Katie Larson was elected as SSMU President for the 2013-14 academic year with 59.5 per cent against Chris Bangs’ 40.5 per cent Friday evening. Larson is the former president of the Music Undergraduate Students’ Association (MUSA) and the current faculty representative to SSMU Council.

The voter turnout for this year’s SSMU elections was 29.1 per cent.

Larson ran her campaign on initiatives to promote the health and wellness of McGill’s undergraduate community, and an effective representation of the student body. Regarding the election results, Larson said, “I am excited…. Everyone has been working very hard on their campaigns for the last few weeks.”

“I am so exhausted… but it probably means I [campaigned] right… and it paid off,” she continued.

Bangs, whose platform included the transparency of administrative investments, confronted controversy regarding his involvement in last year’s student strikes. He faced accusations of deleting questions regarding the disruption of an English class from his campaign Facebook page.

The position of VP Clubs & Services went to music student Stefan Fong with 88.5 per cent approval. He ran unopposed and received 11.5 per cent ‘No’ votes.

Joint Honours History and Political Science student Samuel Harris, who ran a platform on bridging the gap between McGill and the wider Montreal community, also won with 89.3 per cent approval. Though he was unopposed, he received 10.7 per cent of ‘No’ votes.

On the election results, Harris commented that he was content with the newly elected SSMU Executive team. “Of course, to be perfectly honest, I had had my preferences, but I am willing to work with whoever is [elected],” he added.

Harris, who has been an active follower of the Table de Concertation Étudiante du Québec (TaCEQ) discussions, looks to strengthen McGill’s ties with the Milton-Parc communities, and extend the inter-university discussions through workshops and new initiatives.

Political Science and Philosophy student Joey Shea claimed 52.1 per cent for the position of VP University Affairs, over International Development student Sam Gregory. Gregory, whose platform was similar to that of Shea, ran a close race with 47.9 per cent of the vote.

Current Arts Undergraduates’ Society (AUS) VP External Affairs Brian Farnan claimed the position for VP Internal with 51.8 per cent of the votes, beating fellow candidate Julia Kryluk by a slim margin of 3.6 per cent.

Economics and Finance student Tyler Hofmeister was elected as VP Finance and Operations with 71.7 per cent of the votes, beating Thomas Kim, who received 28.3 per cent of the vote. Coming into this position, Hofmeister will have to confront the prolonged problems of lease negotiations for the Shatner building and the impact on SSMU’s budget for the 2013 – 14 academic year.

“I am ecstatic,” Hofmeister said in his brief interview with The Daily.

“This is what I have been working really hard for the past two weeks…. I think this is going to be a great year. I’ve known Katie [Larson] and Brian [Farnan] for a long time…. It’s unfortunate that I won’t be working with Sam [Gregory] as much as I would have liked to, but I think this is going to be a great year and a great team,” he continued.

Referendum questions regarding the increase of the athletics fee and the student services ancillary fees passed and both fees will now be indexed to inflation. The questions regarding the creation of a McGill Writing Centre, the creation of a SSMU equity fund, and the SACOMSS fee renewal also passed.

The post Katie Larson elected SSMU President appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Winter GA was initially scheduled for February 4, with the motion deadline set for Monday, January 21. Due to a lack of submitted motions, however, the GA was postponed to Wednesday, February 27.

SSMU President Josh Redel told The Daily that despite low attendance, SSMU doubled their efforts in advertising for the GA this semester. “We did 85 Facebook announcements, 59 class announcements, 8.5 hours of flyering in targeted buildings, 9.5 hours flyering outdoors.”

Redel acknowledged that the timing of the GA left much to be desired, especially with that day’s snowstorm. “It was a very weird mood [at the GA],” he said in an interview. “I’m glad we had conversation on things, but it didn’t seem like there was as much energy.”

At the beginning, the GA had approximately seventy active voters, a number that dwindled down to around thirty by the end of the evening.

In his President’s Report, Redel mentioned: “lease negotiations are currently underway…. There’s an interesting new model that we’re looking towards that will be beneficial to SSMU and the students…Negotiations will be done in a month and a half – expect very big news in four or five weeks.”

The negotiation for the Shatner building lease with the administration has been ongoing for the last three years. The information has remained confidential to the student body thus far.

Lack of debate on motions

The motion regarding support for the Social Equity and Diversity Office (SEDE) was one of the two motions submitted in time for the prior date of the GA on February 4. VP University Affairs Haley Dinel explained that the GA’s approval would “[affirm] the work we want to do, and [are] doing.”

The motion seeks to secure a permanent funding structure for SEDE from McGill, and to ensure support from the university community. Dinel briefly alluded to concerns about the impact of the recent budget cuts.

“Where budgets are being cut, it’s always unclear what the status is of new offices,” Dinel said at the GA.

In the consultative forum, the motion passed with 55 votes for, seven votes against, and two abstentions.

The motion regarding support for Indigenous peoples and allies was also submitted before the original January 21 deadline. The resolved clauses in the motion were divided at the Legislative Council meeting on January 24, and only the first resolved clause was up for vote at the GA.

This clause asks SSMU to adopt a position in support of the Idle No More movement. At the Council meeting, the councillors deemed the clause “too external” for the body to simply rubber-stamp.

Although the motion passed in the consultative forum with 51 votes for and 12 votes against, it will be sent back to Council.

Neither of the motions inspired any debate in the dwindling crowd at the GA.

A motion submitted after the postponement of the GA regarding conflict minerals did manage to pique some interest. The McGill chapter of STAND Canada submitted a motion to mandate the Financial Ethics Research Committee to “consider the role of conflict minerals in current and future investments under [SSMU’s] Five Year Ethical Investment Plan.

Two representatives from the McGill chapter were on hand to clarify the intentions of the motion. Conflict minerals – specifically tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold – are traded in known conflict regions, fuelling rebel groups with their sale and export.

Recently, legislation was passed in the United States requiring companies to report whether their products contain conflict minerals. Canadian Members of Parliament are drafting a similar bill, and universities in the United States have passed motions on the subject of investment in conflict minerals as well.

The consultative body passed the motion with 54 votes in favour and three against.

Illegal ancillary fees at University of Toronto

An additional motion regarding “fair tuition and fee charges” was submitted from the floor by SSMU’s Political Campaigns Coordinator Christopher Bangs.

Inspired by University of Toronto’s recent review of its ancillary fees based on student research, and aligned with Ontario regulation regarding tuition, the Motion to Ensure Fair Tuition and Fee Charges urged SSMU to “conduct a thorough review of all tuition and fees charged in all faculties or schools…to ensure that all charges comply with regulations internal to the University and with the laws and regulations of Quebec…and to ensure that all charges are made known to students when registering for classes.”

Bangs explained that the motion also was a reflection of his own experience. “In a civil engineering class…there was a $90 fee to access the engineering lab. I reached out to the Dean of Students and…I was able to get the fee waived…They did not make [the fee] clear when we entered the class…A lot of people don’t have recourse to the administration.”

U1 Arts student Sam Gregory, a candidate for SSMU VP University Affairs inquired why the motion was brought up to SSMU, as opposed to the Senate or the administrative body of the University.

“I don’t believe that some sort of legal [motion] would go through the Senate,” Bangs explained. “Considering that student unions are here to make sure that we’re getting the most out of the University, and considering that we have mandates for [tuition], I think it’s important to make sure that the University is not getting more than what they’re legally capped at.”

The GA concluded with an interactive session regarding Space in the Shatner Building.

The post SSMU Winter General Assembly fails to meet quorum appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Clinic thinking about cutting services
The current policy regarding the accessibility of health services was introduced by Director of Student Health Services, Dr. Pierre-Paul Tellier. McGill’s clinic is open to paid members of the university, and to the spouses of students, most of whom are in graduate studies. Out-of-province residents are charged to open patient files with local physicians, or cannot find physicians due to Quebec’s shortage of family doctors.

Student Health is the only service at McGill outside of the Office of Students with Disabilities that is accessible to individuals who do not pay student fees. However, according to Tellier, the clinic is unable to accommodate all the needs of students.

“The clinic is kind of a little overwhelmed,” he said.

A significant surplus generated by the clinic’s lab means that the clinic is safe for now from the adverse effects of university-wide budget cuts, but Tellier said Health Services is starting to examine options.

Tellier continued that one way to alleviate the pressure could be to cut services provided to the spouses of the graduate community. Commenting on the administration’s lack of interest in the matter, Tellier said “Bottom line, we’re not there to make McGill’s life easier… we’re there to serve the students, and if [McGill] wants something from us, they should pay us, which they’re clearly not intending to do.”

The details of possible service cuts have not been finalized, and discussions will continue among students.

TaCEQ updates on the summit
Followed by Tellier’s presentation, the Secretary-General of TaCEQ, Paul-Émile Auger, advised the councillors on the recent status of its series of roundtable discussions with the PQ government.

In the last two weeks, TaCEQ met with Quebec Premier Pauline Marois and other student federations, to discuss the cuts of approximately $24 million to research and general funding, Auger said in French.

TaCEQ will also lobby to secure a reinvestment from the government, and to fight the recently announced indexation of 2 to 3 per cent, according to Auger.

The councillors were also introduced to two TaCEQ McGill delegate candidates, Alexandra Landry-Gravel and Patrick Martin-Ménard. The delegates will be voted into their positions by a motion in the next council meeting.

Sustainability fund seeks flexibility
After discussions with the series of presentations, Council returned to vote on the motion regarding the Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF) fee referendum question. The amended motion incorporated flexibility to help the SPF deal with the uncertain financial situation of across-the-board budget cuts.

The question now asks for “up to 50 cents per credit per student per semester…as matched in equal amount by McGill University (exact fee to be determined by July 1, 2013, at the latest).”

VP Clubs & Services Allison Cooper explained that the SPF’s collaborative structure was unique, and that if the fund lost the commitment of McGill’s matching, they would have to re-examine the structure of the fund itself.

SSMU President Josh Redel explained that it was still unsure how much the University could commit to the SPF at this time. “[In the] budgeting process, they haven’t worked to the level [of the SPF] yet … the end of April is when they will hit the level of budgeting for the SPF.”

Council picked up where they left off on an old motion regarding Greener McGill, which put forth an action plan for the Divest McGill campaign.

Political Campaigns Coordinator Chris Bangs explained that SSMU would lobby McGill to divest from companies involved in the tar sands, or working on Native land without consent, and the financial institutions that supported them.

Bangs acknowledged that it was “difficult if not impossible to find financial institutions that adhere completely” to these demands of environmentally friendly investments. The campaigning would allow for a more flexible framework in divestment.

The motion regarding Greener McGill passed with sixteen votes for and six abstentions. Engineering Representative Farzan Subhani – who had previously been vocal in Council about his concern for the impact on engineering students – and Clubs & Services Representative Geneva Nam both voted against the motion.

The post SSMU Council discusses student health, education summit appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The SPF was created in 2009 as a three-year pilot project with the vision of fostering a culture of sustainability at McGill. SPF Administrator Lilith Wyatt told The Daily that the SPF was a unique initiative because of its foundation on collaboration between staff and students.

Half of the SPF’s annual $840,000 budget comes from student member fees of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS), and the Macdonald Campus Students’ Society (MCSS). In the past three years, this money was matched by the administration.

The initial description of the administrative matching was vague, and according to SPF’s website, included: “contributions from internal or external donations; centrally managed capital and operating budgets of the University; and grants from external agencies and non-governmental organizations.”

Wyatt explained that this allows for significant flexibility. In some cases, this administrative matching includes instances where individual departments approach the SPF to help them with funding, developing, and managing specific projects.

“About 16 percent of the administrative matching so far has actually come from departments,” Wyatt said, adding that this by-project basis was part of the original vision of the fund, but was difficult to predict.

Wyatt told The Daily that the SPF has allocated approximately $2.3 million over three years on 94 projects, 90 per cent of which are collaborations between professors and students.

The fund has an impressive track record of success. According to Wyatt, 177 student jobs have been created, three companies have been founded, and around 150 students have been able to get course credits for participating in SPF projects. The most visible projects include McGill Feeding McGill, Campus Crops, Edible Campus, and the Aboriginal Sustainability Project.

Despite this legacy, the cuts the University now faces make it difficult to ascertain how, and if, the SPF will survive when its three years of funding run out in the fall of 2013. Due to the long timeline of many of the projects, there is an almost one-year lag between the allocation of the funds to projects and their use.

The senior administration at McGill and the SPF are in talks to try to find specific alternative solutions to a funding crisis forcing cuts across the board. Wyatt was very positive about the possibility of alternative sources of funding, and clarified that “it’s not as though all of that money needs to be found and put into a pot.”

“It’s just a matter of trying to find, more specifically, where [the money] can come from. The cuts are so profound at this time that every unit is going to feel it, and every priority is going to feel it,” Wyatt said.

SSMU President Josh Redel was also cautiously optimistic about the fund’s renewal. “It looks like we have potential solutions, but it’s just the uncertainty of what next year will look like,” Redel told The Daily.

For reasons of confidentiality, Redel was unable to elaborate on what these potential solutions could be. At present, Redel said, SSMU is working along with the SPF and with McGill’s administration to “[make] sure the fund reflects current financial reality.”

Last week, SSMU’s Legislative Council delayed a motion to approve a question concerning the renewal of the fund’s student support. Redel explained that this delay was due to the wording of the motion, which assumed administrative matching. “The fund wouldn’t be true to its original form if it doesn’t have the match. It’s not that it would disappear, but we might have to look at how it’s composed, who’s able to apply for it, what kind of projects it undertakes, if it isn’t a parity fund.”

Both Wyatt and Redel stated that they would prefer not to proceed with the question until commitment had been secured from the administration.

This kind of financial uncertainty is not unique to the SPF as student groups, programs, and the university administration are scrambling for solutions to cuts Wyatt called “catastrophic.”

“Everything’s kind of just all over the place,” Redel said. “The financial situation is changing day to day, especially over the past two weeks…Everyone is kind of bogged down.”

The post Future of the Sustainability Projects Fund in jeopardy appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The SSMU Legislative Council created a referendum question to create an opt-outable $0.50 Equity Fund fee and discussed the re-scheduling of the upcoming Winter Referendum at its meeting on Thursday.

Council began with a report from SSMU Equity Commissioners Justin Koh and Shaina Agbayani regarding the recent activities of the commission.

The SSMU Equity Committee is currently working with McGill’s Diversity and Equity Lab and its research on racial micro-aggression on campus.

Micro-aggression  is defined as subtle forms of intentional and unintentional racism, sexism, homophobia, and heterosexualism.

Led by two post-graduate students, this initiative seeks to quantify and qualify experiences of racial discrimination to better establish a foundation for projects to foster equity.

The Diversity and Equity Research Lab has conducted investigations with students identifying as visible minorities and First Nations, and found that within the research group, a majority of students of colour surveyed often felt uncomfortable on campus. Their research also found that a number of respondents described Concordia as a significantly less discriminatory environment.

Underrepresentation of Aboriginal and visible minority faculty members is an ongoing issue at the University. The researchers noted that this is especially alarming as professors and teaching assistants have been documented inaccurately portraying distinct cultures during classroom lectures.

Currently, the Diversity and Equity Research Lab seeks to conduct additional focus group studies for various campus demographics including religious minorities, queer and trans* students, graduate students, and faculty members. The presentation recommended that all campuses incorporate formal mechanisms to influence dialogue that address implicit biases.

Though SSMU’s Equity Commission is active, McGill does not have a universal equity policy and does not provide permanent financial support to any equity-related projects.

The motion to create a referendum question for an opt-outable Equity Fund was moved by Clubs and Services representative Zach Rosentzveig, Arts representative Colleen Morawetz, VP University Affairs Haley Dinel and Senate Caucus representative Max Zidel.

The motion passed by 22 for, 0 oppositions, and 5 abstentions.

Changes in electoral schedule

SSMU was forced to change its electoral schedule for the upcoming Winter Referendum period to better adapt to the current financial context of the University, according to SSMU President Josh Redel. The Council tabled motions regarding the increase or creation of ancillary fees for Student Services, Athletics, and the McGill Writing Centre.

“Since the fee questions were written, several big changes have occurred, and we want to make sure that we are making the best decision possible,” Redel told The Daily in an email.

The Motion Regarding Environment Fee Referendum Question, and the Motion Regarding Charity Fee Referendum Question both passed in the meeting. Redel explained that these questions were managed “directly and solely by students,” rather than by McGill, and so were not affected by the electoral timeline changes.

The Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF) Fee Referendum Question motion was tabled as well. “The University is no longer able to match the dollar amount provided by students for the fund, so we are looking [into the] alternatives,” Redel said in Council.

Previously, the SPF charged a non-opt-outable fee of $0.50 per credit for all SSMU and Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) students, and this money was then matched by the university.

The SPF has funded 91 projects since its inception in 2010.

In a previous version of this article, the SSMU Equity Committee was incorrectly referred to as the SSMU Equity Commission. The Daily regrets the error.

The post SSMU talks equity on campus appeared first on The McGill Daily.

With only two motions submitted, SSMU President Josh Redel expressed his concern regarding the efficiency of the GA. “A lot of logistics [go] into a GA,” Redel told The Daily. “From the student perspective, would it be fair to ask students…to come in and sit for just two motions?”

SSMU Equity Commissioners Justin Koh and Shaina Agbayani submitted one of the two motions, addressing the importance of the community’s support for the Social Equity and Diversity Education (SEDE) office. “We decided to draft the motion in support for SEDE because we wanted SSMU to officially recognize the importance of the work that SEDE does in social justice, diversity and equity issues on campus,” Koh told The Daily by email.

Despite McGill’s previously released documents on the Principal’s Taskforce on Diversity, Excellence and Community Engagement, SEDE still requires a permanent funding structure and support from the university community, Koh said.

When asked about the effect of the GA’s scheduling delay on his motion, Koh said, “We don’t think the delay will have a big impact on the motion, this support needs to be affirmed for SEDE regardless, we might change some of the wording for the motion depending on the situation.”

The other motion submitted to the GA, which called for support of the Idle No More movement, had previously been submitted at SSMU Legislative Council. It was committed to the GA to be put to vote by the larger student body, as it was deemed to be an external issue.

This year’s GAs have experienced difficulties in generating student attendance: the fall semester’s GA briefly met its quorum of 100 students – with a maximum of half from any faculty or school – before transitioning into a consultative forum as people left. In the case of a consultative forum, motions are sent to a Legislative Council meeting, where councillors take into account the votes of the students.

When asked if students were losing interest in the GA format, Redel was unsure, but agreed that more discussion needed to be held on the actual content of a GA rather than simply the logistics.

Last semester, SSMU offered motion writing workshops in the weeks leading up to the GA. They also offered two workshops specific to the fall GA on the day of the assembly.

Redel said the turnout last semester was “okay,” with about thirty people in attendance at the workshops on the day of the GA. He said that SSMU hoped to continue offering these workshops once a week before the upcoming winter GA.

In the past, Redel said, students have submitted half of the motions, while councillors have submitted the other half. “I think there’s a lot of mystery around the GA because people think it has to be political,” Redel said. “I think that we want to better inform students not just about coming to the GA…[but also] helping them figure out how to make different kinds of motions so that we have a good balance of internal and external.”

The post SSMU General Assembly postponed appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The “SSMU Summit on Space in the Shatner Building” – the start to a six-week-long consultation effort – featured discussions on the establishment of a student-run cafe and the financial challenge of operating infrastructure owned by McGill.

The summit opened with a presentation on the history of the SSMU building – dubbed the William Shatner University Centre in a 1992 student referendum – and the various changes that have taken place as part of student initiatives throughout the years.

Though its activities are operated by SSMU, the Shatner building is property of the University, with physical maintenance such as heating and cooling controlled by McGill’s Utilities and Energy Management.

Financial reports from 2010-2011 budgeted $187,899 for chilled water for the building’s cooling system and $145,925 for steam used for heating. The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system has not seen major changes since the building’s construction in 1965, and their costs are not directly paid for by SSMU.

In an interview with The Daily, VP Clubs & Services Allison Cooper addressed the importance of maintaining Shatner as a student space in a university system where funding is becoming increasingly limited.

“This building is different from any other building on campus. Yes, because different executives are [elected] every year, there are many changes to the building that you don’t see in the general university system. [That] is what makes SSMU progressive,” Cooper said.

On the issue of McGill’s limited financial support for student unions, SSMU President Josh Redel commented, “There are other student unions funded by their university administrations. [The University of British Columbia] just signed a symbolic $1 contract lasting 50 years…. The fact that the SSMU [building] is owned by McGill makes it restrictive.”

SSMU also operated under a $1 symbolic contract until lease negotiations which took place in 1999 – after which the rent was raised to $100,000.

Referring to the contentious closure of the popular Architecture Café by the administration, Redel urged the attendees to question the meaning of “student-run.”

“It’s important to ask ourselves, is there still a desire for a student cafe over another interactive space, like a student lounge where people can eat and study at the same time?”

Redel emphasized that student-run operations should incorporate flexibility, with a vision less driven by financial profits.

He also expressed his disapproval over the discontinuation in financially unsuccessful student-operated projects: “It seems that we’re afraid of this culture of failure…You shouldn’t discontinue a student [bake] sale, for example, because they make a mistake of going, let’s say, $5,000 in red. There should be a chance to learn from those mistakes.”

Although the lease negotiations are still ongoing, SSMU looks to finalize the contract agreements by the end of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson’s term at McGill.

Other events included a presentation on the History of the Building and Long-Term Visioning Efforts, Food in the Building, Prioritization of Room Categorization, Event Space in the Building, and Sustainability in the Building.

— With files from Dana Wray

The post SSMU plans to fill vacancy in Shatner appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The week of events – a collaborative effort between SSMU and student organizations on campus – aims to better educate the student population about the unique cultural, historical, and political identity of Quebec.

SSMU VP External Robin Reid-Fraser organized the week of events after conversations about the recent student strike made her realize that students didn’t know much about the history of the province.

“It seems like one of the reasons that folks at McGill didn’t have as much of a connection to the strike is because they aren’t from Quebec, and don’t have the history and sense of the province because of that,” Reid-Fraser told The Daily by email.

“I’ve heard a lot of students saying that it can be really difficult to break out of the McGill bubble, and get involved in the greater Montreal community. That being said, there’s a real desire to get to know this province,” Reid-Fraser said.

Reid-Fraser explained that SSMU aimed to create a mix of more traditional events, such as discussions on Quebec sovereignty and Bill 101, Quebec’s charter of the French language, and less explored topics, such as black history in Montreal and the historical relationship between Aboriginals and white settlers in Quebec.

A workshop on Monday aiming to provide a basic introduction to Quebec, and a presentation on Tuesday aiming to explain the relationship between different regions in Quebec, were both cancelled due to miscommunications in scheduling.

Tuesday’s workshop on Montreal’s black history was cancelled as the presenter was ill.

Wednesday’s events included a workshop by Paige Isaac from the McGill First Peoples’ House on the Aboriginal community in Quebec, and a workshop on the Quebec student movement.

Thursday’s events are slated to include a workshop on Bill 101 and other legal issues in Quebec, and a francophone night at Gert’s featuring the Montreal band Les Lazy Lovers.

On Friday, SSMU plans to host a presentation on the history of Canada from a francophone perspective, followed by a poutine crawl.

Reid-Fraser was enthusiastic about future possibilities for the Quebec-themed week of events.

“I would love it if this can be an annual thing…and bring in more speakers from outside of McGill to have even more of a diversity of perspectives, and a lot more from actual Québécois,” she said.

The post SSMU holds Intro to Quebec week appeared first on The McGill Daily.

SSMU Legislative Council discussed university financing and the state of education in Quebec at their first meeting of 2013.
The meeting opened with a financial management report from Provost Anthony Masi, who spent the better part of half an hour answering SSMU VP External Robin Reid-Fraser’s question about whether Quebec universities were truly underfunded or just mismanaged.

Masi’s response focused on the changing directives given to McGill from the provincial government over the course of the year. “If there’s anything being mismanaged, it’s the way government have asked universities to prepare their budgets,” he said.

Masi stated that the Parti Québécois’ (PQ) decision to abolish the tuition increase slated for September meant a loss of $7 million in expected revenue for the University.

He continued that McGill was pushed to cut an additional 5.2 per cent from its annual budget following the PQ’s controversial December announcement that universities in the province retroactively cut $124 million from their costs.

Because the decision was announced so late in the fiscal year – and because the province expects the savings to be realized by April 2013 – the administration argues that the cut will amount to 15 per cent for the remainder of the fiscal year.

“Our underfunding is real this year. Absolutely real…because we’ve had four different messages to prepare our budget…I don’t think that’s financial mismanagement on the part of the university,” Masi stated.

The themes of university financing and the state of education in Quebec continued with two motions introduced by Reid-Fraser.
The first, the motion regarding an alternative education summit, was amended to instead call for an états généraux.

“An alternative education summit could have been quite interesting, but it would have required a great deal of resources on the part of us, [Table de concertation étudiante du Québec (TaCEQ)], and whoever else were to be involved,” Reid-Fraser said in an email to The Daily.

An états généraux is a process of consultation spanning from a year to 18 months which the Quebec National Assembly would be responsible for commissioning and funding, which would include the participation of student associations across the province.

Reid-Fraser said that the period of time provided by the états généraux would allow for more discussion, and the creation of a clearer collective vision than the current education summit.

Reid-Fraser intimated that the process was long overdue. “We haven’t had an examination of higher education in Quebec since the Parent Commission in the 1960s,” she said.

In light of the amendments to the motion regarding an alternative education summit, the motion regarding états généraux was amended to ask for a comparative audit of university finances in Quebec.

“There doesn’t seem to be an overall picture of university financing,” Reid-Fraser said at Council. She suggested a comparative approach rather than the current focus on individual institutions.

SSMU President Josh Redel clarified the wording and intent of the motion. “I think here the term ‘audit’ is trying to get at the core of why we spend on certain things. …When you say you want more transparency, that’s like seeing it, and I think the audit is next step where we now investigate it.”

The motion regarding états généraux was tabled indefinitely to allow time for more research.

Reid-Fraser told The Daily that she would be working with the SSMU External Affairs Committee and Political Attaché & Researcher so that the demands can be brought to TaCEQ and to the provincial government.

Two motions regarding SSMU by-laws 13.6.1 and 13.6.3, which deal with regulations on club status and membership, were passed with no opposition. VP Clubs & Services Allison Cooper told Council that she intended for the by-law amendments to open full status to clubs with a more unconventional structure.

A motion regarding the removal of Queer McGill’s undergraduate fund by-law passed as well. Cooper explained that the elimination of the by-law allowed for a more efficient discretionary system for allocating internal funds.

A motion regarding an amendment to the Elections SSMU electoral timeline passed with no opposition. The electoral timeline will now take into account reading week in March.

The post Admin talks university finances at SSMU Council appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) held its final Legislative Council meeting of the Fall 2012 semester to discuss a range of motions as well as the revised 2012-2013 budget, which was prepared by VP Finance and Operations Jean Paul Briggs.

Among the motions debated was the motion regarding a campus free from weapons development, moved by VP External Robin Reid-Fraser, Senate representative Moe Nasr, and Engineering representative Farzan Subhani.

The motion resolved that SSMU oppose “all ongoing and future research on weapons [and] surveillance technologies with military application.” It also called on Council to condemn ongoing research such as the Shockwave Physics Group for “research on thermobaric explosives,” the Computational Fluid Dynamics Lab “that improves the design of drones,” and the Center for Intelligent Machines “that develops surveillance technology for drones,” among others.

“It’s a political stance we are taking,” said Subhani. “It is a stance against military research, at a university, that may lead to killing people at large.”

Others agreed with Subhani’s stance and the motion’s anti-violence language.

“The place for university in society is not to be developing weapons,” said Clubs & Services representative Zachary Rosentzveig. “If you want to develop weapons, you don’t work for universities.”

VP Internal Michael Szpejda was among many at Council who opposed the motion. “Things that we use every day can be used in military applications,” said Szpejda, referring to the first programmable computer, which was originally developed for military use.

Science representative David Chaim agreed. “Research isn’t inherently evil, it’s the people who use it,” he said.

In response to the criticisms about the broad language of the motion, it was amended to more directly target research used in military combat. The amended motion passed with 24 in favour, one against, and eight abstentions.

A motion regarding Opposition to Continued Colonialism in the North sought to address concerns surrounding the controversial Plan Nord. The motion failed to pass, with six in favour and 17 against.

Many councillors agreed with the spirit of the motion, but argued that it was too one-sided and lacked a desirable depth of research. “This is a complex, poly-centric issue,” said Law representative Andrew Baker.

Budget

Briggs introduced the revised budget, which included three series of cuts, bringing the final budgeted deficit to $211,320 for the fiscal year. According to Briggs’ report, SSMU has not exhausted “the opportunities to save money in the budget without making major cuts.”

The report prepared by Briggs also noted that the deficit is primarily a result of SSMU’s lease negotiation with the administration: “Due to the extraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding the budget and the extreme uncertainty that [SSMU] faces at this time, the decision was made to not drastically cut the budget.”

Briggs also observed that expenses related to the rent are still pending as the lease has not yet been finalized, and discussed the increased expenses related to the renovation of the second floor cafeteria with its new restaurant tenants.

Nasr criticized the presented budget on its increased expenses on computer software, and he later motioned for Council to reconsider its approval of the budget. This motion failed.

“I’d like you to keep it in mind that [this] is a budget, and it has been done, one, conservatively….Expenses in here are justified by the people responsible,” concluded Briggs.

Other motions

Music councillor Katherine Larson, Science councillor Devin Dziadyk, VP University Affairs Haley Dinel, and President Josh Redel jointly moved for SSMU to lobby the provincial and federal governments – as well as the United Nations – to feature Lolcats, from the popular site I Can Has Cheezburger?, on their home pages.

Larson clarified that the motion was a “joke … meant to lampoon the fact that we always decide to lobby random things without deciding the allocation of resources [and] time.”

However, VP Clubs & Services Allison Cooper expressed concerns about the motion negatively impacting the legitimacy of Council, even if the satire was clear.

In the end, the motion failed to pass, with a vote of eight in favour, eight against, and ten abstentions.

A motion regarding e-waste collection and a motion regarding the amendment of the by-law book both passed with the unanimous support of Council.

Council also passed a motion regarding effective representation, which resolved that “the SSMU contact other student associations in Quebec with large numbers of out-of province students and students who pay international tuition rates to encourage them to also actively lobby for the interests of these students.”

Dinel spoke in favour of the motion, saying, “I think we often forget about non-provincial students when we talk about tuition fees. … I’m very glad that SSMU is supporting its broader constituencies.”

The post SSMU Council debates weapons research and Plan Nord appeared first on The McGill Daily.

After the adoption of the Report of the Steering Committee, Council moved its agenda to attend to a note from President Josh Redel, who commented on The Daily’s recent editorial, “SSMU Council illogical and misguided,” (November 8, page 19) and Compendium! article, “SSMU Council does nothing,” (November 8, page 20) both of which criticized the effectiveness of the SSMU Legislative Council.

In a casual commentary addressed to the councillors, Redel outlined his grievances regarding the pieces and expressed the importance of working past the criticism to create a stronger Legislative Council body. “I’ll be completely honest and tell you that I took it quite personally. I never viewed myself as your superior, and never will. But I do feel like Council is a family whose well-being I am responsible for. As such you can imagine how I felt when that family was criticized,” he said.

Redel further urged members of Council to look beyond the initial frustration to appreciate the criticisms made in the pieces. As members of a transparent body, Redel suggested that this exposure to open assessment be used as a tool to strengthen the dialogue within and between the arguments made in Council.

“On the other hand, when certain pieces decide that childish name-calling is an effective means of communicating a point, you need to laugh it off exactly as that: childish,” he added.

President Redel closed his commentary by reflecting on the Council dynamic in the November 1 session that drew the criticisms – which saw intense debate over a CKUT endorsement that ultimately failed – asking the councillors to acknowledge the purpose of Council as a team.

“You cannot and should not categorically…mistrust other councillors because they hail from a certain faculty,” Redel continued. “If you find yourself discounting someone’s comments and arguments because they are a rogue, radical, moderate, or whatever else you can think of, you need to take a few minutes to revaluate your thought process.”

He concluded, “The power of a body like Council lies in the collective action of people with different thought processes…. Hating or discounting someone because they think differently than you is a slippery slope, and I discourage all from going down that path, though I do not think that you have done that thus far.”

Council then moved into the discussion of McGill’s representation within the Table de concertation étudiante du Quebec (TaCEQ), a federation of Québec student unions of which SSMU is a member.

Led by VP External Robin Reid-Fraser, Council debated the issue of electing delegates to attend TaCEQ meetings on behalf of SSMU and the McGill community in general.

“We technically have four voting seats at these [TaCEQ] meetings, but we very rarely actually use all four of them because rarely are there four SSMU representatives there…these [positions] do not need to be people who are already elected members, if we can run an election next semester just for people who want to take on this role,” Reid-Fraser explained.

Speaking on importance of campus representation in TaCEQ, Faculty of Music Councillor Katie Larson asked, “Should they be representatives from campus, or should they be representatives from the [SSMU] Council, as a whole… to represent the undergraduates strategically?”

After the short consultative discussion on McGill’s representatives to TaCEQ, the agenda moved to a closed members’ feedback session in which the SSMU executives temporarily left the session to allow open debate from the general councillors.

Press was asked to leave Council for the matters of confidentiality.

The post SSMU President responds to criticisms from The Daily at Council appeared first on The McGill Daily.

VP Clubs & Services Allison Cooper stated that the intention of such an endorsement would be to “lend legitimacy” to CKUT.

After intense debate, the motion barely failed, with 11 in favour and 11 opposed.

Since 1988, CKUT’s fee for full-time undergraduate students has remained unchanged at $4, despite inflation and rising costs. With this referendum question, CKUT seeks to increase its opt-out-able fee by $1 for all full-time undergraduate students.

“The fact that they haven’t increased their fee in so long means that their ability to provide that resource to students is compromised,” said VP External Robin Reid-Fraser.

In the past, SSMU has officially endorsed attempts to increase financial support for CKUT. In the Winter 2012 semester, the SSMU Executive Committee endorsed a referendum question to make the CKUT fee un-opt-out-able. The question failed to pass online ratification.

VP Internal Michael Szpejda pointed out the failure of the referendum last winter as a sign that SSMU should be cautious in endorsing a fee increase associated with the same student group.

The biggest concern surrounded whether it was in SSMU’s mandate to take on divisive referenda where “clearly, some students feel one way, and some students feel the other way,” said Szpejda.

Arts representative to SSMU Nicole Georges commented that the goal was not to question the legitimacy of CKUT as an independent student group, but rather to determine whether SSMU has the mandate to officially endorse a particular side on a clearly two-sided issue.

“I know from the people I’ve spoken to in my constituency […] it feels as though it alienates people who don’t necessarily have the same opinion,” Georges said.

Szpejda echoed Georges’ concern over the possibility of unequal representation.

“I’m just curious how SSMU intends to represent all of the students at McGill University,” Szpejda said. “If we’re leaning one way, that means we’re not representing all of our constituents.”

GA Motions

Thursday’s Council meeting also discussed the motions that failed to reach quorum at SSMU’s recent GA.

Described as “Old Business” on the meeting’s official agenda, the councillors opened the floor to debate on the motions regarding renewing support for accessible education, ethical investments at McGill,  opposition to Canadian military involvement in Iran, and Plan Nord.

Reid-Fraser, who recommended that Council pass the motion regarding accessible education, said, “SSMU should be working to make sure that this type of education that we are fortunate enough to receive should be accessible to as many people who wish to access it, regardless of financial state.”

After amending the “resolved” clause to modify education from being a “human right” to a “right,” Council passed the motion with 24 in favour, zero opposed, and four abstentions.

Council also narrowly passed the motion regarding ethical investments at McGill, with nine in favour, seven opposed, and eight abstentions.

Georges addressed the issue of transparency in accessing McGill’s financial documents and asked Council to table the motion indefinitely.

“There is not enough information for the McGill students to understand the financial impact…of getting rid of investment relationships and funding…We know the environmental impacts but we don’t know how it pertains to McGill financially,” she added.

The motions regarding opposition to Canadian military involvement in Iran and regarding Plan Nord were tabled indefinitely with a simple majority until further notice.

The post SSMU fails to endorse CKUT in Fall referendum appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In his report to Council, Briggs wrote, “The tenants are upset and losing money. Some of them expressed concerns that they wouldn’t return after the duration of the contract at this rate. They expressed disappointment with the state of the equipment, the constant breakdowns, and slow response from McGill to fix anything.”

Earlier this year, the three restaurants replaced Cultures, Tiki Ming, and Franx Supreme for the 2012 academic year under a one-year contract. The renewal of the contracts  are still to be determined.

Bocadillo owner Victor Gonzalez pointed to the restaurants’ limited promotional opportunities around the Shatner Building as a central concern.

“Our concerns are we feel that we are not free to promote ourselves. [The tenants] feel that for the type of restaurants that we are… our costs of operations are very high. We need to spread out our time of operation more but since we can’t do that, we need to focus on how we can make ourselves known,” said Gonzalez.

“How is it that even after two months of being here, there are still some [advertisements] for Tiki Ming or Cultures? There are no signs that say that there is a restaurant space on the second floor of SSMU,” he added.

The restaurants’ hours of operation are limited to 11:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Fridays. They are not open on weekends.

In an interview with The Daily, SSMU President Josh Redel responded, “[Miscommunication on promotional space] is probably an oversight on SSMU’s behalf…being so used to the University’s environment. For example, we have 21 services and…it’s part of the services to advertise for themselves. So I guess we assumed that this would be considered in their method of operation.”

Redel also explained that each tenant is given three windows, with two-thirds of the surface area available for advertisements.

“We actually talked about this in our executive meetings about lending support for them…in terms of advertising – putting stuff on the listserv, social media, talking to our Communications and Publications Manager so that she can meet with them and talk about doing posters in the building. Outside of the building, we really don’t have much control,” said Redel.

According to Gonzalez, the tenants also feel that their concerns about the equipment have not been adequately addressed.

SSMU regulations prohibit tenants from outsourcing equipment problems to external services for repair.

Redel explained that because a lot of tenants did not know beforehand what the environment was going to be like, there were some surprises regarding the capital investments and the space.

“For them, this is shocking because normally they can fix [the problems] themselves, or they can call in a plumber who will be there the same day […],” said Redel. “Another problem was…we said [that they would not] not have to put any capital investments into the place. And theoretically, the space would be good to go when [they] started. It turned out not necessarily to be like this for the [tenants] – some of the equipment didn’t end up working…and there were some hidden costs that they were not expecting.”

Briggs told The Daily that a listserv would be sent to students to provide feedback to the tenants.

“It’s going to be coming either this week or next week,” said Briggs. “It’s just going to be a survey form for each of the tenants to provide feedback. There’s also going to be one for Gerts and Gertrude’s as well…. So the tenants will know how to better target students’ demands.”

The post SSMU second-floor tenants express grievances appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Instead, councillors found themselves tied up in procedural debate after a report by the Steering Committee found a series of weaknesses in the by-laws of the SSMU constitution.

The Steering Committee’s report detailed several tensions between the role of Council and the constitutional integration of online ratification.

In accordance with article 7.3 in the SSMU By-Law Book 1, motions passed at a GA that have lost quorum – and are thus non-binding and passed as a consultative forum – are then passed to Council by direction of the Steering Committee. The traditional role of Council is to simply “rubber stamp” the motions based on the vote of the consultative forum.

However, as the by-law stands, there is no precedent for the integration of online ratification in the situation of a vote by consultative forum.

Councillors were divided over the merits of online ratification.

Claire Stewart-Kanigan, newly-elected Arts representative to SSMU, told The Daily, “decisions should be arrived at via discussion and debate, but with online ratification, this process is devalued,” adding that she “fundamentally disapproved” of the process.

VP University Affairs Haley Dinel, on the other hand, saw online ratification as “beneficial to the GA process.”

“I am in fact hopeful that it will lead to a different kind of participation at the GA,” Dinel told The Daily.

The Steering Committee also raised concerns about Council’s mandate to pass external and potentially divisive motions – such as the motion on war with Iran – and held in its report, “the Legislative Council holds no authority to adopt positions on external affairs brought to the General Assembly.”

Several councillors proposed to amend or debate the motions in question to orient them more under SSMU’s mandate and make the motions less externally-based.

President Josh Redel, however, cautioned against Council debating or amending motions presented in a GA, pointing out the “clear distinction between the direct democracy of the GA and representative democracy of the council.”

There is a legal precedent in the by-law book to table all motions passed by a consultative forum until the next GA, which would take place in the 2013 winter semester.

Suggestions to follow this precedent were met with strong opposition.

“[These motions] are time-sensitive issues that must be discussed as soon as possible. By the time the next GA rolls around, it may be too late to take a meaningful stance on the issues at hand,” Stewart-Kanigan told The Daily.

VP Internal Michael Szpejda said that it was preferable to fix the constitutional loopholes before passing the motions in either Council or in the next GA.

The four motions were tabled until the next meeting of Council on November 1 to allow the Steering Committee to make final decisions on the possible amendment of the by-laws.

The post Procedural debate delays decisions on SSMU GA motions appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Developed in a joint executive meeting between SSMU and the Macdonald Campus Students’ Society (MCSS), the Roaming Council initiative seeks to increase the visibility of SSMU and expose the councillors to the greater University community.

According to SSMU President Josh Redel, “The SSMU Legislative Council makes decisions on a regular basis that impact student life across the University, and I think it is a shame that we operate out of a single building.”

“By going to different places across campus, it allows councillors to gain perspective of other students at McGill and allows other students to…ask questions at Council in the comfort of a familiar environment,” he continued.

SSMU VP External Robin Reid-Fraser added, “We hope that this will encourage people who wouldn’t normally come to Council to pop in and see what their student government in action actually looks like.”

With the exception of in-camera, or confidential, sessions, SSMU Legislative Council meetings are opened to the members of the gallery.

Council’s trip to the Macdonald Campus was the first in the Roaming Council series.

“Since [MCSS] operates inside the same university as us and since many of their students partake in SSMU clubs and services and spend at least some time in their academic career at the downtown campus, I thought it would be great for the councillors to gain perspective of the challenges Mac students face,” said Redel.

“Future [Roaming Council] locations will include residences, faculty, student areas, and certain interesting venue across campus,” he added.

Council will not meet outside of the University.

MCSS VP Finance Nicolas Chatel-Launay concluded the Council meeting with a short presentation on the Macdonald Campus constituency. SSMU executives were also invited to tour the Macdonald Campus’s student spaces after the meeting.

“In terms of having relationships with SSMU, our goal is to work together when we tackle issues that affect both our memberships such as University-wide policies,” said Chatel-Launay. “We also organize some social events – including frosh events – in common, where both our members attend. Our goal is to make this sort of relationship a bit more efficient than it is right now.”

MCSS does not currently have any plans to attend the SSMU Legislative Council at the downtown campus.

Twenty-one councillors and Chatel-Launay attended the meeting, which included a presentation by SSMU Sustainability Coordinator David Gray-Donald.

Council was also joined by newly elected Arts Undergraduate Society representative Claire Stewart-Kanigan, Inter-Residence Council VP External Sarah Southey, and Medical Students’ Society Representative Pedram Mossallanejad.

The councillors voted on the “Motion Regarding Referendum Question Regarding Increase of the SSMU Base Fee Towards the McGill Student Emergency Response Team,” which passed with 21 approvals, two oppositions, and one abstention.

The first SSMU General Assembly of the academic year takes place today.

The post SSMU heads to Mac Campus appeared first on The McGill Daily.