a statement.
The statement, which reads as a rambling pat on the back, condemns sexual violence and commits to a systematic review of the Maroons and the MSU as a whole, something that two Maroons representatives brought forward when they suggested a full audit of the service back in September 2018.
In the fall, a regularly scheduled service audit was conducted in which Maroons representatives made it known that an additional reporting tool would be useful. They also noted that the MSU’s workplace policy on harassment, discrimination and sexual violence should be more survivor-centric.
In response, the MSU vice president (Administration), Kristina Epifano, developed an online reporting tool and reportedly consulted with volunteers, staff and experts to update the workplace policy. But once released, it was discovered that this online reporting tool was not nearly as thorough or inclusive as the Maroons representatives had hoped.
Additionally, there is no evidence that the board of directors made any effort to lay the groundwork for investigation of sexual assault within the Maroons.
These Maroons representatives spent six months advocating for a full service review of the Maroons that focused on sexual assault. It was only when they made a public report to The Silhouette that the MSU president pledged to begin investigating sexual assault within the service.
Farah’s statement comes two weeks too late and six months after the fact that the two Maroons representatives reported the culture of sexual assault within the Maroons to Epifano.
The fact is that over the course of the two weeks following release of our article, the Maroons were actively hiring new representatives and ignoring the calls to action from the McMaster community.
Though Farah stated that Maroons events will be suspended for the time being while the review is underway, it is unclear whether the Maroons will be involved in Welcome Week this fall.
There’s a lot to say about the statement. We could mention that within the statement, Farah makes a note that she personally has not found any “actual reports” of sexual violence within the Maroons team this year. While she does acknowledge that the lack of reporting does not mean that harassment or assault hasn’t occurred, this tangent is absolutely unnecessary and self-praising.
What’s more is Farah’s claim that the MSU’s “practices and disclosure protocols are exemplary of the sector.”
What does exemplary mean if the practices and disclosure policies have not been consistent, thorough nor inclusive before these past few months? In what way is taking two weeks to release a statement regarding the matter exemplary?
Within the MSU, the lines between personal and professional are constantly blurred. Given that the MSU has consistently protected individuals accused of sexual assault, it is no surprise that survivors may not feel comfortable disclosing their sexual assault.
Whether the perpetrator was a member of the Student Representative Assembly or a presidential candidate, the MSU has continuously failed to support survivors.
This is indicative of a larger issue within the MSU: there is no independent human resources department to respond to complaints and initiate reviews.
Maroons representatives spent six months advocating for change, and it took two weeks and dozens of community members, volunteers and MSU employees taking to social media to demand a response from the Maroons coordinator and have the MSU commit to a full service review.
In order to properly address sexual assault at a systemic level, the MSU needs to overhaul its sexual assault policy and oversight process.
The MSU has proven time and time again that it is poorly equipped to properly respond to sexual assault allegations. It is left entirely up to the board of directors to ensure that policies are upheld, but they are not trained or qualified to respond to issues of this magnitude.
The MSU needs an independent HR department to consistently and proactively address concerns so that students do not have to turn to public disclosure in order to initiate a review process.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
When I started out as the Opinions Editor for The Silhouette this past year, I admittedly didn’t care much about student politics or governance. I was unfamiliar with the policies of the McMaster Students Union and had no idea what happened during Student Representative Assembly meetings.
Nowadays, I regularly watch the SRA livestreams and perform my due diligence to be aware of changes occurring within the MSU. A large part of that is for my job, but I’ve found that staying informed has benefits beyond finding something to write about.
The purpose of the MSU is to “represent you and to help build a better community for all students”. As the governing body of the MSU, SRA members have a responsibility to represent and lobby on behalf of their students.
It’s only fair then that we as students hold these members, and the MSU in general, accountable for their actions. In doing so, we are ensuring that any changes occurring are truly reflective of the needs and desires of students.
There’s many ways for students can hold these organizations accountable. They can attend SRA meetings, speak to their SRA representative, voice their concerns online or even protest for change.
Alternatively, you can do what I do, and write about your concerns for the campus newspaper. Perhaps some of my criticisms have been harsh or slightly misguided. But at the end of the day, I’m proud of the articles that I’ve written and edited for The Silhouette. Even if they have stepped on some toes, I’d like to think they’ve helped incite some positive changes on campus.
Whether these changes are a fully-stocked Union Market or investigations into MSU-recognized clubs, it’s evident that speaking out on issues is important.
Not everything the SRA or MSU has done has been negative. In fact, they have made some great, positive changes that are deserving of praise, or at the very least, of respect.
A few weeks ago, I had plans to write about the SRA’s contradictory playing of the national anthem and delivery of a land acknowledgment at their meetings. To my surprise, I found that they passed a motion to stop playing the national anthem at their meetings altogether. Things like these are positive changes that students should be aware of.
Of course, there is only so much that students can do. Given the record eight students who attended the General Assembly on March 20, it is obvious that the MSU must do a better job at engaging with their student constituents.
But just because the MSU and SRA have much to improve doesn’t mean that students are off the hook for staying informed. Without student input and advocacy efforts, organizations are given too much power and can make decisions that negatively impact us all.
For example, without the efforts of a few brave survivors telling their experiences with sexual assault within the MSU Maroons, it’s unlikely that the service would be doing anything to account for the issue, much less propose developing a long-overdue sexual assault and harassment policy.
I encourage students to get engaged with their university’s politics. It might seem overwhelming, and the information is certainly not easy to navigate, but it’s important work.
Especially in light of the upcoming changes to post-secondary education made by the provincial government, it is in the best interests of all students to be engaged with their union’s activities.
My term at The Silhouette is reaching a close. I’ve learned a lot during my time working for the newspaper but my biggest takeaway is that student politics affects us all, including those outside of the MSU bubble. For our own sake, we ought to keep our student organizations accountable for their actions.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Brian Zheng
Since I started at McMaster University in 2014, I’ve been involved with the McMaster Students Union, from involvement with a presidential campaign to eventually being elected on the Student Representative Assembly. I quit the SRA six months in.
When I started, I was handed several documents to help me understand the MSU and my role within it. Even after two training sessions and reading multiple documents, I still didn’t have a clear understanding of the possibilities within my role.
This is due to the sheer volume of functions the MSU oversees. The MSU consists of over 30 different business units and services, along with individual committees that address issues affecting the 20,000+ undergraduate students represented by the union.
Along with this, there are 35 student representatives from each faculty that make up the SRA. These students are elected each year, based hopefully on their platform points.
With the diversity of functions that exist within the MSU, keeping track of the hundreds of members involved is more than a full-time job; hence, the existence of four full-time student jobs, the board of directors, dedicated to managing all these portfolios.
So, if a potential SRA candidate wants to grasp this wealth of information, it would require them to sift through an incredibly disorganized website, spend hours reading jargon-riddled meeting minutes and likely set-up meetings with a few SRA members.
It’s no secret that the SRA struggles with transparency. The point is, it is not easy to disseminate information about the MSU, let alone in a format that’s easily digestible by students.
But is this the reason why candidates continuously repeat previous or unfeasible platform points? I don’t think so.
The reason why the average student doesn’t understand the MSU has little to do with the disorganization of the information. Instead, students’ lack of awareness is due to the existence of the elitist culture rampant within the SRA.
During my time involved with the MSU, I’ve noticed several condescending statements released both publicly and privately ridiculing the SRA candidate pool.
For example, a current SRA member, on their public twitter stated, “If I hear extended library hours as a platform point one more time I’m gonna lose it”.
In a separate instance, during last year’s SRA elections, another heavily-involved MSU member wrote as their Facebook status, “Lol, @SRA candidate saying that the MSU should make job descriptions, we are doomed”.
These are only a few public statements made by elected members that dramatically contribute to the MSU bubble that many of the same individuals supposedly ran to help dissolve.
After releasing these statements, SRA members had the audacity to wonder why such a limited number of candidates reached out to consult their platform points.
It is important to note that while these factors alone don’t contribute to the unapproachability of the SRA, the public ridicule of students aspiring to volunteer their time is equivalent to schoolyard bullying and needs to stop.
While it is more than possible to develop comprehensive platform points without the help of current and previous assembly members, it is so much more difficult given the overwhelming disorganization of the available information.
Unfortunately, not everyone has the time to sort through the disorganized mess. The inaccessibility of this information can be easily tested by simply trying to figure out where to find the most recent SRA meeting minutes.
Candidates aren’t reaching out, not because they don’t want to, but because the assembly does not appear to be an approachable group. The MSU does not reflect the welcoming environment that it boasts, and as a result, candidates are more likely to run on limited information. Hence, the epidemic of repeated and unfeasible platform points.
Over the years, I have constantly heard the notion that the lack of student engagement within the MSU is a result of apathy on the student end. Maybe it’s about time the assembly made it worth students’ time.
Halfway through my term, I left my seat on the SRA. This was not because I couldn’t learn about the organization, but because I didn’t feel like being ridiculed for not knowing.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Donna Nadeem, Anastasia Gaykalova and Matthew Jones
At the McMaster Students’ Union Student Representative Assembly on Nov. 25, the SRA passed a number of policy papers, including “Tuition & Student Financing in Post-Secondary Education,” “On-Campus Infrastructure” and “Student Engagement & Retention.”
Rising tuition is one of the most pressing issues affecting post-secondary students in Canada.
Once enrolled, OSAP provides a number of grants and loans to students with financial need to lessen the costs of tuition.
While not mentioned in the policy paper, it should be noted that Ontario government’s recently announced changes are expected to reduce tuition by 10 per cent but also scrap OSAP grants for low-income students and remove the six month grace period that students were previously given to pay off their loans following graduation.
The policy paper argues that restrictions to the current OSAP deny many individuals access to its services, pushing back these students’ entry into post-secondary education.
It also notes that tuition increases by a substantial rate each year, continually surpassing the rate of inflation.
According to the paper, currently, 53 to 70 per cent of student financial aid through OSAP includes loans.
Although offering loans to pay back tuition later may appear to help with accessibility and enrollment, the more tuition rates increase, the greater the amount students will have to pay back.
During student interviews included in the policy paper, students said that they have noticed tuition rising, but not at a specific rate, and acknowledged that they were unsure of the details surrounding tuition rate.
However, students also said they felt strained financially and found it harder to pay off their debt each year.
The policy paper also points out that McMaster has one of the lowest budgets for entrance scholarships in Ontario.
McMaster’s automatic entrance awards are lower than those offered at Queen’s University, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto and the University of Guelph, for instance.
The MSU recommends that McMaster consider a monthly tuition payment plan.
Recommendations for the government include re-evaluating interest rates on student loans and making OSAP cover a larger percentage of tuition for low-income students in some programs.
Major themes in the Infrastructure policy paper include campus accessibility, transparency, deferred maintenance and student study spaces.
The SRA’s first recommendation is for facility services to oversee a new campus accessibility review with a new action plan, examining infrastructure concerns in more detail.
Regarding accessibility, the SRA believes elevator issues and the installment and repair of automated doors should be seen as priority areas for maintenance.
The policy paper also affirms that “bad weather should not be a deterrent for students to access their education.”
Another concern addressed is the lack of air-conditioning in some residences. Currently, only five out of twelve residences have AC.
During warm weather, the heat poses a risk for students’ health, as many reported experiencing heat stroke symptoms during Welcome Week this past year.
The paper recommends that all residences have AC and that Residence Life provide more fan rentals.
Another infrastructural problem is that buildings at McMaster are not as well maintained as they should be, creating a non-ideal learning environment for students.
For instance, many older buildings have broken seats and tables.
The policy paper also touches on insufficient and inefficient on-campus workspaces.
For instance, the university does not have enough group study facilities for its growing student population. Many such places are often full or completely booked.
These issues are planned to be resolved by introducing more compact book stacks to free up space.
Some on-campus spaces also lack reliable wifi.
The policy paper explains that the university is planning to create a self-reporting network tool for students to report “dead zones,” which can be fixed.
To ensure future buildings consider the needs of students, the SRA suggests that some MSU members sit on a design committee for the coming Peter George Centre residence.
This policy paper highlights key issues regarding student engagement and retention, including student dropout rates and off-campus students’ engagement within individual faculties and services.
At McMaster, 10 per cent of first-year students do not continue onto pursue their degree. The policy paper notes that marginalized students are more likely to experience barriers to completing post-secondary education.
“[The] policy aims to utilize evidence-based research to identify gaps and targeted opportunities for particular focus groups of students, including first-year students, first-generation students, racialized and marginalized students and student groups, and commuter students,” reads part of the paper.
The MSU paper emphasizes that marginalized students should have “equitable access student success and satisfaction on campus” in response to structural barriers.
The policy paper makes several recommendations, such as the incorporation of prior-learning assessments for students who want them.
The paper also raises concerns regarding off-campus students’ engagement with respect to public transit, volunteering and community engagement.
“The MSU advocates for greater transparency and efforts by the university towards student engagement on campus and within the broader Hamilton community,” reads part of the paper.
According to the paper, commuter students face a higher risk of dropping out when they feel disengaged and disconnected from campus.
Commuter students may be restricted from developing social connections or a sense of belonging on campus.
The paper recommends creating a “centralized social hub” to address the disconnects faced by commuter students and the campus.
Additionally, the document advises the off-campus resource centre to work more to encourage campus opportunities to bolster social events while also increasing the number of resources for students who commute.
All of the policy papers be found in the “SRA documents” section of the MSU website.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
One of the biggest talking points that most candidates make when running for a seat on the Student Representative Assembly is transparency. The word has been tossed around so much that it has basically become a buzzword. But transparency is more than just a talking point; it’s an incredibly important behaviour that the SRA needs to adopt.
During the SRA meeting on Jan. 20, the SRA discussed how they can make their assembly more survivor-centric. Namely, a motion was passed to task the vice president (Administration), in collaboration with the sexual violence response coordinator Meaghan Ross, to develop an amendment to the constitution which includes an emergency response procedure for sexual violence.
This occurred after an SRA member was accused of engaging in sexual assault and another member supported that member. As of now, the SRA cannot ask these members to step down from their positions, only suggest that they should.
The proposed changes to the constitution could allow the SRA to remove such members from their assembly. This is important news in support of survivors, but unfortunately this information has not been made widely available.
Navigating the SRA website is far from an easy task. While the interface itself is user-friendly, information is difficult to find. For example, one would think that meeting minutes from SRA meetings would be listed under SRA minutes but this webpage only contains broken links from April 2018. The actual minutes from SRA meetings are posted under SRA documents amidst other documents and memos.
The minutes themselves are lengthy and filled with unfamiliar jargon that the average student should not be expected to know. This length and volume leads to the vast majority of students not reading the minutes and remaining unaware of the changes that are occurring within the university.
Beyond the content of the minutes, it is also unclear when the meeting minutes are posted. Two weeks ago, on Jan. 9, I was searching for the Jan. 6 meeting minutes, found nothing, and was forced to watch the hour-long livestream to understand what happened.
Though the Jan. 6 meeting minutes are posted now, they are posted under the Jan. 20 heading. I’m not sure when they were posted considering that nowhere on the SRA site do they state when they post meeting minutes after each meeting. Students should not be expected to consistently check the site or watch hours of livestream footage to stay informed.
Instead, minutes should be posted as soon as they are available. A three-day turnaround seems more than reasonable.
If the meeting minutes take long to post, at the very least the SRA or its individual caucuses should create summary documents for students to review. These documents can forgo the jargon and essentially list the important details that were discussed.
Students interested for more information can then consult the meeting minutes, or better yet, review a transcript of the livestream, which remain available to view after the meetings occur. I understand that it is difficult to transcribe a live meeting however, in the interests of accessibility, SRA meetings should be transcribed afterwards to allow individuals who require accommodations the ability to access the livestream videos.
Moreso, when watching the Jan. 20 livestream, a comment was made that some of the information that was discussed would not be included in the meeting minutes. There must be a reason — not all comments made are deemed important enough to include in the minutes — but if the SRA would like to be considered transparent, these comments should be made available for students to interpret on their own. A transcript of the meetings could provide this transparency.
This is not the first time that the SRA has been called out for its lack of transparency. As a governing body that is meant to represent the entire student body of McMaster University, the SRA has a responsibility to do better. The SRA is making some important, positive changes for the university — if only students were aware.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
In light of recent discussions made by the Student Representative Assembly concerning the fate of Incite Magazine, talks of the supposed “death of print” have once again circulated campus.
Incite Magazine is McMaster University’s creative arts and writing publication featuring student work across a wide range of mediums. The magazine, which prints three times a year, is entirely student-led and student-funded, receiving $1.02 per student annually.
Recently, the Finance Committee of the SRA made the recommendation to send Incite Magazine to referendum to determine its budget. If passed, the referendum had the potential to reduce Incite’s budget byhalf, or even remove it altogether.
When a university that arguably undervalues the arts proposes cutting funding from a magazine that serves as one of the few remaining spaces on campus for creatives, the student body should be alarmed. While the motion to send Incite Magazine to referendum failed to pass at the SRA meeting on Jan. 6, even the idea that the magazine could nix their print publications and simply “shift their operations to an online platform” has harmful implications.
It’s no secret that many publications are going digital. Just last year, Teen Vogue, a popular magazine among millennials, discontinued their print editions. As more publications shift towards an all-digital platform, advocates for print media must stand strong.
But if the content is the same online, why bother printing? Print publications are much more than their content — it’s the experience of reading a print magazine that holds value. Content is obviously important but elements of production including graphic designs and layouts add just as much value to the finished product as the content itself.
Studies have even shown that time after time, readers will continuously choose printed magazines over their digital counterparts. Unsurprisingly, after a transition to an entirely digital platform, those print readers aren’t transitioning with the publication. They’re just gone.
Consider where you’re reading this editorial. Chances are, you picked up a copy of The Silhouette offhand, flipped through the contents, and skimmed the articles that piqued your interest. As far as technology has advanced, this experience cannot be replicated online.
So no, print isn’t dead. Nor should it be. As an editor of both The Silhouette and Incite Magazine, I’ve witnessed firsthand the hard work and dedication put into creating print publications. It’s my hope that readers recognize the efforts put into each issue and stand in support of print publications.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Sept. 23, the Student Representative Assembly met in room 111 of Gilmour Hall to share faculty reports and vote on a number of proposed motions.
https://www.facebook.com/MSUMcMaster/photos/a.667072926656928/2080311201999753/?type=3&theater
One debated motion was the creation of a communications, advertising and student engagement ad hoc committee. The committee would exist to review current models of student engagement and offer recommendations to SRA committees. The motion was moved by SRA Science representative Eric Shingleton-Smith and was subsequently passed by a clear majority of the assembly.
A few members brought up concerns regarding the purpose of this committee as there is a service committee already in place. Vice president (Finance) Scott Robinson stressed the narrow scope of this committee as it only gives reports in November and March.
At the end of the report period of the meeting, MSU president Ikram Farah encouraged the SRA caucus to be more active in collecting feedback on McMaster’s freedom of expression guidelines, especially considering the Ford government’s new mandate for Ontario governments to implement formal policies.
“Should it be a policy, at least let it be the best guidance document possible that is reflective of the students who will be affected by it most,” said Farah.
Some representatives argued that there should be more events targeted at engaging students on this specific issue.
A notable motion was an amendment to election bylaw 10A.
In particular, bylaw 10A was modified so that candidates who appeal an elections committee ruling must submit documentation at least 48 hours before the appeal meeting. This was to ensure enough time for the elections committee to review appeals, a concern that arose after the 2018 presidential election. This motion was moved by Farah and passed unanimously by the assembly.
The amendment clarified what it means for members and nominees to be in “good standing.”
The next SRA meeting will be held on Oct. 14 at 5:00 pm in Gilmour Hall room 111.
Other highlights from the meeting:
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Kieran Douglas
The McMaster Students Union has announced it will close the Peer Support Line after five years of use. It makes sense. The need for support lines and similar services is clear, but this specific peer-based line seemed unsuitable for the demand imposed on it.
A recent Silhouette article stated that more than half of calls made to the line had to do either with crisis situations or mental health. As the line was run by student volunteers, most listeners are hardly equipped to effectively deal with situations this complex.
Though the service was commendable in that students would volunteer and lend a hand to peers in need, no amount of good can substitute for the training of a professional counsellor, which is what the MSU should be looking to focus its funds on in order to better serve students. Conversely, this brings light to the present concerns to student mental health services on campus and presents the imminence of a need for better services the help students who are in need of support at McMaster.
For crisis cases and situations that are extremely time-sensitive and need the assistance of professionals, students can only help so much. In addition, there is the concern of the peer support volunteers’ mental health. In crisis cases such as those that have the potential to result in life-threatening outcomes, volunteers may hold themselves accountable for other students’ situations.
Even if peer-support volunteers immediately direct callers to more appropriate services in these cases, the extended wait could prove detrimental. Given that 10 per cent of calls the line received were of this nature, eliminating the middleman is well-worth doing.
PSL executives raised a valuable point in defense of the line by suggesting that students sometimes wish to talk about grave topics like suicide and fear that professional help might end up involving authorities. By no means am I mental health professional, but there is a difference between discussing suicidal ideation and posing a danger to yourself. In either case, professional help should be sought out, and it shouldn’t be the responsibility or burden of other students to do so.
For crisis cases and situations that are extremely time-sensitive and need the assistance of professionals, students can only help so much.
I have personally never made use of the PSL, but I have called crisis lines more than once in the past. Excepting wait times, they have been nothing but accessible and helpful. Ultimately, these services exist to help people as they need it and on their own terms. There are few situations that would escalate beyond a phone call, and those situations would typically be emergencies. Professional counsellors can be relied on and trusted to be both impartial and confidential
Bear in mind too that the closure of the PSL is not necessarily a loss to student support. The MSU’s Executive Board assures us that the money no longer spent on the PSL will be used to increase awareness of existing services with professional counsellors on staff. Perhaps the closure of the PSL is also an opportunity to invest in mental health support on campus in general.
It is my hope that university administration considers the usage statistics of the line as further evidence of the overwhelming demand for expanded mental health services on campus.
While the PSL may have been introduced to handle issues separate from mental health concerns, its use as such indicates a clear need to rethink its existence. Given the sensitivity of matters of mental health, an under equipped support line can be worse than ineffective. Student demand should be listened to in this case and I wholeheartedly believe that the PSL budget would be better spent enriching mental health support services on campus.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
As a part of their last few meetings, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly voted to adopt three policy papers which will guide future legislation.
Throughout the year, SRA members, MSU research assistants and other MSU members compile research which they then condense into 30 to 40 page papers. Students also had the chance to voice their concerns on the given topics during the MSU’s policy conference, which occurs every semester.
This year, the MSU and its advocacy and research teams focused on three issues: sexual violence prevention and response, environmental sustainability and public transit and transportation.
Each of these policy papers included major recommendations to shape the advocacy the MSU takes on while negotiating with other institutions such as the city of Hamilton, the university and Metrolinx.
The sexual violence prevention and response paper focused on creating recommendations for prevention, health services, promotion of resources, survivor centric responses, training, provincial legislation and integration with services both on and off campus.
The paper made a number of recommendations, ranging from including the sexual violence response coordinator or executive members from the MSU Women and Gender Equity Network during the Student Success Centre’s planning of Welcome Week and similar events to making changes to the Student Wellness Centre’s current approach to follow-ups with survivors.
Many of the recommendations focused on altering the structures currently in place to support survivors of gender-based violence and alter the culture on campus to be a culture of consent.
It also challenged McMaster’s current sexual violence response policy, arguing it ought to alter its language to be more inclusive of marginalized groups. The paper also recommended that Security Services be taught anti-oppressive practices and receive formal training regarding McMaster’s sexual violence response policy.
The paper also challenged Residence Life’s current approach to sexual violence disclosures, which calls on employees to disclose any information to the residence manager. The paper argues that the policy ought to change to allow employees only break confidentiality if the survivor explicitly requests it.
It also calls for province-wide bystander training and the inclusion of sexual violence related healthcare to the University Health Insurance Plan, the main healthcare plan for international students.
The environmental sustainability paper focused creating recommendations to reduce waste on campus and ensure the university follows sustainable practices. The majority of the recommendations focus on adhering to the best possible environmental sustainability practices and promote sustainable policies.
The policy paper also recommends divesting from fossil fuel and using more sustainable energy sources, in addition to setting a target of being carbon neutral by 2040.
The paper argued the university ought to eliminate single-use plastic products and expand programs such as their reusable takeout containers to promote best possible sustainable practices.
The paper also argued that the university ought to take a more proactive approach to eliminating waste by reducing nonessential energy use in unused buildings and installing sensor lights, to list a few examples.
It recommends divesting from fossil fuel and using more sustainable energy sources, in addition to setting a target of being carbon neutral by 2040. It also recommends that the university make sure that their educational material and other material relating to sustainability remains up to date.
The paper advises that the university take an active role in educating students on sustainable practices, by creating a unified sustainability campaign with other organizations on campus and by establishing a network of sustainability-related groups on campus and in Hamilton.
This policy paper focuses on how to better improve the infrastructure of major public transit systems McMaster students use, with a focus on the Hamilton Street Railway and Metrolinx’s Go buses.
The majority of their recommendations for the HSR focus on improving the current structure of bus lines and frequencies to better service students.
The paper recommends that the city of Hamilton audit and then repair damaged and inaccessible sidewalks and create more bike lanes in the Ainslie Wood-East neighbourhood to promote biking and make the commute safer for cyclists.
The paper offers a number of recommendations for the HSR, ranging from ensuring all HSR employees are given adequate sexual violence, diversity and anti-oppressive practices training to better promoting their social media. The majority of their recommendations for the HSR focus on improving the current structure of bus lines and frequencies to better service students.
With respect to Metrolinx, the policy paper offers similar recommendations, such as increasing frequency and consulting McMaster students when considering service changes to lines McMaster students frequently use.
The paper also offers recommendations for future advocacy, stating that the city of Hamilton ought to invest in the 10-year Local Transit Strategy every year until it is complete and that the provincial government ought to increase its funding allocated to the HSR.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
This story has been edited to reflect new information revealed since its initial publication.
Now well over a month since the campaign period ended, the McMaster Students Union finally has an official MSU president-elect: Ikram Farah. Following this year’s race, students may see changes in the Elections Department as they reconsider their current system.
This year’s MSU presidential election saw two disqualifications, something unheard of in the MSU’s history. Candidates Farah and Rabeena Obaidullah were both disqualified.
Both candidates appealed to the highest electoral board, the Electoral Appeals Board, whose decisions are final and binding. According to the declarations released on March 13, the EAB overturned a series of violations for both candidates and reinstated both.
The rationale behind Farah’s disqualification and for both candidates’ reinstatement remains unclear as the MSU has not yet released the minutes from any of these meetings. On March 13, both Obaidullah and Farah were reinstated, resulting in Farah securing the MSU presidency.
On March 11, the Elections Department presented a delegation to the Student Representative Assembly, where they outlined some of their major issues with the current system for electoral appeals and fines.
The two representatives, Shaarujaa Nadarajah and Iku Nwosu, spoke of the difficulties the Elections Department and committee have.
In particular, they highlighted three major issues: limited information, a strict time constraint and lack of perspective as to why certain fines were submitted.
During an election, all MSU presidential candidates are subject to the Elections Department’s rules. If found violating multiple rules, the Elections Department has the power to disqualify a candidate.
According to the meeting minutes from the Election Department’s Jan. 25 meeting, Obaidullah was disqualified for campaigning in private Facebook groups, among other infractions.
The exact reasoning behind Farah’s disqualification remains unclear as the meeting minutes from Election Department’s Feb. 5 meeting have not been released, but according to press releases, two additional violations were ratified at this meeting against Farah, resulting in her disqualification.
During the March 11 SRA meeting, Nadarajah stated that one of the major limitations of the current fines process as the limited information presented to the committee.
Currently, elections committee members are presented all complaint forms the night the voting period ends and are expected to come to a final decision before the night is over.
When it comes to fines, elections committee must decide whether or not to fine a candidate based on a complaint form which they received a few hours prior to the election night meeting.
The form asks the complainant to outline the infraction, tie it to a rule and provide any supplementary evidence along with a witness signature.
Candidates are only informed of their fines following the final decisions. Candidates may contest fines, so long as they announce their intent to appeal a decision within five business days.
“One of the limitations of elections committee is that we can only look at what’s in front of us… a paragraph is describing a situation to us,” Nadarajah said.
In addition, Nadarajah also stressed that the time limit meant the elections committee would be forced to do a cost-benefit analysis of their decisions and ultimately value the quickest decision in order to announce a president-elect before the next morning.
Nadarajah also stated that while the elections committee has eight members, it only needs five to reach quorum, meaning that under certain circumstances only three members are enough to disqualify a candidate.
She also discussed the subjectivity of election committee’s decisions, namely that it is difficult for the election committee to establish when a candidate has impacted the integrity of an election.
They then went over the structure of other student union electoral offices, such as the University of Western Ontario and Queen’s University. UWO uses a demerit system and candidates are informed of any fines throughout the campaign period. At UWO, 30 demerit points automatically results in a disqualification.
At Queen’s, their equivalent elections team is comprised of five others in addition to the Chief Returning Officer and each person has a specific job, whether that be investigating fines or handling finances.
Both Nadarajah and Nwosu stated that the Elections Department may need to mirror some of these systems, whether it follow UWO’s quantitative approach or Queen’s and its delegation of duties.
Nadarajah and Nwosu offered a list of recommendations for reform. They argued they should increase transparency between candidates and their office with respect to fines, increase the threshold within the elections committee to disqualify a candidate from half the committee to two-thirds the committee and better outline and detail the appeals process.
This year’s MSU presidential election and its disqualifications was unprecedented event that may alter the way in which elections are run through the MSU.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
