Motion Re: Democratic Reform of the SSMU Board of Directors
Yes. This motion is procedural, and we’re in support of keeping SSMU efficient and law abiding. Plus, this motion helps to ensure that SSMU retains its liquor license, so that Gerts can remain under their purview.
Motion Re: Institutionalization and Documentation of SSMU’s Leadership for Sustainability
Yes. Sustainability and environmental issues are some of the largest struggles facing us right now. Students should be on the forefront of the environmental movement, and so we support this attempt to make the SSMU Sustainability Assessment more complete, and to make SSMU’s commitment to sustainability more accountable and thorough. That being said, we hope that the effects of this motion are not limited to mere “assessments,” but, rather, that SSMU takes action on the Sustainability Assessment that this motion would mandate.
Motion Re: Accessible Education
Yes. This motion will also renew a policy that rightfully commits SSMU to support “high-quality, universally accessible post-secondary education.” With Quebec students facing a tuition increase in 2012, and all McGill students facing potential tuition increases, this motion seems particularly timely. We hope that students also pay attention to the call to action included in the motion, and attend the November 10 demonstration against tuition increases.
Motion Re: Supporting Workers’ Struggles
Yes. This motion renews a policy passed in 2006 supporting the struggles of workers at McGill. It’s important for students to show solidarity with the employees that provide essential services on campus, and allow McGill to run smoothly. Indeed, this support seems more relevant than ever, considering that since 2006, new unions, such as AMUSE and AMURE, which have many student members, have been created at McGill.
Motion Re: Student Consultation in Re-Appointments of the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning)
Yes. Student consultation should be required when the administration makes a decision that affects student life. Extending the contract of a Provost, Deputy Provost, or Vice Principal clearly affects student life as these positions are integral to the day to day function of the University. That the administration chose to extend Morton Mendelson’s contract without any student input is egregious, as the office of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) entails a particular responsibility and accountability to students. Thus, it is particularly problematic that the administration chose to extend Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson’s contract without any student input. Hopefully, this motion can prevent the administration from taking similarly unilateral actions when hiring or renewing senior positions in the future.