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.
By: Takhliq Amir
The first 2017-2018 meeting of the Student Representative Assembly, the governing body of the McMaster Students Union, was held on Sept. 10. Limited information was available to those not able to attend, however, because the usual method of online live streaming was unavailable.
“The live stream was not available this past Sept. 10 meeting due to a logistical error…. Members will sometimes live tweet the meeting if no stream is available, but meetings are long and can be exhausting,” said Helen Zeng, the MSU Speaker.
As elected faculty representatives of their student bodies, members of the SRA meet biweekly to discuss issues concerning undergraduates. Meetings are open to all, and the agenda and supporting materials are made available on the MSU website on the Wednesday preceding the meeting.
To ensure that their constituents can hold members accountable, the SRA has an operating policy titled “Communication & Outreach” that aims to outline the members’ responsibilities in making information available to students in a timely manner.
One of the goals of the operating policy is disseminate information to students in a timely manner. Communication materials are required to be completed within 24 hours of a meeting, and once approved by the Speaker, each caucus is responsible for disseminating the material on their social media accounts within 24 hours of receiving it.
“The operating policy does its job at keeping the assembly accountable to a standard level, but any other initiatives are up to assembly members to take on…. The SRA will do their very best to engage the student population, but engagement is never an easy task,” Zeng said.
“Moreover, there are extra steps that the SRA takes in order to be accessible. We made a presence at Horizons Successfest to promote meeting and committees to first year students, we had material at Clubsfest to promote the assembly, there is a window banner in MUSC that shows all the meeting dates, and SRA members will make numerous outreach and engagement efforts on their respective social media accounts,” she added.
“It’s difficult to live tweet a meeting and pay attention at the same time. Additionally, there are issues with the live-stream itself.”
Uwais Patel
SRA
Social Science
Meeting minutes, however, are often published two weeks after each meeting, and are inaccessible until then. There is still much that can be done to improve the accessibility of the SRA, a sentiment shared by Uwais Patel, SRA Social Science.
“The current structure of the SRA’s accessibility, in my opinion, is pretty minimal,” said Patel.
“The advantage that I see is that an effort is at least being made. Meetings are live-streamed, discussions are recorded, and everything is posted on the MSU Website with the hopes of the organization keeping itself transparent and accountable to the public.”
Patel also noted the challenges that come with communicating with one’s constituents.
“It’s difficult to live tweet a meeting and pay attention at the same time. Additionally, there are issues with the live-stream itself. For one, only one mic is available (placed in the middle of the room) to pick up all words said by assembly members. Constituents in the past have complained about not being able to hear.”
The SRA has acknowledged the issue and has voiced its commitment to improving the accessibility of its meetings in the future.
“Meetings will be live streamed from now on and we are working with the MSU Communications Officer to create more streamlined media to promote agendas before meeting. As well, following the meetings,” said Zeng.
“[Meeting minutes] can take a while, [so] we have the Operating Policy that allows SRA members to summarize meetings as they see fit (videos, media, class talks etc.) and promote this to the general MSU membership.”
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Another General Assembly has come and gone, with one of the lowest attendances in recent years. Only 16 voters were registered, meaning only 0.00065 per cent of the McMaster Students Union attended the event.
The annual General Assembly is meant to be a place where students who are not directly involved with student governance may have their voice heard. If the General Assembly hits quorum, which is three per cent of the MSU membership, all votes will be binding on the Student Representative Assembly, making it the highest form of governance in the student union. In the last 22 years, the General Assembly has only hit quorum three times.
This year marked a notable dip in attendance, with last year’s attendance hitting 50 at its peak, which remains a paltry number considering last year’s quorum was 660 MSU members.
Kathleen Quinn, incumbent SRA (Social Sciences) representative, cited lack of knowledge and interest in the union as the main reasons to why students were not coming out the General Assembly.
“I feel like we need to be doing a better job, we need to be getting in people’s faces and their classes and talking to them about why it’s important to be involved with their union, otherwise, this union will continue to be insignificant on this campus,” said Quinn.
Of the three motions put forward, two discussed changing the format of the General Assembly in hopes of engaging more students.
Quinn put forward a motion to introduce a general meeting in first semester in hopes of increasing interest in student governance earlier on. Quinn’s motion passed.
Maxwell Lightstone, an incumbent SRA (Engineering) representative echoed similar sentiments but proposed lowering quorum so motions passed by the General Assembly with an attendance lower than three per cent be binding, as well as holding a General Assembly every term and investigating the measures needed to allow motions passed at General Assembly with one percent be binding on the MSU as long as the SRA has ratified it. Lightstone’s tri-fold motion failed.
Quinn also put forward a motion asking the MSU to recognize education as a right and advocate for universal access. This motion passed.
The General Assembly continues to be an anomaly for the MSU with respect to student engagement, given that the MSU has some of the highest voter turnouts in elections and referenda. This past year’s presidential election saw a 44 per cent voter turnout and the Athletics and Recreation/Pulse expansion referendum saw a 30 per cent voter turnout.
In the past few years, the General Assembly has seen quorum a few times. In 2015, the General Assembly hit quorum due to the highly contentious motions, namely the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions campaign which called for the divestment from any corporations that profits from the occupation of Palestinian territory.
The General Assembly also hit quorum in 2012, but much of this is accredited not to the motions discussed but rather the extensive campaigning done by that year’s board of directors, which included its own webpage, well-designed posters and a popular Facebook page.
While the General Assembly remains the highest form of governance within the student union, it continues to lack any tangible results unless there is a controversial agenda or extensive marketing. Until at least one of those conditions are met, the General Assembly will continue to disappoint.
As of March 10, the McMaster Students Union has elected their new Student Representative Assembly for the 2017-2018 term. Although the SRA serves as the main legislative body within the MSU, 10 of the 31 seats available were acclaimed. This contrasts last year’s SRA race, where nearly all caucuses saw a race, save for nursing.
Although a peculiarity, such a phenomenon is seen on other university campuses and indicates a decline in interest in student politics overall in Ontario. Common threads throughout many Ontario campuses include low voter turnout, low attendance at general assemblies and low student engagement with student politics.
Different universities have different structures of government, making exact comparisons difficult. But of the many universities in Ontario, a notable few have had a paltry number of candidates, despite the size of the school.
University of Waterloo Undergraduate population: 31,380
The University of Waterloo’s student union, or the Federation of Students, had over half of the seats on their council acclaimed, with 16 of the 25 possible seats with only one contender. These positions are mainly their faculty councillors. Entire caucuses, such as the math caucus and science caucus, faced no opposition. In addition, much of their senate was acclaimed, with two of the three senate member listed facing no opposition.
Wilfrid Laurier University Undergraduate population: 19,000
The Wilfrid Laurier University Students Union uses multiple bodies to make up their governance, with a president, board of directors, senate and board of governors. Of the five seats open on their senate, three seats were acclaimed.
Brock University Undergraduate population: 18,000
Brock University Students Union includes a faculty council and a board of directors, the latter being voted in on one or two year terms. In their February executive election, where their president, vice president and board chairs are elected, one of the board chairs faced no opposition. It should be noted that the board chair is not a paid position in the BUSU.
University of Guelph Undergraduate population: 18,697
The Central Student Association runs at-large elections for all of their executive positions, which include president, vice presidents and representatives from different seven faculties. In the CSA’s last election, six of the eight faculty representatives elected had their seats acclaimed.
Carleton University Undergraduate population: 20,471
Carleton University Students Association holds an annual at-large election for both the council and board of directors who make up their governing bodies. In their February election, six of the 24 available councillor seats were acclaimed.
Western University Undergraduate population: 23, 500
The Western University Student Council has a complex structure due to its affiliate colleges, such as Huron and Brescia, which have their own elections separately. The Western USC’s voting members include the presidents of their affiliate colleges’ councils and faculty councils. Huron College’s presidential elections happened with little fanfare, as there was only one contender. There is currently a vacancy in their dentistry council.
Although many Ontario universities struggle with garnering interest in student politics, other schools thrive. The York Federation of Students, the University of Toronto Students Union and the Ryerson Students Union all have contentious elections, with upwards of 10 candidates for each position.
Despite the lack of races this year, MSU elections have maintained the highest voter turnout in Ontario. Although this year’s SRA raises questions concerning student engagement in union politics, such a phenomenon is not exclusive to our campus, nor is it impossible to come back from.
With Student Representative Assembly elections finished, it’s time for everyone’s favourite kind of conversation: an “inside baseball” look at student politics.
The SRA is an important group (just ask them) and play a significant role in shaping the student experience at McMaster. This is not up for debate.
But the paradox is that the SRA represents students while not truly engaging them. As you can see from the news piece on page five, this is not a McMaster-specific issue; apathetic students who are a mix of too busy or disconnected from the school that they just don’t pay attention to these issues plague universities across the province.
And the SRA will have its meetings every other week and they’ll have their circular debates that will feature the same comments about representing students. SRA members have to come to terms with this, especially those who are only on the assembly because they were acclaimed: the majority of your constituents did not or would not vote for you.
3,501 total votes were cast this year and if you use faculty numbers from the 2015-2016 McMaster fact book, that means only 21 per cent of people voted. This figure excludes faculties that had acclaimed seats and it is not exact because the faculty enrolment was not immediately available.
21 per cent is a solid turnout for an election like this, but it is far from a license for an SRA member to vote however they want. Your job is to represent students and that consultation process only starts when you’re elected.
It is bizarre how members of the SRA can be on completely opposite sides of an issue yet they say to be representing the McMaster undergrads.
Do students from different faculties differ so strongly on separate issues? Or are SRA members just using their position to implement their own views instead of those they represent?
This gets at a debate as old as the SRA itself: should SRA representatives vote for what their students want, or should they use their expertise they gain through sitting on different committees and reading over memos and reports to make more informed decisions?
The right answer is a balance of these two. A number of SRA caucuses have improved the way they interact with students through Google doc feedback forms or increased visibility on social media. We need more initiatives like this to engage a passive student body, and that should be a top priority for the incoming SRA.
By engaging more students, we can increase the variety of voices that inform the legislative body and make it representative of the McMaster population. Soliciting the opinions of people with different experiences will only make for a stronger SRA.
The flip side is the responsibility to become informed on the issues they are voting on. I find it hard to blindly trust the judgement of SRA representatives.
Over the years, I’ve watched countless meetings where SRA members ask questions that can be answered by reading the documents provided. I’ve seen members sit through meetings with their laptops open to all sorts of random things.
If the SRA is going to argue that they know more than the average student and that informs their logic, they need to be critical of other assembly members who shirk their responsibilities. Unfairly or not, one person slacking off undermines the student population’s confidence in the SRA.
This year is especially important because of the lack of interest in the positions. To me, it says students do not see value in the legislative body. SRA representatives need to put more effort in than before to restore interest and trust in the group.
Students will be heading back to the polls for Student Representative Assembly elections, and for the third time this year, they will be met with a referendum question.
The Pulse expansion and Student Activity Building are back on the ballot because the university has committed to spend $10 million on the project.
Via email, dean of students Sean Van Koughnett explained that the funding is coming from money that “exist[s] for strategic priorities.” Originally, the university was spending $1.1 million per year for the operating costs of the building.
Provost and vice-president (Academic) David Wilkinson wrote a memo to the SRA about the increased funding. There are a few parts that have me scratching my head.
Wilkinson writes “[w]e also understand from student feedback that cost is a concern.”
Uh, yeah. Cost is at the heart of every student issue because post-secondary costs continue to rise and employment prospects are only getting worse for many students. The university obviously knows this because it has been a talking point for at least the six years I have been at Mac.
It is disingenuous for them to issue this memo because they had to know that the doubling of a fee is going to be the reason this project doesn’t happen.
McMaster students have voted down cost increases when given the chance in recent years.
The memo also states “the results of the failed referendum points to strong student support for space expansion.”
The need for more space has been documented for years, and for the university to pretend that this referendum result does more to cement that is an insult to both research done by the university and students who took the time to submit feedback.
As we wrote in a news piece in the Feb. 2 issue, a 2011 campus capacity study cited data from 2008-2009 that classified the need for more student “lounge and service space” as a top-five priority.
According to the presentation made to the SRA in Nov. 2016, 80 per cent of students identified student space as their top priority.
That number comes from a 2015 McMaster Students Union space survey. 90 per cent of students identified unprogrammed space in their “top ten student space wishlist” in student focus groups run by the MSU in 2016. The McMaster University Student Affairs logo is on the front of this presentation, so they know about these numbers.
The optics are not good. In the span of a month, McMaster has decided to spend $10 million to contribute when this project has been in the works since the summer of 2016 and the need for the expansion and new building have been apparent for much longer.
Prior to the failed referendum, the university was comfortable with saddling the students with a near doubling of a student fee. Was this the plan all along? Highball students with the full price, drop in with a cheaper rate if it fails and see if they will take that?
On the other hand, the politics of this are fantastic. The university can say they spent $10 million on a student building that is completely controlled by the students. That contribution could carry into future negotiations about who should bear the cost for certain projects. And the university will get something they really need: a new student building to put in their marketing materials.
This $10 million is not free; students just don’t know what the cost down the line will be. The money should have always been on the table as the need and want for the building has existed for years. Students should not celebrate that the university is contributing the money, they should ask why it was not there in the first place.
The original version and print version of this article states that the university was spending $1.1 million for operating costs. In fact, the university is spending $1.1 million a year for operating costs.
The Student Representative Assembly has voted to hold a special referendum in March on the creation of an Athletics and Recreation building.
The referendum differs from the one held in January as the University has offered to contribute $10 million to the budget, decreasing the fee students would have to pay from $3.95 per unit to $2.99 per unit.
The referendum will be held in late March, with polling ending no later than March 28.
With a conference and Student Representative Assembly meeting, MSU constituents have had their hands full this weekend looking at new policies to implement this year.
On Nov. 12, the SRA held its policy conference, where students were encouraged to make their voices heard on the subjects the SRA discussed the following day. This term, the topics of the policy conference were international students, ancillary fees, and sexual and gender diversity.
The international students paper recommended that more resources be offered to international students, most notably during their Welcome Week, access to better job opportunities and networking, supplementing the healthcare coverage and more support be offered with respect to tuition and visa issues.
The ancillary fees paper recommended increasing transparency in the ancillary fee breakdowns, improving the opt-out systems in place, and allowing students the opportunity to advocate where their money should be allocated.
The sexual and gender diversity paper recommended increasing the number of gender-neutral washrooms on campus by doing space audits in various buildings and changing signage, officially outlining pro LGBTQ+ policies and hiring full-time staff to support LGBTQ+ students.
The final papers were presented to the SRA on Nov. 13. All three papers were passed with little discussion, and serve as the SRA’s official recommendations to inform the University Affairs committee and the External Affairs committee while they advocate on students’ behalf.
During Sunday night’s SRA meeting, McMaster Students Union president Justin Monaco-Barnes, and vice president (Finance) Ryan MacDonald announced a project proposal that has been several months in the works.
The focal point of this project is based on one of Monaco-Barnes’ platform points of a much needed Pulse expansion, but addresses several other key concerns that students have brought forward, including the need for:
The $60 million proposal involves two different plan options and will be brought to a vote to be sent to referendum on Nov. 12. If the referendum is successful, students will vote on the plan during the 2017 presidential election and construction will begin in the spring of 2018.
Student space on campus has been an issue for years. In the MSU’s 2015 Space Survey, 80 per cent of students identified student space as their number one priority on campus.
Both plan options see a 60,000 square foot athletics and recreation expansion, including an additional recreation gym, a new cardio loft, a women’s only fitness space, as well as 50 per cent off intramural costs and classes offered at the Pulse.
Exclusive to option A is the plan for a separate, 40,000 square foot student activity building that will be designed for students, by students. This building will feature a multi-faith prayer space, unprogrammed study space expansion, a peer support centre, a napping centre, a community kitchen and food collective, a multipurpose accessible event space, a gaming room, a movie theatre and a recording studio.
Students are currently paying $259.98 between the Athletics and Recreation service fee and the DBAC capital fee. Both plans include a $95 increase in these fees in September 2017 and an additional increase once the project is complete in 2020; option A being nearly double than option B.
More information about the project proposal and construction/fee timeline is available here.
