Last Thursday, the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD) voted to immediately reinstate the Judicial Board (J-Board) in order to conclude the J-Board’s upcoming hearing as soon as possible. SSMU will also draft a student referendum question that will bring the J-Board into compliance with Quebec Law. 

The meeting followed the Jan. 26 SSMU Council meeting where the J-Board was suspended due to  legal concerns regarding SSMU’s structure. The J-Board, as SSMU’s highest authority, was operating against Quebec law, which mandates that the highest level of authority must reside with the BoD. 

The J-Board was scheduled to hear a case last week submitted by former SSMU President Zach Newburgh and co-founder of the Prince Arthur Herald Brendan Steven, who are questioning the constitutionality of the fall referenda. The SSMU Bylaw Committee met Jan. 30 to discuss possible courses of action to maintain fairness to both Quebec law and to the petitioners. 

VP University Affairs Emily Yee Clare said that the J-Board hearing will resume as previously planned, but that the J-Board’s decision will need to be ratified by the BoD.  

“If we feel like there was unreasonableness due to the decision-making process, if 4/5 of us vote against this, then the decision can be overturned,” Clare said. “But the 4/5 is so high in order to ensure that there [is] a check, to make sure that people would have to have a very strong reason to vote against the recommendation of the J-Board.”

The decision to immediately reinstate the J-Board was largely determined by the semester’s timeline. While J-Board could present their rulings on the case so far, giving the BoD the opportunity to ratify or not to ratify the proceedings in compliance with Quebec law, this course of action would be complicated by the upcoming winter Referendum Period and would cause confusion over the BoD’s future role. 

“[The Bylaw Committee has] concerns that this would set an unduly involved procedural precedent regarding the BoD with the J-Board, and it would take a very long time if the board had to meet to ratify every procedural decision of the Judicial Board,” SSMU President Maggie Knight said. 

Conversely, waiting to reinstate the J-Board until after the winter elections period would mean that the J-Board’s findings on the case would be released as late as April, at which point there would be little time for the student body to discuss the outcome.  

Members of the BoD are aware that the J-Board’s reinstatement only temporarily fixes their problems, which include the need to balance legality with SSMU’s need for an unbiased body.  

“It must be very clear under what circumstances the board could decide not to ratify a ruling of the J-Board, because obviously the point of having the J-Board is to objectively and unbiasedly evaluate concerns, including potentially concerns about the conduct of members of the council or members of the executive,” Knight said.  

For these reasons, the motion also called for the creation of a working group to investigate alternative democratic avenues for resolving issues currently under the jurisdiction of the J-Board. For example, Knight said that expanding the J-Board to include two students outside the faculty of law could expand the board’s perspective. 

The motion passed with eight votes in favour, one vote opposed, and three abstentions.  

Knight, who abstained from the vote, has attempted to distance herself from the proceedings due to potential conflicts of interest with the case, but said that she is pleased with the way that council has dealt with the matter. 

“I [am] glad that the board was able to meet between meetings of council to address this issue in a timely fashion,” she said. 

Petitioners Zach Newburgh and Brendan Steven declined to comment on the case.   

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.

Last Tuesday, an open session Board of Governors (BoG) meeting scheduled to discuss the Jutras report was adjourned after five minutes due to disruptions from students. The meeting was rescheduled for Feb. 6 and held in a closed session.

Following the chair’s opening address, a group of about 20 students dressed as pirates interrupted with a song. Members of the board started leaving a few minutes into the song, and soon after, the meeting was adjourned.

“Guys, you just silenced 35,000 members,” Roland Nassim, PGSS president, said as he walked out of the room.

One of the student protestors, who declined to identify herself, explained the reason for the actions.

“We wanted to mutiny against the BoG. We recognize that as captains of our ship, they’re at best ineffectual and unrepresentative, and at worst, figureheads for a bunch of companies that are committing atrocities worldwide,” she said. “We don’t want them or need them representing us. We can represent ourselves, we can take care of our interests.”

SSMU President Maggie Knight said that she was disappointed that there was no discussion, and that other students expressed similar sentiments.

“I’ve spoken with a lot of students about [the protest], and the overwhelming majority didn’t understand why the disruption occurred, or felt that it was an ineffective way of critiquing decision-making at McGill,”  Knight said. “Such protests can also alienate fellow students and cause backlash against all those advocating for changes in governance at McGill.”

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning), Morton Mendelson, expressed his disappointment at the situation.

“I think it’s a shame that a discussion with a governing body about a very important topic that is of interest to the entire community … was disrupted by a small group of students,” he said. “I don’t see what kind of point this protest has, except to close down open discussion in this university.”

Mendelson added that the administration will remain open to dialogue with students.

“The administration is open for civil conversation with students who want to have a conversation,” he said. “What we saw today was not a conversation and was not students who are even willing to listen to what others have to say about something as important as the Jutras report.”

Following the administration’s refusal to recognize the results of the fall referenda, Radio CKUT will hold two questions in the winter referendum, one on the organization’s existence and a separate one on changing the fee to be a non opt-outable fee. QPIRG has not yet taken a final position on the issue, but has until Feb. 17 to submit questions.

Myriam Zaidi, undergraduate representative to CKUT’s Board of Directors, explained that CKUT submit the questions to the administration for approval. The radio chose to do so because, after the refusal of the fall referenda, Morton Mendelson, the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning), recommended that the campus groups run their questions through the administration. At the time of press, the administration had not confirmed whether it approved the questions.

Last fall, a majority of student voters responded ‘yes’ on referendum questions submitted by QPIRG and CKUT, which called for the organizations’ existence and for opt-outs to be offline. The administration announced that it will not recognize the referendum results, calling the questions “unclear.”

Every five years, the two organizations hold referenda in which the student body votes on the organizations’  existence. A ‘yes’ vote allows the two organizations to renew their Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the administration, a document that establishes the groups’ relationship with the university, enabling them to negotiate their leases and receive student fees. Both MoAs will expire in June 2012.

“Our MoA is ending and the administration seems really adamant on not accepting our results from last semester,” Zaidi said. “It’s not a battle we think we can pick.”

Zaidi explained that the second question, which would no longer allow students to opt out of CKUT’s fee, will allow the campus radio to sustain itself in the future. Other campus media organizations that are currently non opt-outable include the McGill Daily and the McGill Tribune.

“We’re a public good, recognized by the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). We have constant fees to pay as a radio, and we need to maintain certain standards and services [as members of] the CRTC,” Zaidi said. “We’re accessible to everyone … and we have 24/7 media coverage.”

Achieving quorum was a major concern during the fall referendum, but Zaidi noted that this semester, quorum is not a concern.

“Last semester we were more worried about quorum, because it was only our questions that were being put forward, whereas this semester it’s going to be on the same ballot as voting for SSMU elections and other questions,” she said.

Kira Page, member of the QPIRG Board of Directors and McGill alumni, said that QPIRG is currently in talks with the administration to determine if the vote could be considered valid.

“We are looking for other ways to work with the administration to find a way that they can recognize the vote as valid. There’s still a possibility that we’ll run another referendum, but it’s not a possibility that we’re excited about,” she said.

Page said she was unable to reveal the nature of the negotiations with the administration.

“I can’t really talk about what’s happening in the negotiations, but we are working [on] finding a solution that works best for both of us, and respects the [wishes of the] administration but also the fall referendum,” Page said. “We’re very much still trying to figure out if the compromises that we would be making with the administration would be better or worse than running another referendum.”

Last Friday, approximately 20 students gathered in the Shatner Breakout Room to discuss the future of student space on campus. The summit aimed to determine the meaning of student space and to brainstorm ways for students and staff to improve the quality of under-used space on campus. 

“[T]he goal is to create informal, productive conversations about what students would like to see at SSMU and on campus. This recognizes that the formalized processes (committees, Council, Senate, etc.) are not always accessible or interesting to most students,” Maggie Knight, SSMU President, wrote in an email to the Tribune. 

One point of discussion raised by many students was the lack of space on campus, whether for academic or extracurricular purposes. Paul Guenther, a physical planner with McGill’s Campus Space Planning, responded by pointing out the different types of student spaces.  

“There are formal student spaces, but there are also a lot of informal student spaces,” Guenther said. “Most of your interactions with other students probably happen in these [informal] spaces—lower campus, for example, is the largest of these spaces.”

Formal spaces, however, became the target of student concern. Josh Redel, President of the Engineering Undergraduate Society (EUS), spoke about his experience with the newly renovated basement in McConnell Engineering Building. 

“The hardest thing we found … is that as we decrease work space and increase informal student space, we lose storage space,” Redel said.  

Katie Larson, President of the Music Undergraduate Students’ Association (MUSA), explained the chronic lack of space that music students experience. 

“The amount of space we occupy is pretty ridiculous … [yet] everything in our building is booked from nine to five every day. It is nearly impossible to get in there [even] if you are a music student,” she said. 

Larson added that the the needs of various campus a cappella groups make the chronic shortage even more pressing.

Carol Fraser, Vice President Clubs and Services of SSMU, explained that the perceived lack of space is frequently cited by students as a major problem on campus. In the recent SSMU survey pertaining to space on campus, the highest ranked response was for increased space for clubs. 

“The importance of multi-use space is something that people have been trying to preserve in the [SSMU] building, such as [the Breakout Room],” Fraser said. 

Another topic of discussion was an initiative by the McGill administration called “Campus Greening,” a project that aims to improve the general conditions on campus. 

Over the last few years, a number of projects have reached fruition on campus: the McTavish Street pedestrian zone, the University Street bike path, the no-car policy on campus, and the various building terraces, and James Square renovations. 

Guenther explained that these projects are only some of many in the works.  

“We try to make sure that whatever actions are happening meet the needs of the university in the long-term vision,” he said. “One thing that is very challenging is that a lot of students do not get to see the changes. By the time [students] are finished [their degrees], the projects might not be finished yet.”

While taking into account all differing perspectives on how to improve the use of space on campus has been difficult, executives are striving to move forward. 

“We have a lot of things going on at once,” Fraser said. 

“Several students expressed how happy they were [about being]able to hear directly what is happening with space in libraries and on McTavish St.,” Knight wrote. “The discussions were very productive and [participants] came up with some great ideas that we’re going to follow up on.”