315, ucc building 1. call to order 2. o canada 3. · pdf filelaughton, angela manson, michelle...

Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of the 2003-2004 University Students’ Council of the University of Western Ontario held on April 9, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Room 315, UCC Building 1. CALL TO ORDER The Speaker called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. 2. O CANADA Sinal led Council in the singing of O Canada. 3. ATTENDANCE Present Baird, Mark Bastedo Clare Bishop, Rich Brodhagen, Don Chant, Arzie Chieh, Lil Collia, Natasha Dunn, Ryan Dyson, Brooke Earhart, Bevan Etherington, Peter Ferguson, James Gloven, Jeff Haines, Adam Haroun, Samar Heilandt, Mike Huston, Mark Israelsohn, Daniel Janssen, Kimberly

Johanssen, Eric Kesteloot, Andrew Kingston, Julia Krofchick, Evan Krofchick, Matthew Laughton, Angela Manson, Michelle Masiewich, Jana Mikkelsen, Erik Moir, Megan Morgan, Josh Mulvihill, Catherine Nelson, Nicole Nottage, Kelly Paola, Gio Peat, Don Persaud, Natalie Rady, Julia Raeside, Ashley

Rudd, Mike Sellner, Tim Seto, Clifford Sinal, Chris Staubitz, Nick Stefanovich, Peter Sury, Charlene Swain, Stephen Tan, Jonathan Tsoi, Nic Vaillancourt, Dave Varsava, Matt Vidgen, Anton Wechzelberger, Lisa Xaysy, Sou Yach, Jennifer Yeoman, Paul

Absent With Regrets Pulver, Shawn Absent Without Regrets Belton, Scott Bhatt, Chirag Businskas, Emi

Minutes of 2nd Meeting of the 2003-2004 Council April 9, 2003

Da Silva, Ian Donovan, Kyle Finkelstein, Chad Katai, Orsi Kendell, Lydia Kim, James

McAlpine, Cameron McLellan, Melanie Newman, Brad Panesar, Sue Pitcher, Jeff Robineau, Kathy

Sibley, Jacquie Van Wyk, Paula Wilkinson, Tim Zonneville, Stephanie

Non-Voting Members and Observers David Jagodzinski, Elgin Hall Residence Council President Steve Learmonth, Saugeen-Maitland Hall Residence Council President Sanjay Vakay, Delaware Hall Residence Council President Melanie Slade, Health Sciences Student Andrew Paradowski, Social Science Students’ Council Vice-President Communications James McMillan, CHRW Nitin Madhvani, Alumni Hall Residence Council President Rohan Belliappa, USC Vice-President Finance-Elect Mark Sellars, USC General Manager Anatoly Dvorkin, Legal Affairs Officer Kadie Ward, Communications Officer Toben Alexander, Media, Information and Technoculture Student Speaker: Brad Nicpon Deputy Speaker: Julie Cassidy Recording Secretary: Sandi Stefan 4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The Speaker advised that Elections of Committees would be inserted after Questions and Clarifications Arising from Board Reports. Sinal requested that a presentation by the First Year Students’ Commissioner, Mike Heilandt be added to the agenda as item 9 (c). Motion to adopt the agenda as amended. Vidgen/Vaillancourt/Carried 5. RATIFICATION OF MINUTES OF PAST MEETINGS There were no minutes to be ratified.


3

6. SPEAKER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS The Speaker advised Council that Summer Contact Information forms must be filled out by all members of Council before the summer break. The Speaker reminded Council that, in accordance with the USC Attendance Policy, meeting regrets must be received by himself or the Secretary a minimum of twenty-four hours prior to the scheduled start time of the meeting to be accepted. He advised that this would be his last USC meeting as Speaker of Council and thanked Council for allowing him to serve as Speaker of Council. He also extended his thanks to Julie Cassidy, Deputy Speaker for her help throughout the year. Nicpon congratulated Julie Cassidy on being selected as Speaker of Council for the 2003-2004 Council. Nicpon and Cassidy presented a video summary of their year as Speaker and Deputy Speaker entitled “Speaker’s Secrets”. 7. MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS Chieh presented Honour W Awards to Jenny Dyck, Jen Brent, Derritt Mason, Christie Love, Catherine Turner and Michael Lee-Poy and congratulated the recipients. Mikkelsohn introduced Betty Hunyh as President of the 03/04 Elgin Hall Residence Council. Berman thanked those who had attended the Council dinner and advised that she planned to organize a similar event in September. Chant thanked Nicpon for serving as the Speaker for Council. He advised that an article in yesterday’s Gazette had been referring to him and advised that comments he had made were meant to be good natured. Vidgen advised that he would relay Mr. Chant’s comments to Emmett Macfarlane, Gazette Editor-in-Chief, who looks forward to working with Council in the upcoming year. Cassidy thanked Gio Paola, Orientation Officer, and the Orientation Staff for organizing the All-Soph Rally on April 4th. 8. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE WESTERN COMMUNITY Belliappa advised that the next Senate meeting was on Friday, April 11th at 1:30. Senate will be discussing the budget and the issues of the concurrent programs. He asked that any councillors


4

who are interested try to come out to this meeting to show their support as policy issues are not clear on these programs. 9. PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL a) First-Year Students’ Caucus – Mike Heilandt, First-Year Students’ Commissioner Heilandt reviewed the role of the First-Year Students’ Caucus and advised that, in his view, the apathy found in this group this year had been because the students have not seen any results from the work done by the Caucus of previous years. He advised that the Caucus hopes to address this problem with the proposed re-organization plan they had developed. Heilandt congratulated Anton Vidgen for his work with the Caucus and also on receiving the Future of Western Award. Vidgen reviewed the proposed re-organization of the Caucus. The Caucus will meet each month and will feature a pre-scheduled discussion and guest speakers on an issue relevant to first-year students. The first meeting will feature the Orientation Officer and a discussion of O-Week issues. The Caucus will also have roving meetings at different locations on campus. The Caucus will continue to produce a year-end report and has discussed using a professional secretary to record minutes of meetings. The role of the First-Year Students’ Commissioner will be one of a co-ordinator and resource person as the year goes on. Vidgen advised that the goal of the re-organization is to have the First-Year Caucus more concentrated on important issues and to have a more immediate impact on first-year students. Sinal asked that any questions or concerns regarding this proposal be forwarded to him by April 16th. Learmonth asked if there had been any suggestions to have a representative from Saugeen-Maitland Hall on the Caucus in the past year. Vidgen responded that no specific efforts had been made towards Saugeen-Maitland Hall. Learmonth asked if the Caucus had discussed with the residence groups that they would be required to elect members to the Caucus. Vidgen replied that all groups had been invited to have input at the Caucus and advised that off-campus groups had been consulted as well. Heilandt advised that, if the residence councils do not wish to run the elections for Caucus representatives, the USC will run the elections.


5

Learmonth asked why there had been no consultation with groups who would be required to elect representatives to the Caucus for next year. Heilandt replied that the structure of the Caucus had included all residence councillors who were first-year students. He suggested that the difficulty that had resulted in Saugeen-Maitland Hall not being represented on the Caucus may have been that the Saugeen-Maitland Hall USC Councillor was not a first-year student. Vidgen advised that the report on the re-organization of the Caucus had been available to Council for two weeks. He suggested that any of the representatives who have a problem with the proposal could take their concerns back to their constituents for discussion. He apologized for not meeting with all of the residence council presidents. Laughton asked if the proposal contained provisions for first-year student representatives to attend residence council meetings. Sinal responded that he would introduce a clause stating that first-year representatives are required to attend USC and constituency council meetings. The clause will be added at the Board of Directors level. Dunn asked if the clause would be introduced at the Board of Directors meeting. Sinal responded that, if not introduced at a Board meeting, the clause would come to Council at the summer meeting or the first meeting in September. He advised that it would also be brought up at the USC summer meeting. The Speaker reminded Council that all questions must be addressed to the Speaker. b) Deb Matthews, Liberal Candidate London North-Centre Morgan introduced Andrew Ross, Policy Chair for Ms Matthews and doctoral candidate at UWO. Ross introduced Deb Matthews and advised that she is also a PhD. Candidate at Western and advised that her motivation in running has been post-secondary education issues. Matthews advised that she was very happy to be invited by Mr. Morgan to speak to the USC. She encouraged Council members to become involved in a campaign as the student vote is critically important. She stated that she had decided to run for office because she felt passionately that the Conservative government in Ontario has widened the gap between the rich and the poor and this gap is more evident in post-secondary education than anywhere else. She stated that she felt that tuition increases were a direct result of cuts to education funding made by the current government. Tuition increased by 45% during the Harris government and by


6

40% under the NDP government. She added that Ontario has the worst student:teacher ratio in North America and that there is a direct link between tuition levels and accessibility. Matthews advised that the Liberal party hopes to reform the OSAP program to allow part-time students to qualify for financial assistance; to increase the amount of funding available and waive half of the cost of tuition to the neediest 25% of applicants. She advised that the Liberals will not cut taxes but will re-invest in education and healthcare. Matthews advised that, although an election date had not been set, she has been campaigning since November and will continue to do so. Vaillancourt asked if the proposed tuition freeze would be fully funded and, if so, where the funds would come from. Matthews responded that the tuition freeze would be fully funded. She stated that the Liberal government would cancel $2.2 billion in corporate tax cuts, the credit for attending private schools and the partisan advertisements currently shown on television all of which were funded by the Conservative government. This money would be used by the Liberals to fund the tuition freeze. Kesteloot asked what the Liberals would do about the proposed teacher testing. Matthews advised that more information on the Liberal Education Platform could be found at her website www.debmatthews.ca but that she would support keeping a qualifying exam but it must be a meaningful exam. The Liberal party plans to radically reform the Ontario College of Teachers to recognize it as a professional body with a majority of working teachers on the board. Varsava asked if Matthews would be pushing to become the Education Minister to assure that students continue to have a voice in education issues. Matthews advised that she would be accessible to students and would insure that student voices continue to be heard. Swain asked if Matthews had attended the Freeze the Fees Rally. Matthews responded that she had attended the rally and that she spoke to rally participants at Dianne Cunningham’s office. She advised that her attendance at last year’s rally had been a major factor in her decision to run for public office this year. Morgan stated that the recent budget had contained commitments made to funding quality initiatives and asked if the Liberals were committed to funding these initiatives.


7

Matthews responded that the budget was a campaign piece and that one should look at the track record of the Conservatives to determine their commitment. Morgan asked how the Liberals would reach out to students who support a tuition increase to fund improvements to the quality of their programs. Matthews replied that the solution to increasing the quality of post-secondary programs is not to deregulate tuition in these programs which decreases accessibility. The reason that tuition has gone up in deregulated programs has been to maintain quality. The liberal party proposes that the first step would be to re-regulate tuition in these programs with the overall solution to be increased government funding. Dyson asked if Matthews was an optimist and how she felt about Dalton McGuinty, Liberal party leader, consistently trailing behind the premier in the polls. Matthews responded that she is an optimist and that McGuinty has almost closed the gap between himself and Eves in the polls and that opinion shows that Ontarians feel that the Conservatives have mismanaged in many areas illustrated by the hydro crisis and the double cohort. Mikkelsen asked if cancelling the $2.2 billion in corporate tax breaks would have a negative effect on the overall economy. Matthews responded that Ontario’s corporate tax rates are 10% lower than in the surrounding states and provinces. Nelson asked if the Liberal party would look at the support systems, such as daycare subsidies, that allow students to pursue post-secondary education. Matthews invited Nelson to teach her about the issues faced by students regarding access to these support systems. Yeoman asked if a Liberal government would roll back professional school tuitions. Matthews responded that the first step would be to regulate tuitions for professional schools. She advised that she would like to see equal access to all programs. c) Off-Campus Advisors – Chantelle Blom, Off-Campus Advisor and Glenn Matthews, Housing Mediation Service. Blom stated that she hoped, through her presentation to educate the members of the USC on what the Off-Campus Advisor Program is. She reviewed the goals of the Off-Campus Advisor


8

program and distributed a flyer entitled “Off-Campus Advisor Quick Facts” and a map of the residential area addressed by the program. Rudd asked how Blom planned to make students more aware of the services and support available to them through the Off-Campus Advisor Program. Blom replied that the program would be doing presentations in the residences this year to make students who will be living off-campus next year aware of the services. In addition, several thousand newsletters are delivered door to door in the local area to advise students and residents of the community of the services. The Off-Campus Advisors (OCA’s) also go door to door every month and offer students gift certificates in exchange for allowing the advisors to give a brief presentation. Vidgen asked if the OCA’s fulfilled the same function as the Off-Campus Dons. Blom responded that the Dons focus on academic and social issues for first-year students whereas the OCA’s work with all students and deal in more legal issues such as tenant/landlord concerns. Matthews advised that Housing Mediation Service planned to promote having homeowners call the OCA programs when issues with student neighbours arose rather than calling the students’ landlord or the police. Paola yielded to Belliappa who asked if the OCA program maintained statistics on the calls received. Blom responded that statistics on calls received from the community were kept by the Housing Mediation Office and, additionally, any Off Campus Advisors who respond to calls keep notes on how the problems were handled. Matthews advised that the Housing Mediation office presents a yearly report at a meeting of the London Housing Advisory Committee and that a representative from the USC is invited to attend this meeting. He further advised that his office receives about 1,650 calls per year and approximately 20% of these calls are handled by the Off Campus Advisors. Johanssen requested that Blom provide Council members with contact information for the OCA program. Blom responded that the contact info could be found on the Quick Facts handout. She further advised that any questions or concerns sent to the OCA program by email at [email protected] would receive a response within forty-eight hours.


9

Tan asked if the OCA program was affiliated with the Ontario Housing Tribunal and if the Off-Campus Advisors had any influence in issues brought before the Tribunal. Blom responded that the OCA’s offered information about the Ontario Housing Tribunal to students and promoted its use by students, however they were not affiliated. Motion to recess for ten minutes. Robineau/Yeoman/Carried. The meeting re-convened at 8:58 p.m. 10. POSTED MOTIONS Posted Motion #1 Whereas, The USC Member Retreat report raised numerous issues, including the roles of Faculty Presidents and Senators on the Council;

Whereas, The Board of Directors response to the Member Retreat report recommended that “Council direct the Internal Review Committee, through its Chair, to review and comment on the previously published ad hoc Committee on the Composition of Council, 2001 report”;

Whereas, A motion was made at the January 8, 2003 Meeting of Council to the effect of the above;

Whereas, The Internal Review Committee has reviewed said report and agrees with the 2001 Committee that “a voting structure must be representative of the population, and must be equitable.” As well, the Committee agrees that “the true criteria of inclusion is not a vote, but the opportunity to have one’s voice be heard,”

Whereas, The IRC agrees with the 2001 committee that “ [s]ince the University is an academic institution, and since many of students’ needs occur as a result of their academic studies, the Committee agreed that allowing for representation by faculty was the most appropriate method,”

Whereas, The IRC believes that senator, governor, and faculty, residence, and affiliate college President seats on Council are valuable in informing Council on relevant issues of concern to the student body,

Whereas, The IRC believes that the President, as a director of the Corporation, should hold a voting seat at Council,

Whereas, The IRC debated at length the role of Vice-Presidents, as directors of the Corporation, as voting members of Council,


10

Whereas, Changes to the composition and role of the First Year Student Caucus, including election of members by first year students and Caucus member’s role in facilitating the communication of information between first year students and the USC, will foster continued first year participation and representation,

Whereas, The IRC believes that there are advantages to the current size of Council and that, to prevent Council’s size from altering significantly, the elected representative/student ratio is increased to one Councillor per 400 students, and

Whereas, The following recommendations are to take affect for the 2004 – 2005 academic year;

Resolved, That the University Students’ Council adopt the following amendments to its By-Laws, as well as any changes to its By-Laws resulting from said amendment that must be made to ensure consistency and continuity, as proposed by the Internal Review Committee and attached hereunder, and

Resolved, That Council direct the Internal Review Committee, through its Chair, to examine the new composition of Council and its potential effects on major student constituency groups, including but not limited to, residences and first- year students, and make recommendations on ensuring that Council is aware of the varied and diverse assortment of student concerns, for completion by December 1, 2003. 4.17 Composition of the Corporation – (1) Voting membership of the Corporation shall

be composed of the following:

i. the President; ii. the Vice-Presidents of: Campus Issues, Education, Finance and Student

Affairs;

iii. sixty-four (64) councillors, including, Faculty/Affiliate College council Presidents, ex-officio, representing the following Constituencies of the student body as follows:

Constituency Councillors

Arts Business Dentistry/Medicine Education Engineering First-Year Off-Campus 1 Health Sciences Law


11

Media, Information and Technoculture Music Science Social Science Brescia College Huron College King’s College Alumni House Residence 1 Brescia Residence 1 Delaware Hall Residence 1 Elgin Hall Residence 1 Essex Hall Residence 1 Huron Residence 1 King’s Residence 1 Medway-Sydenham Hall Residence 1 Saugeen-Maitland Hall Residence 1 Westminster College Residence 1

iv. six (6) of the undergraduate Student Senators on The University of Western

Ontario Senate to be elected by the voting members of the Student Caucus on Governance; and,

v. one (1) undergraduate Student Governor from the Board of Governors of The

University of Western Ontario to be elected from amongst the two (2) undergraduate Student Governors by the three (3) Student Governors.

(2) The First-Year Off-Campus Councillor shall:

i. be a first-year student living off-campus; ii. act as a representative of the off-campus first-year students at The University of

Western Ontario;

iii. meet regularly with the Off-Campus Dons to gain knowledge of the concerns of first-year off-campus students; and,

iv. be a member of the First-Year Students’ Caucus.

(3) The ex-officio, non-voting membership of the Corporation shall be composed of

the following:

i. the Legal Affairs Officer and the Communications Officer;


12

ii. the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker;

iii. senators;

iv. governors;

v. all Commissioners officers, commissioners, and the Women’s Issues Network Coordinator, as appointed pursuant to these By-Laws and the Policies and Procedures;

vi. all student-at-large representatives appointed by the USC to USC or University

Committees;

vii. the President of the Inter-fraternity Council and the President of the Pan-Hellenic Council; and,

viii. the Presidents of the Residents’ faculty, residence, and affiliate Councils

councils; and

ix. the non-voting undergraduate Student Senators and non-voting undergraduate Student Governors.

(4) The composition of the Corporation shall be reviewed before the end of the

fall term every four (4) years beginning with the 1995/96 2003/2004 council year to ensure fair representation of student populations, academic units, affiliated colleges and special interest groups. Notwithstanding the above:

(5) Notwithstanding the above, the composition of the Corporation may be

reviewed before four (4) years have elapsed at Council’s discretion.

(6) the The full-time equivalent population of each Constituency constituency, as of November 1st, shall be deemed to be the relevant population for the purposes of determining the number of constituent councillors for the subsequent year’s spring elections .; and,

(7) to To determine the number of constituent councillors, the population of

each Constituency constituency shall be rounded to the closest 600 400 students. The number of councillors shall be determined by dividing the rounded population figure by 600 400. In so doing, every Constituency constituency shall maintain at least one (1) representative. If the number of constituent councillors changes, the By-Laws shall be amended on May 1st in the summer of the subsequent year to reflect the change and the new membership structure shall be adopted for the next spring election period.


13

(8) All residences shall be limited to only one constituent councillor.

Sinal/Krofchick Robineau/Defeated/C.2.1 (Amendments shown in italics) The Speaker read the motion for Council and advised that there were several options in how this motion could be dealt with. Option 1 would be to consider the motion paragraph by paragraph where each section would be debated separately. Point of Information – Earhart asked if each member would be allowed two opportunities to speak in the debate of each section. The Speaker replied that each member would be given two opportunities to speak to each subdivision of the motion. Point of Information – Sinal asked if amendments could be offered on each paragraph. The Speaker advised that he would allow amendments during the debate on each division only to the paragraph currently being debated. Point of Information – Vidgen asked if comments could be made on paragraphs previously debated. The Speaker responded that when each division has been considered the motion would then be considered as a whole. Point of Information – Chant asked the Speaker to clarify what he meant by “paragraph”. The Speaker responded that each section of representation in the motion would be considered a paragraph. Point of Information – Vidgen asked who would determine how the motion was divided into paragraphs. The Speaker responded that he would determine the divisions. Option 2 would be to consider each paragraph as a division which would make a separate motion out of each paragraph. Option 3 would be to consider the motion as a whole as presented. Sinal spoke for the motion. He stated that the genesis of the motion had not been due to a problem expressed but as a result of a request to review the composition of Council. The IRC determined it is important that all students are represented equally. External organizations, such as Senate, Board of Governors (BOG) and residences, do not represent students who are not represented elsewhere and should therefore become non-voting members.


14

Sinal stated his belief that the motion is about the philosophy of representation by faculty as other governments do by wards or ridings. When applied to Council the logic is to have equal representation for all students. Taking away the vote does not take way the voice or the ability to take information back. Sinal strongly discouraged Council from dividing the motion into separate motions. He stated that Senate, BOG and faculty presidents are important but it is not appropriate that they have a vote on the USC because this results in double representation. The Senate and BOG should have non-voting representatives. The USC president should have a vote because he is a director of the corporation and helps set the direction of the organization, therefore, the vice-presidents should also have a vote. Sinal advised that the IRC had not been unanimous on the issue of voting rights for the vice-presidents. Sinal stated that the residence representatives provide double representation of first-year students who are also represented by the faculty representatives. He advised that there is no official connection between the residence councils and the USC. The First-Year Caucus members will be required to attend USC and residence council meetings which will provide an additional voice for issues specific to first-year students. Sinal advised that there was concern that reducing the size of Council would allow the co-opting of Council by special interest groups. This concern would be addressed by reducing the ration of representation from 1:600 to 1:400 and final numbers would be determined by the census scheduled for November 2003. He advised that this motion would apply a logic on who is voting and who is non-voting. The IRC will also look at how to solicit information from different groups on Council. The Speaker advised that the second resolve statement of the motion does not mean that Council would need to pass this motion again. Point of Order – Yach asked if the motion had a seconder. The Speaker advised that a new seconder for the motion would be required as Mr. Krofchick was not present. Robineau stood to second the motion. Motion to adopt by paragraph. Sinal/Dunn/Carried. The Speaker advised that the motion would be reviewed by the following divisions in the following order: Residence councillors Vice-Presidents President


15

First-Year Off-Campus Councillor Faculty and Affiliate Presidents Senators and Board of Governors Representation numbers Second resolve statement The Speaker opened debate on Residence Councillors as the first paragraph/division of the motion. Point of Order – Chant asked if non-voting members of Council would be allowed to speak to the motion without being yielded to. The Speaker ruled that non-voting members of Council would be allowed to speak to the motion. Point of Information – Laughton asked if it was not part of the rationale of the motion that all ex-officio members would have the right to speak at the USC. The Speaker responded that this motion would fundamentally change how the USC is structured. He advised that in Council meetings to date; in accordance with parliamentary procedure, only voting members have been allowed to debate. This motion suggests that that convention be changed in that all future Speakers of Council could allow all members to debate without being yielded to. Point of Information – Dunn asked if the former residence council presidents would be allowed to speak to the motion. The Speaker ruled that he would allow anyone having something meaningful to contribute to the debate to speak to the motion. Varsava spoke strongly against the motion. He stated that the residence councillors play an important role in bringing the USC to the first-year students and involvement as voting members and sitting on committees is crucial in the goal of involving first-year students. The faculty representatives cannot represent the students of eight residences. He further stated that there have been concerns raised in the past about the USC being comprised of only upper-year students. He urged Council to not limit the involvement of first-year students in the USC. Mikkelsen spoke against the motion stating his view that first-year students need direct voting rights on the USC and not just on the First-year Students’ Caucus. He stated if first-year students do not have votes on Council they will not have equal representation. Tan spoke for the motion. He stated his agreement that equal representation and fairness are important however the first-year students have double representation through the residence


16

councillors and the faculty councils. He stated that faculty councils do not just represent students on faculty issues. Mulvihill spoke for the motion stating her view that people were taking this issue very personally because they had been residence councillors. She stated that all students need representation, not just first-year students as the same issues also affect upper-year students. She further stated her agreement with the proposal for the re-organization of the First-Year Students’ Caucus. Sinal spoke for the motion stating that this motion is not a quest to disenfranchise first-year students or the residences. He stated his agreement that the USC is a great way to involve first-year students however the First-Year Students’ Caucus will provide the same opportunities for these students. Faculty councillors will not be required to take up the slack. Sinal further stated that first-year students are the foundation of the organization but are not more important than second, third or fourth year students. The Caucus will allow first-year students to debate issues and they do not need to be voting members to speak at a USC meeting. The changes to the Caucus will give the residence councils more input into the USC. Vidgen spoke for the motion. He advised that the Delaware Hall Council had voted 12 to 2 in favour of retaining the votes of the residence councillors. He stated that he, as an individual, had originally been against removing the votes of residence councillors but had since spoken to many stakeholders, including the manager of Delaware Hall, about the issue. He stated that the Caucus will provide a voice for first-year students who are not the only students living in the residences. The Residence Hall Association has recently been set up and, with the Caucus, will be able to represent the issues of, not only first-year students, but all students living in residence. By eliminating the residence councillors on the USC, the interests of those in residences are not lost as all councillors should represent all students and the residences to not deserve a voting voice on the USC any more than any other group. He further stated his view that the faculty councillors can and will represent all students. Laughton spoke against the motion stating that, as the elections are run in the spring, first-year students cannot vote on who represents them. A personal connection with someone who is involved serves to encourage others to become involved as well and it is difficult for the faculty councillors to have this connection. She asked if Council members actually believed that residence councillors impede the USC. She stated her belief that removing these councillors would take away an avenue of communication and discourage first-year student involvement in the USC. Vaillancourt spoke against the motion stating his agreement with the points made by Ms Laughton and added that voting privileges at the USC should not require a one year waiting period. Yach spoke for the motion stating that first-year students may not be as familiar with their representatives but they must be able to trust their fellow students to elect effective


17

representatives. She stated that the issue must not be taken personally as it should be a better way of representing students equally. The First-Year Caucus will allow the voices of first-year students to be heard and students must be encouraged to take issues to their representatives. Motion to extend the time of the meeting indefinitely. Varsava/Huston/Carried. Earhart spoke against the motion and referred to the Ad Hoc Committee Report, page 9, paragraph 2. The residence councils are not here only to represent first-year students but to represent all students in the residence. The University is the landlord of the residences which means that more restrictions are placed on those councils; therefore, they need, and deserve, a voice on the USC. He further stated his view that the Residence Hall Association will not represent the students of the residences. Rady spoke for the motion stating that Council could not argue with the logic that representation must be equal for all students. She further stated her view that voting on the USC may be more appropriate for upper year students and the ex-officio representatives must be given the benefit of the doubt that they will represent the needs of all students. Brodhagen spoke against the motion stating his view that to disconnect the USC from the residences would be disastrous and will increase the apathy of all students. He further stated that the restructuring of the Caucus may not work well; therefore, taking away the votes of the residence councillors would further remove first-year students. Dunn spoke for the motion. He stated that the faculty representatives do facilitate the needs of all students and not all involved upper-year students were first-year representatives. If the proposed changes are implemented, councillors will just be councillors and not faculty or residence representatives and will better represent all students. He further stated that the residences and the USC are two autonomous bodies linked only through the USC residence representatives. Chant spoke against the motion stating that, if this section passes the link between the USC and the residences will be severed. He added that he was not surprised to hear that a residence manager was in favour of this motion as he has found some disdain for the USC in residence management. He agreed that there is double representation on the USC but stated that there is logic to support this. He stated that the USC will not hear the voices of those in residence as many opportunities are not allowed in residences. He stated that he did not feel it was true that residence representatives have no loyalty to the residence councils. He advised that, as a residence representative, he had attended every USC meeting but he did not feel that those who could not vote would come out to meetings. He asked how the USC would make the residences elect representatives to the Caucus.


18

Point of Information - ???? asked how many of his constituent council meetings Mr. Chant had attended. Chant responded that he had not been made aware of one meeting and had submitted regrets for two others. Point of Personal Privilege – Mulvihill advised that Mr. Chant had not provided requested contact information and therefore, could not be advised of meetings. Point of Information – Mikkelsen asked how this discussion was relevant to the current debate. The Speaker asked Mr. Chant to keep comments focused on the topic at hand. Point of Information – Vidgen asked if there was a limit to how long each member could speak to a motion. The Speaker responded the time limit was five minutes and that Mr. Chant’s time had now expired. Point of Order – Earhart asked the Speaker why the member had not been warned of the time limit. The Speaker responded that warnings were not given to any member whose time was about to run out. Point of Order – Laughton asked why the time limit had not been enforced with previous speakers. The Speaker responded that the Deputy Speaker had been timing all speakers. Motion to extend Mr. Chant’s allotted time by two minutes. Yach/Laughton/Carried Chant stated that the majority of the residence representatives were elected rather than being acclaimed or appointed to their position. He advised that many of the past and current residence council presidents were in attendance at this meeting and that he felt that this spoke to the importance of the issue. Point of Information – Morgan asked if the member did not say earlier that the residence presidents would not come to USC meetings as they did not have voting position on the USC. Chant responded that he felt people were in attendance because they were concerned with this issue but that he maintained that the majority of non-voting members of the USC did not attend


19

council meetings. He stated his view that students have asked councillors to vote in accordance with the views of their constituents and clearly, the students in residences do not want this section to be passed. Huston spoke against the motion stating that, in speaking with students during his vice-presidential campaign, he had determined that there are many problems with the voice of the First-Year Caucus being heard and removing the residence councillors will further distance the first-year students. He further advised that the residence council meetings are held after 7:00 p.m. when the residence doors are locked therefore, faculty representatives cannot attend residence council meetings without being signed in. Point of Order – Sinal called for quorum to be verified. Present Baird, Mark Bastedo, Clare Bishop, Rich Brodhagen, Don Chant, Arzie Chieh, Lil Dunn, Ryan Earhart, Bevan Gloven, Jeff Israelsohn, Daniel Laughton, Angela Mikkelsen, Erik

Moir, Megan Morgan, Josh Mulvihill, Catherine Nelson, Nicole Paola, Gio Peat, Don Persaud, Natalie Rady, Julia Raeside, Ashley Robineau, Kathy Rudd, Mike Sellner, Tim

Seto, Cliff Sinal, Chris Staubitz, Nick Sury, Charlene Tan, Jonathan Vaillancourt, Dave Varsava, Matt Vidgen, Anton Wechzelberger, Lisa Yeoman, Paul

The Speaker advised that, as only thirty-four members were present, the meeting did not have quorum. A recess of ten minutes was called by The Speaker to allow members to return to the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m. and Roll Call was repeated. Present Baird, Mark Bastedo, Clare Bishop, Rich Brodhagen, Don Chant, Arzie Chieh, Lil

Collia, Natasha Dunn, Ryan Earhart, Bevan Gloven, Jeff Haines, Adam Huston, Mark

Israelsohn, Daniel Janssen, Kimberly Kingston, Julia Laughton, Angela Mikkelsen, Erik Moir, Megan


20

Morgan, Josh Mulvihill, Catherine Nelson, Nicole Paola, Gio Peat, Don Persaud, Natalie Rady, Julia Raeside, Ashley

Robineau, Kathy Rudd, Mike Sellner, Tim Seto, Cliff Sinal, Chris Staubitz, Nick Sury, Charlene Tan, Jonathan

Vaillancourt, Dave Varsava, Matt Vidgen, Anton Wechzelberger, Lisa Yach, Jennifer Yeoman, Paul

The Speaker advised that, as forty members were now present, the meeting had quorum. Motion to include the First-Year Off-Campus Councillor in the debate of this section. Rady/Laughton/Carried The Speaker advised that it was very important to maintain quorum to complete the business of the meeting. Point of Information – Sinal asked if members could inform the Deputy Speaker whether they were leaving temporarily or permanently. Motion to limit debate on this section to members on the Speaker’s list who have not already spoken and on further sections to twenty minutes per paragraph and decrease the time limit for each speaker to three minutes. Tan/Yach/Defeated. Point of Information – Paola reminded Council that debate of this nature is why the members were elected. Point of Information – Chant asked if Posted Motion #1 would require a majority of two thirds to pass. Point of Information – Mikkelson asked what would happen to the motion if quorum was lost. The Speaker responded that the meeting would end if quorum was lost. The motion was defeated. Debate continued on the first paragraph of Posted Motion #1. Peat spoke for the motion stating that he felt first-year students would still be represented. He stated that he was in favour of proper representation, not over representation.


21

Staubitz spoke for the motion. He stated his view that no student should be represented by more than one vote and that, where the residence councillors do not represent the interests of all students, the faculty councillors do. Madhvani spoke against the motion. He stated that the idea of representing interests was what was important to this issue and having a lobby group the size of the USC is important to students in the residences. He advised that he often feels that he has no voice in the residence even though he is president of the residence council and that he relies on the USC representative to attend USC meetings and bring forward the issues to the residence council. He further stated his view that the RHA does not have time between now and the time this motion would take effect to build power to effectively represent the students in residence. Point of Information – Robineau asked if Mr. Madhvani felt that he was heard at the USC. Madhvani responded that he felt it was important to have this forum for debate. Point of Information – Robineau asked if this would not mean that removing the residence councillors would not affect this. Point of Information – Dunn asked if the proposed changes to the First-Year Caucus included requirements for attendance. Sinal responded that Caucus members would be required to attend USC and residence council meetings. Tan spoke for the motion. He suggested that if the USC decided to continue the residence councillors then the faculty representatives should be eliminated with a change to the structure to include representation for students living off-campus. Mikkelson spoke strongly against the motion stating his view that the faculty councillors provide representation for the upper-year students but no first-year students will have a vote. He stated that, although some people believe that residence representatives do not speak on behalf of residences, he does not agree. He further stated his feeling that there was a need to keep the connection between the residence councils and the USC and he does not believe that representatives without a vote will attend the USC meetings. Point of Information – Rady asked if it was not the duty of ex-officio members to represent their constituencies as the voice of those students even if they did not have a vote. Sinal responded that this would be a reasonable conclusion to draw. The Speaker advised Council on the proper format for points of information.


22

Sinal responded that one could infer that ex-officio members do have a duty to keep informed of the activities of the bodies on which they sit. Point of Information – Staubitz asked if the faculty councillors were required to represent all of the students in the faculty in all years. Mikkelson agreed that faculty councillors are required to represent students of all years but they are elected by third and fourth year students who are not still at the University. He added that he did not feel that proper debate could be held on this motion with the current attendance. Point of Information – Morgan asked The Speaker if the current debate was becoming repetitive. The Speaker reminded Council members to keep from repeating points made and to keep the debate on topic. Varsava spoke against the motion and stated that it was the philosophy of the USC to represent all students and changes are not made to represent the members of Council but all students. He stated his view that Council must consider that changes will effect the USC in years to come and urged Council members to not cut off the first-year students as he did not believe that residence councillors do not bring forward unique issues relevant only to students living in residence. The USC must represent and consider the integral and unique interests of every group. He stated his agreement with the need for the First-Year Students’ Caucus as well as the residence councillors and asked Council to let the students in the residences have the extended voice they deserve. Sinal spoke for the motion. He stated that he was sympathetic to the problems of residences with Housing however, these problems can be brought to the USC President for support and residences do not need to have a vote on Council to be able to speak at the USC. Councillors need to meet the first-year students as they do not represent only those students who voted for them. Vidgen spoke for the motion stating his feeling that the USC is setting a dangerous precedent for any group to come to the USC and request voting representation. He added that having faculty councillors and residence councillors does not create a fair democracy for student government. Earhart spoke against the motion stating that, if the ideal situation was to have representation for every area, it is not correct to take that representation away from one area. He stated his opinion that, when speakers stated that faculty councillors could represent the interests of the students in residences, they were inferring that he, as a residence councillor, was not doing his job. He further stated that the dissolution of the Saugeen-Maitland Hall Residence Council by Housing demonstrated that the residence councils have no power to truly represent the students in the residences as the University wields tremendous power over students in the residences.


23

Earhart also stated his view that the only real advocacy group on this campus for students living in residence was the USC. BIRT Posted Motion #1 be amended to un-strike the residence councillors and First-Year Off-Campus Councillor. Yach/Huston/Carried C.2.3 Yach spoke for the motion stating that her rationale in making this motion was to complete the debate on the overall motion. She requested that Councillors not repeat debate already heard. There was no further debate on the motion. Yach called for a vote by roll call. Point of Information – Dunn asked if the proposed re-organization First-Year Student Caucus would give those first-year representatives inclusion on the USC. Sinal responded that this would be the case. Roll Call Vote: Baird Against Bastedo For Bishop For Brodhagen For Chant For Chieh Against Dunn Against Earhart For Haines For Huston For Israelsohn For Janssen For Kingston For Laughton For Mikkelsen For Moir For Morgan Against Mulvihill Against Nelson Against Paola For Peat For Persaud For


24

Rady Against Raeside Against Robineau Against Rudd Against Sellner Against Seto Against Sinal Against Staubitz Against Sury For Tan Against Vaillancourt For Varsava For Vidgen Against Wechzelberger Against Xaysy For Yach Abstain Yeoman Against The motion to amend was carried. (For – 20, Against – 18, Abstain – 1) Motion to recess for five minutes. Sinal/Yeoman/Carried. The meeting reconvened at 11:35 p.m. Debate continued on Posted Motion #1, the second paragraph, the Vice-Presidents. Tan spoke against the motion stating his concerns with the USC Vice-Presidents having a vote but the Faculty Council President not having a vote. Motion to consider Posted Motion #1 as a whole. Dunn/Mulvihill/Carried Debate continued on Posted Motion #1 as amended. Laughton spoke against the motion. She advised that the IRC had examined the philosophy of Council representation therefore; it does not make sense to change the motion to leave the residence councillors in the composition and remove the others. She stated that Council had expressed, through this debate that they do not agree with the philosophy of the motion. Mulvihill spoke against the motion and advised that voting against the motion would retain the current composition of Council. Motion to call the question.


25

Yach/Vidgen/Carried. Sinal requested that quorum be verified. Present Baird, Mark Bishop, Rich Brodhagen, Don Chant, Arzie Chieh, Lil Dunn, Ryan Earhart, Bevan Haines, Adam Huston, Mark Israelsohn, Daniel Janssen, Kimberly Kingston, Julia Laughton, Angela

Mikkelsen, Erik Moir, Megan Morgan, Josh Mulvihill, Catherine Nelson, Nicole Paola, Gio Peat, Don Persaud, Natalie Rady, Julia Raeside, Ashley Robineau, Kathy Rudd, Mike Sellner, Tim

Seto, Cliff Sinal, Chris Staubitz, Nick Sury, Charlene Tan, Jonathan Vaillancourt, Dave Varsava, Matt Vidgen, Anton Wechzelberger, Lisa Xaysy, Sou Yach, Jennifer Yeoman, Paul

38 members present. The Speaker confirmed that the meeting had quorum. Point of Information – Laughton asked if the motion could be brought forward again if it was defeated. The Speaker advised that the motion could only be brought forward again if a member who voted against the motion moved to reconsider. Point of Information – Yach asked if a member could bring forward a motion to re-structure Council in another way or in the same way with a different rationale and if there was a time frame in which this could be done. The Speaker responded that the motion, as it stands, could not be brought forward again unless a motion to reconsider being brought forward by a member who voted against the original motion but this could be done at any time. Chant moved division. The vote on Posted Motion #1 to be done by roll call. Baird Against Bishop Against Brodhagen Against Chant Against Chieh Against


26

Dunn Against Earhart Against Haines Against Huston Against Israelsohn Against Janssen Against Kingston Against Laughton Against Mikkelsohn Against Moir Against Morgan Against Mulvihill Against Nelson Against Paola Against Peat Against Persaud Against Rady Against Raeside Against Robineau Against Rudd Against Sellner Against Seto Against Sinal Against Staubitz For Sury Against Tan Against Vaillancourt Against Varsava Against Vidgen For Wechzelberger Against Xaysy Against Yach Against Yeoman Against The motion was defeated. (For – 2, Against – 36, Abstain – 0) Point of Information – Mulvihill asked what the process would be if a motion was made to reconsider Posted Motion #1. The Speaker responded that debate on the motion, as amended, would continue as before the question was called.


27

Posted Motion #2 Whereas, a 20% quorum requirement is essential in order to ensure that students are protected from the possible consequences, financial or otherwise, of a referendum that achieves a low voter turnout. Resolved, that all referenda held by the University Students' Council, Council or Student Initiated, have a minimum quorum requirement of 20% of eligible Full Time Equivalent undergraduate students for the results to be binding on Council, and Resolved, that the by-laws be amended to reflect this change. Yach/Chant/Carried unanimously/C.2.3 Rationale: The intention of this motion is to ensure that the check & balance of a quorum requirement during a referendum is not escaped for any reason. Graph of Referenda (see attached). As you can see, we didn’t even come close to getting the voter turnout that recent referenda enjoyed. But we can also see that it is very possible to achieve quorum. The old by-laws had a quorum requirement for all referenda and all referenda in the past have met this quorum requirement. Each referendum before this year in fact had at least 25% voter turnout. By-Law #2 is our authority on Referenda. So what does By-law #2 say? The by-laws say that the results of any referendum on a policy issue shall be binding only if a minimum of 20% of the student body vote in the referendum. It has been argued that issues involving the imposition of fees such as a Dental Plan Fee are non-policy issues. I would argue that the implementation of a Dental Plan is a policy issue, and that is exactly the problem – too much is left open to interpretation. My feeling is that there is no good reason to say that we should not need 20% of students to voice their opinion before taking more of their money each year. The only way to solve this problem is to amend the by-laws such that the distinction between a policy and non-policy issue does not affect the quorum requirement of the referendum. I think that all referenda, whether initiated by students or by this council, should have to solicit a 20% student response. This would not only protect the financial interests of the students, but also those of the USC.


28

If we leave the by-laws as they are it is possible that a situation could arise where a proposed significant increase in student fees is voted on by only 1% of eligible students. This could be declared a legal referendum. I don’t think the intention of the by-laws was ever to make it so that issues involving fees being charged to students would have no minimum support requirement. Even if it was the intention, it doesn’t make sense. What issue could be of greater importance to students or more worthy of a quorum requirement than an increase in fees? The by-laws should leave no room for interpretations that could differ. We need greater clarity. So, what is the appropriate change to the by-laws? After consulting with Mr. Dvorkin, I think the most efficient way to ensure that all referenda have a 20% quorum requirement without changing the procedures for Students initiating referenda, would be the following change to By-law #2, Part B, Section 1(7): (7) The results of any referendum on (a policy issue) shall be binding only if a minimum of 20% of the student body vote in the referendum. *the words in brackets would be struck* The intent of this motion is to clarify that when ANY and ALL referenda get to the student body (regardless of whether they are Council or Student Initiated) the must have 20% quorum for results to be binding. We need to protect students from the possible financial consequences of a referendum that fails to achieve a representative student opinion. It is not the case that by abstaining from voting, students are giving their implied consent for us to charge them money. We need to make sure that we run a sufficiently informing campaign and that we get students out to vote. That might mean increasing the budget for information-based campaigns. It’s not impossible - 6 referenda have been able to do it in the past. It just might require a little more work on our part, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. (Graph attached to these minutes as Appendix I) Yach spoke for the motion and stated that the graph illustrated that voter turnout on all previous referenda. In all previous years 25%, or more, of the student population did vote in the referendum. Point of Information – Laughton asked if the 20% would be of FTE students or 20% of those eligible to vote in the referendum. Yach responded that the 20% would be of FTE students enrolled based on the previous year’s enrolment figures. The motion would make this requirement applicable to all referenda. Point of Information – Chant asked if part-time students are eligible to vote in referenda.


29

Sellars responded that, as the Administration cannot count heads, the FTE figure must be used. Yach responded that part-time students have not always voted in referenda but recent years have seen a larger turnout of part-time students. Sinal spoke for the motion and stated that he was in favour of the 20% minimum requirement for referenda. He advised that the actual change to the bylaw would come to Council at a later date if the motion was passed. He further advised that another motion may forward to increase the amount of funding allowed to conduct an information campaign for a referendum. Laughton spoke for the motion stating her view that 20% of the student body was a reasonable requirement for a referendum to be valid. There was no further debate on the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. 11. EXECUTIVE REPORTS President Sinal reviewed his written report and requested that any questions regarding the report of the Orientation Strategic Planning Group (OSPG) be directed to him. Assistant to the President Yeoman presented his report as Assistant to the President. He advised Council that the “Nova-Board” was working very well and would be a great team. He thanked Giovanni Paola, Orientation Officer, and the members of the Orientation Staff for organizing the All-Soph Rally. Motion to extend the time allotted to the Executive Report of the President by three Minutes. Sinal/Yeoman/Carried Ward presented her report card for Liz Berman, 03-04 Communications Officer. Campus Issues Nelson reviewed her written report and presented her report card for Adrienne Kennedy, Vice-President Campus Issues-elect. Education


30

Morgan reviewed his written report for Council and played a video of the Smart Vote Campaign commercial that will be played in the Atrium. He reviewed his report card for Dave Ford, Vice-President Education-elect. Ford advised Council that he was planning to run for the position of Regional Director for The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) and invited Council members to email any questions or concerns they have regarding this organization to him. He advised that this position would not require as much time away from the USC office as would the position of President of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Association (OUSA). Finance Rudd reviewed his written report for Council and congratulated Christine Hou, Income Tax Commissioner on presenting a very successful Income Tax Clinic. He advised that the presentation of the Budget to the Campus and Community Affairs Committee (CCAC) had been well received. Rudd presented his report card for Rohan Belliappa, Vice-President Finance-elect and thanked Council for a great year. Student Affairs Chieh reviewed her written report for Council. She thanked the Awards Committee for their work and advised that the Awards Ceremony and Reception had gone very well. She presented her report card for Matt Huether, Vice-President Student Affairs-elect. 12. QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ARISING FROM BOARD

REPORTS Paola asked Sinal when the Orientation Strategic Planning Group (OSPG) report would be presented to Council and advised that, as the 2003 Orientation Officer, he would not be able to implement any of the recommendations if the report was presented later than the summer meeting. Sinal responded that he and Susan Grindrod, Director of Housing and Ancillary Services, as the representatives of the two main bodies in the orientation program had not as yet received written copies of the report from OSPG. He advised that it would be up to Mr. Yeoman to determine the next available Council meeting at which to present the report but he did feel it would be ready in time for the summer meeting. Yach asked Mr. Rudd to clarify what he meant when saying the budget was well received by the CCAC. Rudd responded that the CCAC had not said whether the budget would be passed, only that the presentation was well received.


31

Sinal advised that he had received an email stating that the presentation was well received. Laughton asked if the OSPG report would come to Council before their recommendations would be implemented. Sinal responded that the OSPG report should come to Council if it contains recommended changes in how the USC runs O-Week. Point of Information – Sinal asked the Speaker to advise how Council could not do the Committee Elections at this time. The Speaker advised that a motion could be made to remove this item from the Agenda. He suggested that the Vice-Presidents advise Council if there were any committees that were crucial over the summer months. Rudd requested that quorum be verified. Roll call was conducted. Present Baird, Mark Brodhagen, Don Chant, Arzie Chieh, Lil Dunn, Ryan Earhart, Bevan Huston, Mark Janssen, Kimberly Kingston, Julia Laughton, Angela Moir, Megan

Morgan, Josh Mulvihill, Catherine Nelson, Nicole Paola, Gio Peat, Don Persaud, Natalie Rady, Julia Raeside, Ashley Robineau, Kathy Sellner, Tim Seto, Cliff

Sinal, Chris Staubitz, Nick Sury, Charlene Tan, Jonathan Vaillancourt, Dave Varsava, Matt Vidgen, Anton Wechzelberger, Lisa Xaysy, Sou Yach, Jennifer Yeoman, Paul

33 members were present. The Speaker advised that the meeting did not have quorum. The Speaker declared the meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m.


32

Director Director Recording Secretary Sign In/Sign Out Name Time In Time Out Bastedo, Clare 7:00 11:40 Seto, Clifford 7:21 Tan, Jonathan 7:25 Johannsen, Eric 7:30 9:00 Krofchick, Evan 8:00 Krofchick, Matt 8:00 Heilandt, Mike 8:00 Dyson, Brooke 8:30 Manson, Michelle 8:45 Ferguson, James 8:45 Raeside, Ashley 9:25 Haroun, Samar 9:30 Haines, Adam 10:30 Collia, Natasha 10:40 Xaysy, Sou 11:00 Gloven, Jeff 10:20

315, ucc building 1. call to order 2. o canada 3. · pdf filelaughton, angela manson, michelle...

Documents