On Feb. 4, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly gathered in room 111 of Gilmour Hall for the first SRA meeting of the month. Meeting highlights included a delegation by MSU President Chukky Ibe, a report period and a few administrative motions.
In a referendum last March, 59 per cent of McMaster students voted in favour of the expansion of Pulse and the creation of a new Student Activity Building. Ibe’s presentation concerned the tentative details of project, which is slated to be completed by 2020.
In order to collect recommendations for the SAB, the MSU created an online survey and made it available to students from July to Oct. 2017. Some suggestions for the SAB included study spaces, lounge spaces, nap rooms, a cafe and food court, a multifaith prayer space and a grocery store.
According to Ibe, most of the recommendations put forward will likely be implemented.
“The building is more so done, the parameters are set, and the program is designed,” said Ibe.
Nevertheless, Ibe noted that there will still be discrepancies between what students were promised and what they will receive. In particular, although students were promised a new gym, the promise did not include the fact that the new gym would have turf flooring.
Moreover, students will be receiving peer-to-peer consultation-style rooms instead of a peer support centre. In addition, in the SAB, students will have access to nap-friendly furniture as opposed to a napping room.
In spite of these discrepancies, the SAB is expected to fulfill most of its promises, featuring key developments such as a grocery store-style student market, lounge and study areas and two prayer spaces.
After Ibe’s delegation, the SRA transitioned into a report period. Some topics included the creation of a nursing career panel in CIBC hall, increased collaboration between the social science caucus and Maccess and the completion of the municipal pre-budget submission, which discusses how Hamilton City Council should allocate tax dollars this year.
Following the report period, the SRA voted on a number of administrative motions, including the opening and closing of seats on the municipal affairs, services and executive board committees. For a spot on the executive board committee, Kristin Webb, social sciences (member), ran against Shemar Hackett, social sciences (member).
Webb was voted in.
The next SRA meeting will be held on Feb. 25 in Gilmour Hall.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Jan. 7, the Student Representative Assembly and Board of Directors convened in Gilmour Hall for the first SRA meeting of 2018.
A large portion of the meeting was allotted to opening and closing seats on a number of committees, including opening and closing nominations for SRA and McMaster Students Union members to join awards committees, such as the MSU Merit Scholarship and the MSU Spirit award.
Another topic of discussion concerned the future of Homecoming.
“There are a significant amount of students who do not attend homecoming for a myriad of reasons. From midterms to commuter reasons, faith restrictions and just lack of interest,” wrote MSU president Chukky Ibe in a memo to the SRA on Dec. 21, 2017.
“We also have concerns about the responsibility of students and student leaders, concerns of the community,” he added.
In the memo, Ibe also highlighted the issue of gender-based violence and behaviour from both performers and community members. He also highlighted issues of alumni not returning for Homecoming, explaining that while axing Homecoming is not up for discussion, the future of Homecoming remains uncertain.
At the meeting, members of the SRA proposed a number of ways that the MSU could make Homecoming more worthwhile for alumni and students, particularly commuter students, in the future.
“There are a significant amount of students who do not attend homecoming for a myriad of reasons. From midterms to commuter reasons, faith restrictions and just lack of interest.”
Chukky Ibe
MSU President
In particular, Sunny Yun, caucus leader (Arts & Science), suggested that Homecoming include alumni-specific programming.
Ibe proposed cohort-specific programming, such as a reunion for SRA alumni.
Sabra Salim, caucus leader (Science), argued that alumni may be more incentivized by specific types of programming, such as performances from big name artists.
Sabrin Salim noted that it may be more fruitful for the MSU to target multiple audiences, featuring unique types of performances, as achieved with Lil Yachty and The Strumbellas.
Another recommendation entailed increasing the amount of activity on campus, particularly by expanding Homecoming Expo to make it more akin to Light Up The Night.
When asked how Homecoming can be made friendlier to commuter students, SRA members echoed the sentiment that there should be more activity on campus during Homecoming.
“We should have programming for people who maybe the partying frequency [is not something] they go towards,” said Sabra Salim.
The board of directors will be taking the Assembly’s suggestions into consideration.
Currently, the MSU is part of a working group, which includes student unions from Queen’s University, the University of Waterloo, Western University and Wilfrid Laurier University, where it will continue to discuss these issues.
The next SRA meeting will be held in room 111 of Gilmour Hall at 6 p.m. on Jan. 21, 2018.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
At the Student Representative Assembly meeting on Nov. 26, the SRA and Board of Directors voted to send the Ontario Public Interest Research Group fee to referendum in January 2018.
The McMaster OPIRG fee referendum will come in the wake of the vote at the University of Toronto, which occurred in November 2017 but failed to meet quorum. It will also follow the referenda held the University of Waterloo in 2016 and at Queen’s University in 2012, where students voted to eliminate their OPIRG fee.
OPIRG is a province-wide organization that advocates for environmental and social justice. The group consists of chapters at 11 universities in Ontario. By facilitating free training workshops for students and funding working groups, such as the McMaster Indigenous Student Community Alliance, OPIRG supports grassroots activism.
Currently, McMaster students pay a $8.07 OPIRG fee, which has been included in the ancillary fees since 1995. While students can opt out of paying the fee, they may only do so by visiting the OPIRG office.
While the McMaster Students Union has not re-evaluated the OPIRG fee in the past, the Assembly has scrutinized how it has been allocated.
In November 2017, the SRA finance committee called for the impending referendum in light of OPIRG McMaster’s failure to sufficiently advertise the opt-out option.
While the McMaster Students Union has not re-evaluated the OPIRG fee in the past, the Assembly has scrutinized how it has been allocated.
In particular, in December 2016, former MSU vice president (Finance) Ryan MacDonald reported to OPIRG that the Assembly was concerned about the fact that $145,000 of the $180,000 OPIRG funding was supporting administrative costs rather than working groups.
MacDonald also noted the Assembly’s interest in making the opt-out option available online.
At the Nov. 26 SRA meeting, Brett Cox, a representative from OPIRG, noted that in September 2018, the OPIRG opt-out will be moved online and that OPIRG will increase its working group funding by $50.
The SRA ultimately voted in favour of sending the fee to referendum. The ballot will contain three options: preserve the $8.07 fee, reduce it to $5.50 or eliminate the fee entirely.
MSU vice president (Finance) Daniel “Tuba” D’Souza, who proposed the $5.50 option, explains that this number is not arbitrary.
“This fee reduction would allow OPIRG to continue functioning in a similar capacity, providing funds for one to two permanent part-time staff members in addition to a significant portion of their current funding for programming and working groups,” said D’Souza during the Nov. 26 SRA meeting.
Nevertheless, Jonathan Patterson, another OPIRG representative, highlights that this option would be problematic, resulting in the reduction of one OPIRG staff member.
Sahra Soudi, OPIRG volunteer and former board member, also believes the organization should not be sent to referendum, particularly in light of the rise of conservatism at the university.
“The skills I gained as an OPIRG board member have actually helped me and how I organize on campus as an activist as the co-president of the McMaster Womanists,” said Soudi. “OPIRG supports these groups and social justice initiatives. Without OPIRG, I’m afraid our campus will not be the same.”
The SRA voted in favour of endorsing the $5.50 fee option.
“Overall it seems the SRA thought the $5.50 option would be a way to maintain OPIRG and their services while reducing the amount that students contribute,” said Helen Zeng, SRA Speaker.
The campaign period for the referendum will start on Jan. 14, and polling will be open online from Jan. 23 to 25.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Nov. 12, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly and Board of Directors convened in Gilmour Hall for a particularly lengthy meeting.
In addition to voting on the approval of a number of policy papers, the assembly engaged in a heated discussion about whether the Ontario Public Interest Research Group McMaster student fee should be sent to referendum.
OPIRG McMaster Board of Directors member Tanya Brkic delivered the presentation on the group. OPIRG is a not-for-profit student organization that advocates for environmental and social justice.
Irazuzta highlighted the $8.07 fee that students pay for the service, but did not provide a quantitative break down of how it is allocated.
She did, however, speak about the working groups that OPIRG funds, particularly the McMaster Indigenous Student Community Alliance, and the events that they hold.
After Irazuzta concluded her presentation, she received a flurry of questions from the Assembly.
It should be noted that while McMaster students have the capacity to opt out of paying the OPIRG fee, this option is not particularly advertised by OPIRG. The option is also not available online, as students have to visit the OPIRG office in order to opt-out of paying the fee.
When asked how the organization is advertising the opt-out option, a representative from OPIRG in attendance stated that it has advertised through The Silhouette’s website and in the McMaster University Student Centre.
Chukky Ibe, MSU President, stressed that OPIRG has yet to adopt the MSU’s recommendations from last year, which include concerns about OPIRG’s high level of administrative costs and the consensus that the opt-out process should be moved online.
When the discussion shifted back to the OPIRG discussion later in the meeting, Alex Wilson, SRA member (science), noted the ambiguity concerning what constitutes good advertising in the first place.
Deshpande reiterated the concern that a significant portion of the funding OPIRG collects from students goes towards administrative costs. Ibe critiqued the lack of undergraduate involvement in the organization.
To remedy the problem of insufficient advertising, an OPIRG representative suggested that the opt-out be moved online.
Another OPIRG representative suggested the formation of a working group between OPIRG and the MSU.
By the end of the meeting, most of the tension between the Assembly and OPIRG dissipated, as both the Assembly and OPIRG staff expressed interest in not sending the OPIRG fee to referendum.
Instead, Deshpande proposed that an Ad Hoc committee be established to review OPIRG and set long-term direction, which includes compliance with bylaw 5 — financial affairs.
The next SRA meeting will be held on Nov. 26 in Gilmour Hall. The motion to put the OPIRG fee to referendum, as per finance committee recommendations, will still be on the agenda.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On the Sept. 28 editorial entitled, “The McMaster Students Union’s lack of communication,” it was noted that a significant chunk was cut out from the archives from the Sept. 24 Student Representative Assembly meeting. This has not changed. It remains just over an hour long, a fraction of a much longer meeting, and 17 minutes of that is a break.
The Oct. 28 meeting promised topics like Aidan Johnson and updates about ward 1, discussions about the smoking ban policy and the McMaster Marching Band. The archives have the ending 11 minutes and 51 seconds of the meeting available. The rest seems to be unrecoverable.
While going through the tweets made by those in attendance or watching at home and the News article in this week’s issue will be decent resources, specifically about Johnson’s appearance at the beginning, it still pales in comparison to having the primary document available.
There were a substantial number of issues that went into this appearance such as the city’s Indigenous justice policy, the transgender protocol, the LRT, the city’s attempts to adjust Hamilton’s ward boundaries and McMaster students experiencing breaking and entering thefts. A large portion of the discussion was directly about how you and other McMaster students interact with the city. The majority of the issues discussed will continue to be important points.
An unfortunate part about this live stream corrupting is that you no longer have any way to verify the entirety of the meeting. While you may be able to place your trust in whatever source you like when it comes to updates around campus, the only way you can verify is by checking other secondary documents.
If any of these issues come up again in the future, and the majority of them likely will as we move closer to the Hamilton municipal election taking place next year, we will not have the depth of information that we could have provided. Any number of points that were not documented at the time are now lost.
It is important to understand that mistakes can happen, and technology might be a bit finicky from time to time. A backup plan would have been nice. It is simply disappointing that this meeting, the one that radically altered how McMaster interacts with the city, is the one we have the least amount of access to.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
At the Student Representative Assembly meeting on Oct. 29, ward 1 Hamilton city councillor Aidan Johnson addressed the SRA and Board of Directors for the first time since 2014.
After Johnson delivered some ward updates, he was met with contentious questions from the assembly.
Alex Wilson, caucus member (science) and Ainslie Wood resident, noted that students make up the largest demographic of ward 1, and asked Johnson if he agreed that “students deserve effective representation”. He also questioned Johnson about his characterization of ward 1’s off-campus student community as a “hygiene problem.”
Johnson responded that his use of “hygiene” was literal, not metaphorical, meaning that the community has a garbage, not student, problem.
Dodging the answer to Wilson’s first question, Johnson replied, “I’m sorry that you feel that way.”
Chukky Ibe, MSU president, expressed frustration over the fact that Johnson had not spoken in front of the SRA in three years. He also noted Johnson’s failure to sufficiently answer Wilson’s second question and alleged that Johnson characterized students as “low intelligence.”
Most of the following questions dealt with the recently passed motion to increase the number of bylaw officers in Westdale and Ainslie Wood. The program began in 2016, after Johnson stated that the McMaster area needed more help to aid the hygiene problem. The program does not address other problems within the community, such as absentee landlords for student housing.
This particular motion was met with a backlash from students, particularly Ryan Deshpande, vice president (Education) and Stephanie Bertolo, associate vice president (Municipal Affairs), who voiced the concern that “the proposal unfairly targets students who are still learning bylaws.”
Chukky Ibe, McMaster Students Union president, expressed frustration over the fact that Johnson had not spoken in front of the SRA in three years. He also noted Johnson’s failure to sufficiently answer Wilson’s second question and alleged that Johnson characterized students as “low intelligence.” Ibe asked Johnson if he “regards himself as an honest man.”
“I have never been so impressed with an MSU President,” Wilson tweeted. “Chukky Ibe’s questioning of Aidan Johnson and defense of McMaster students was phenomenal.”
Johnson reiterated that he would never reduce humans to garbage. He also stated that he would never work for a “stupid” population in the first place.
In addition, SRA members addressed the proposed change in ward boundaries, asking Johnson whether or not Ainslie Wood actually belongs in Dundas. Johnson stated that he favours the status quo.
After the discussion shifted back to the bylaw officer motion, Johnson stated that he “urges student tenants to learn bylaws.”
Bertolo noted that Johnson, in stating that students should learn bylaws, implies that bylaws are intuitive and free of legal jargon, putting the burden on them.
Johnson said students should seek out a lawyer first. “The notion that students can just 'hire a lawyer' is fallacious. We are in unsafe student housing because that's what we can afford,” Wilson tweeted in response.
The next SRA meeting will be held on Nov. 12 in Gilmour Hall.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Takhliq Amir
The Student Representative Assembly by-election nomination period officially closed on Oct. 20, setting up the upcoming week for the campaigning period that will conclude with the election of three new SRA members.
Currently, there are two vacant seats on the SRA social sciences caucus and one seat on the kinesiology caucus. These seats had been filled in the 2016-2017 year when elections were initially held but have since been vacated by the elected representatives for various reasons. One of these representations, Kathleen Quinn, SRA Social Science, had been re-elected for her second term, but has stepped down due to other commitments.
“My co-op with the city of Hamilton was extended and I knew I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. With the new board I was already making progress on my platform so it was a tough choice, but I had to go with the best opportunity for me and my career plans,” said Quinn.
With two empty seats on the Social Science caucus, however, there is arguably greater strain on the remaining members to adequately represent their faculty.
“As caucus leader, two open seats means we’re missing 40 per cent of our caucus. This means most of the decisions we make are usually tentative as we can’t set out to do a whole lot until we have a full caucus that can make decisions together,” said Uwais Patel, SRA (Social Sciences) caucus leader.
“The SRA is a leadership opportunity that is mostly self-driven; you get what you put into it. It means we have two less caucus members not fulfilling a platform, representing their faculty or supporting the caucus as a team,” he added.
He states that although such situations should not have adverse impacts in the long run, they do cause difficulty in managing responsibilities in the short term.
“We’ve had to put some of our projects on hold and re-evaluate some of the projects our former members had set out to accomplish. This ultimately means that we have less representation within the faculty and less support internally as a team. I believe the more voices you have, the more you can accomplish,” Patel said.
"The SRA provides support as it can through one-on-one [sessions] and setting firm deadlines, but one of the difficulties is that this organization relies heavily on volunteer labour."
Kathleen Quinn
Former SRA member
To compensate, Patel personally decided to run a stronger outreach and communications plan for the by-election in order to have greater outreach. On the MSU website, there is also a page by the SRA Social Science caucus that aims to smooth the election process for those running for a seat in this by-election.
Taking on greater responsibilities is not uncommon in the SRA, where representatives sit as active members on other MSU committees in addition to their own workload to effectively represent their constituents. However, this can also take time away from other extracurricular and work commitments and potentially present as a source of stress for the members, something that was acutely felt by Quinn.
“The SRA provides support as it can through one-on-one [sessions] and setting firm deadlines, but one of the difficulties is that this organization relies heavily on volunteer labour. I found it difficult to balance my job outside of the MSU, school and responsibilities I have as a mature student that others may not have. I think it does affect your mental health as there has been an expectation in the past to work beyond what one should to maintain balance,” she said.
Quinn suggested that there are options that the MSU should explore in lessening the workload of SRA members to ensure that they can balance their responsibilities with their academics or other commitments.
“I think that an honorarium, better compensation and accurate staff hours tracking is key. The culture needs to shift,” she said.
“Ambitious platforms are great, [but] they shouldn’t come at the expense of staff and volunteers… I think we need to discuss with the school how many basic services we are providing as a union and ask for more support,” Quinn added.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Oct. 15, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly and board of directors met in Gilmour Hall to discuss and vote on a number of administrative motions.
One, put forward by Max Lightstone, caucus leader (engineering), asked the SRA to approve a report crafted by the Student Activity Building space allocation ad-hoc committee.
The report consisted of a detailed plan for the new Student Activity Building, which is projected to be completed by 2020. It also included information about how the recommendations for the new building were made.
In particular, it noted that 426 students were asked, via an online MSU survey, what facilities they most wanted to be part of the SAB. Eight hundred and ninety nine students voted for an architect design. The Interfaith Council discussed prayer space in the SAB, and religious groups were consulted.
Students identified study space, lounge space, study rooms, nap space and dining space, respectively, as most important prospective SAB facilities. When asked what should be prioritized, 50 percent of students voted for natural light.
It’s worth noting that although eight percent of students voted for workout space and seven percent voted for studio space, the committee opted not to consider including these areas in the SAB.
The motion to adopt the report passed unanimously.
In addition, motions to open seats on the sustainability education committee, finance committee, provincial and federal affairs committee, and internal governance committee, for instance, were also voted unanimously in favour of.
Only a few SRA members expressed interest in joining committees. Though a few representatives, including Alex Wilson, caucus member (science), noted prior commitments to at least two other committees, other members appeared to be uninterested.
For a position on the Elections Committee, Brian Zheng, caucus leader (Kinesiology) ran against Chukky Ibe, MSU President. Zheng was voted in.
Another administrative motion concerned the approval of the vice-presidential and speaker operating policy, which was constructed by the elections committee.
Concerns, particularly from Preethi Anbalagan, vice president (administration), arose over vice-presidential candidates’ amended speaking format, which consisted of comparatively longer presentation and question and answer period times.
After a lengthy discussion, the assembly voted to send the report back to the internal governance committee for review.
Though the meeting focused almost exclusively on administrative points, the assembly’s discussion was fruitful. The next meeting will be held in Gilmour Hall on Oct. 30.
The paper focused a bit on this last week in the article entitled “Communicating with the SRA” in the News section, but there are a few points mentioned in that piece that continue to be an issue. The live stream continues to be a problem, and the inability to fulfill the “Communication & Outreach” section of the Student Representative Assembly’s operating policy persisted for the Sept. 24 meeting.
While the live stream was available for the meeting, there is a significant chunk cut out from the archives. The current video has just over an hour segment cut out from a much longer meeting. About 17 minutes of the available content is a break.
Individual SRA faculties did a good job of promoting the live stream when it was available, but few followed up stating the results of the meeting afterwards to little detail. The only mention from the MSU itself on any social media was a retweet from SRA Social Sciences a day in advance of the meeting.
For the most part, the MSU continued to fail in providing timely, accessible information to the public. Unfortunately, this appears to be one part of a much larger problem.
There seems to be minimal priority in any sort of communication with the public.
While I can certainly respect that a large priority has been placed on projects like the café in 1280 and the Student Activity Building, I cannot respect the lack of effort when it comes to updating the student body on these processes or on anything related to smaller projects or proceedings.
The fortunate part for this paper is that many of our news articles, no matter how big or small, are breaking stories. If it were not for their efforts, I would have only the tiniest idea about what any of the Board of Directors has actually done over the last five months besides set up vague plans for things.
The 2017-2018 Approved Minutes on their website should be a fine enough way to get information about what the student government is consistently up to. At the time of writing, this has some notes from the month of April and the meeting on June 18.
For this paper specifically, there are no minutes at all available from the entire 2016-2017 year and none from this year available on their website for our Board of Publication.
The President’s Page in our paper could be another good resource, but requires you to pick up the physical copy for that week. The MSU website is in a similar situation to the previous point with nothing from the entire 2016-2017 year and nothing from this year in their President’s Page Archives.
You deserve to know what is going on. Maybe the board of directors simply do not want to boast about their accomplishments. My main worry at this point is that they have few accomplishments to boast about in the first place.
On Sept. 24, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly and board of directors gathered in Council Chambers at Gilmour Hall for the second SRA meeting of the academic year. At the meeting, three primary motions were discussed.
The first, put forward by Alex Wilson, SRA (Science) member, called for the MSU to adopt a more critical stance on McMaster’s recent smoking ban. In particular, Wilson asked the MSU to release a statement claiming that “McMaster Students Union cautions against the move towards a smoke free campus and prioritizes considerations of student safety, accessibility, and comprehensive access to McMaster University when considering implementation.”
The SRA and the board largely agreed with Wilson’s original statement, but they voted to amend it to include the fact that, despite its anti-ban position, the MSU recognizes the negative health effects of smoking. Not sparking significant disagreement, the amended motion won the majority vote.
The second motion, put forward by Max Lightstone, SRA (Engineering) caucus leader, called for the MSU to promote the opportunity for students to opt out of paying their Ontario Public Interest Research Group fee.
Although an amendment to extend MSU promotion to all opportunities to opt out was considered, SRA members agreed that promotion can take place on the grassroots level, not requiring an official motion. Another concern raised was the fact that the relationship between the MSU and OPRIG would be strained in the event that the MSU endorsed the opt out. As a result, the motion failed.
The third motion, put forward by Sabrin Salim, SRA (Science) member, asked the board to release a statement within 48 hours of the meeting to apologize for the events that transpired on the night of Post Malone, explain why an apology to reps and students was not released earlier and highlight what changes will be made in light of Homecoming and future events. This motion ignited heated debate, with SRA members disagreeing with board.
Ryan Deshpande, vice president (Education), sought to amend the motion further to place less emphasis on the apology and stress how the MSU is preparing for Homecoming, stating that releasing improvements would make the statement more constructive.
“Moved by Deshpande, seconded by Sabra, that the MSU release a publication this week in advance of Homecoming in conjunction with the communication department that specifically highlights appropriate safety measures for Homecoming and apologizes for negative experiences in the past event of Post Malone,” the amended statement read.
A few SRA members, such as Wilson and Salim, expressed frustration over Deshpande’s amendment, noting that the MSU needs to acknowledge that many first-years and reps felt invalidated at Post Malone.
Nevertheless, amidst logistical concerns with the Salim’s original motion and a growing awareness that an unfruitful debate would persist should the amendment fail, the SRA and the board voted to pass both the amendment and the amended motion.
The next SRA meeting will be held at 5 p.m. on Oct. 15 in Gilmour Hall.
