Sam Reynolds / McGill Tribune

The Arts Undergraduate Society held its second General Assembly last Tuesday in the Stewart Biology Building. While the first motion, regarding the recognization of an AUS Strike Committee, was the subject of much debate, the GA lost quorum only minutes before calling the first question.

The motion calling to create an AUS Strike Committee was designed for the purposes of disseminating information to students about the Quebec government’s proposed tuition increases, in consideration of a possible strike vote by the AUS later this term. The committee would have conditional use of the AUS listserv and the ability to call another GA for an unlimited strike vote, while operating “according to a basis of unity.”

“Voting yes to form a strike committee does not mean voting yes to a student strike,” Jaime Maclean, one of the movers of the motion as well as president of AMUSE and U3 arts, said. She added that the intention of the committee was to promote dialogue.

However, the motion drew opposition from several members, who cited the term “basis of unity” as biasing the committee to be pro-strike and therefore incapable of objectively distributing information.

“It’s very unfair to suggest that we should create a basis for unity on this strike committee that marginalizes voices that don’t agree with the nature of the strike,” Brendan Steven, U2 arts and a member of Conservative McGill, said. “We have to respect those voices, otherwise we as 150 people are taking on a mandate we don’t deserve.”

Those in support of the motion suggested that members who wanted to advocate their own anti-strike positions and distribute information about opposing views should form their own committee.

This suggestion was followed by the proposal of an unfriendly amendment for the creation of an equally powerful anti-strike committee. However, the amendment failed to pass, with the original movers of the motion labelling it unfair.

Around this time, members shouted that quorum had been lost. The assembly began with 131 members, and eventually grew to 169, surpassing the quorum of 150. When the final vote on the critical motion was called and passed, however, there were only 143 voters, making the result a recommendation to the AUS Council rather than a binding resolution.

Other Business of the GA

Following the contentious motion for the recognition of an AUS strike committee, the GA failed to regain quorum. Any motions that passed thereafter were to be discussed at AUS Council.

The assembly tabled the motion regarding accessible education until the next GA.

A motion on Frosh reform passed as a recommendation to AUS Council after it was amended to include the creation of workshops on anti-oppression and to make Arts Frosh events more accessible to underage participants.

A motion on moving the Hochelaga rock that commemorates the original settlers of what is now McGill campus to a more visible place also passed as a recommendation, following an amendment which requires the contact of related indigenous peoples.

On Feb. 1, at AUS Council, both the motion to move the Hochelaga rock and the motion to reform Frosh passed. However, quorum was lost after that.

Procedural concerns mark GA

Some students questioned procedure throughout the night. The speaker referenced the Robert’s Rules of Order manual, accepted by arts council, which allowed him to prevent a vote if it would stifle new debate. The speaker asserted order in the GA’s proceedings, even threatening to censure members who were using expletive language and personal insults.

A later motion to replace the speaker with the President of AUS Council required a 2/3 majority but failed.

Supporters of the motion regarding the recognition of an AUS strike committee were frustrated and angered by the way the GA was run. In an email to McGill campus media, members of the Mob Squad wrote that the motion “faced what amounted to a campaign of obstruction and sabotage on the part of the AUS officials managing the GA.”

The email also criticized the conduct of AUS Speaker Ben Lerer, stating that “Lerer liberally interpreted Roberts’ Rules … refus[ing] a motion to call the question (to choose to vote on the original motion) after a period of debate, because doing so would ‘stifle’ further debate.”

Other complaints included the choice of location for the GA and claiming that members were allowed to leave during voting procedure.

In response, Lerer explained that his aim going into the GA was to improve upon the previous one held last fall.

“At the previous GA, in the interest of time I [decided I] was going to allow motions to call the question … And what I felt after the end of last GA was that allowing this to happen the way it did, really stifled debate and prevents some people who wanted to express their opinion, who were often in the 1/3 minority, simply couldn’t because people in the 2/3 majority ramrodded through bills,” Lerer explained.

“My opinion is that I followed Robert’s Rules to the letter, which explicitly say that calling the question cannot go through if it is placed to stifle debate. And it is my opinion that it was stifling debate,” Lerer said.

Addressing the issue of the room selection, Lerer stated that it was simply a matter of finding a room closest to the desired time that AUS wanted to hold the general assembly.