TAGS
ON CAMPUS
STUDENT LIFE
OFF CAMPUS
EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT
MONEY
COOL
VARSITY BLUES
UTSU
ADMINISTRATION
BIOLOGY
ART
MUSIC
FOOD & DRINK
ELECTIONS
IN THE LAB
FACULTY
TECHNOLOGY
HEALTH
FILM
PROFILE
NUMBERS
INTERVIEW
LITERATURE
PSYCH
BRIEFS
THEATRE
LOVE & SEX
DESIGN
GENDER
ENVIRONMENT
LONG FORM
POP CULTURE
THE VARSITY
PRO SPORTS
SPACE
LAW
SIMCOE HALL
TORONTO
HUMAN RIGHTS
MISSISSAUGA
UTSU DEFEDERATION
FROSH
SCARBOROUGH
PHOTOGRAPHY
INFOGRAPHICS
FAITH
BEST OF 2012
GUIDES
LGBTQ
FASHION
RACE
DRUGS
ALUMNI
EUREKA
EDITORIAL
DANCE
SGRT
RELIGION
JOURNALISM
INTRAMURALS
JOB MARKET
COMMUTE
INVESTIGATIVE
PODCAST
University of Toronto's Student Newspaper Since 1880

SGRT makes a power play

Meeting with Minister first foray into lobbying

By Zane Schwartz
Published: 1:31 am, 22 October 2012
Vol CXXXIII, No. 07 under

Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities Glen Murray met Wednesday with student leaders from U of T to hear their input on the Ministry’s June discussion paper on post-secondary educational reform.

The St. George Round Table (SGRT), a group made up of presidents from college councils and professional faculties, attended the meeting at Queen’s Park, as did representatives from the undergraduate, graduate, part-time, Mississauga, and Scarborough student unions, who were invited as guests.

The meeting, which has been in the works for several weeks, was convened because of “the lack of the Minister’s presence at the town hall,” according to Scott Dallen, chair of the SGRT.

 

BERNARDA GOSPIC/THE VARSITY

“There is nothing political about this move,” insisted Dallen in opening the meeting. But the meeting was unmistakably the first foray of the Round Table into provincial advocacy and lobbying, traditionally the realm of the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU). Wednesday’s meeting was the first-ever between a sitting Minister and the Round Table, which was formed in 2009 (see left).

“The SGRT is by far the most democratically representative group at U of T,” suggested Jonathan Scott, president of the University of Toronto Liberals, who was closely involved in coordinating the meeting. Scott added that SGRT members “are chosen in elections with the highest voter turnout on campus.”

“I hope you find this group useful and can consult with it in future, Minister, because no group at U of T better speaks for U of T students,” Scott said.

At the close of the meeting, the Minister agreed to meet monthly with the SGRT.

“Maybe it’s the case that the UTSU has a formal mandate to lobby on behalf of students, but what they’re actually doing is lobbying on behalf of special interests,” said Sam Greene, head of college at Trinity and a member of the SGRT.

“The UTSU’s rigid allegiance to the ideological line taken by the CFS [Canadian Federation of Students] makes them inflexible and near-incapable of compromise,” Greene added.

BERNARDA GOSPIC/THE VARSITY

Students in attendance had mixed feelings about the outcome of the meeting.

“This was my first chance to speak with the Minister one-on-one, which I really appreciated,” said Chris Thompson, president of the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union. Thompson said he was generally happy with the meeting, having taken the opportunity to discuss rising tuition costs with the Minister.

Others saw the meeting as a political ploy. “I am going to go ahead and call this an SGRT-Minister get-together to bash the CFS,” remarked Katherine Ball, president of the Arts & Science Student Union.

UTSU president Shaun Shepherd was more pointed, commenting: “This wasn’t a meeting. It was a waste of time.”

“There are only a few organizations who, throughout the year, have done work on this issue,” said Shepherd, implying that the SGRT was not among them. The UTSU, along with student unions from Mississauga, Scarborough and the Graduate Students’ Union, submitted formal written responses about the paper to the Ministry by the September 30 deadline.

No group on the SGRT appears to have submitted a formal response, although some did attend the town hall held in late September.

The report submitted by the UTSU to the Ministry was the result of “a number of all-nighters” after the town hall on September 25 to meet the deadline, and the union tried to “compile all of the feedback we heard from students at the town hall … which was the largest student consultation held in the province.”

Student leaders have been jostling for the opportunity to weigh in on the broad reforms proposed within the discussion paper since a dispute over speaking time three weeks ago prevented the Minister from attending the UTSU-organized town hall.

The union and the Minister had a falling out over his absence at the town hall that escalated into a near-flame war on Twitter. Tense exchanges online continued during the event itself, with the UTSU tweeting mid-meeting, “Minister wants to protect the ‘elite’ positions of is [sic] U of T students. what about #UofT students who don’t fall under that? #UofT @Glen4TC”.

BERNARDA GOSPIC/THE VARSITY

The tweet, which allegedly misrepresented a comment about preserving elite research institutions like U of T, drew the ire of the representatives from St. Michael’s College, University College, and the Faculty of Engineering.

The tweet was “obviously misquoting” the Minister, said Mike Cowan, president of Saint Michael’s College Student Union. Reached by phone after the exchange, Cowan remarked that the presence of invited guests including the UTSU was “pretty counterproductive.”

“The UTSU is an incredibly unrepresentative institution of the student body,” Cowan added, “to the point that their elections should not be even considered legitimate.”

Murray himself reflected in a later tweet that “clearly we did not move towards a working relationship with your org [UTSU] yesterday. However I am forever an optimist.”

Angelo Veloso, president of New College, had a different view. “I think we’ve had a friendly relationship with the UTSU, and not been as confrontational with them as other colleges.”

Subsequent meetings between the SGRT and the Ministry will focus on specific topics. Murray suggested reducing tuition and looking at ways to maximize spending on student experiences as potential subjects.

Scott suggested that the “invited guests” of Wednesday’s meeting would not be asked to attend future gatherings.

Although Murray made clear that he would continue to meet separately with the union, and whomever else wished to speak with him, the agreement on a standing meeting with the SGRT was billed by Greene as “laying the groundwork for working with Minister Murray.”

What is the St. George Roundtable?

While the University of Toronto Students’ Union was founded in 1905, there have been several attempts to create parallel institutions in student governance.

Iterations of the group today known as the St. George Round Table have existed for decades, initially as the Council of Presidents of U of T and more recently, the Presidents’ Roundtable.

The SGRT’s inaugural meeting was held on November 26, 2009. The Round Table today is composed of the elected student council presidents of the seven college councils, as well as representatives from the faculties of engineering, physical health, and education.

Although Wednesday’s meeting was the first between the SGRT and a sitting Minister, the roundtable’s constitution empowers the body to “take the lead in co-ordinating directives and policy on mutual issues of concern for students.”

 

  • Hardy Weinberg

    Looks like Halloween comes early with SGRT being risen from the grave to zombify our student advocacy!
    Prior to this article there has been no mention of SGRT in any campus paper since 2010, their website has not been updated since 2010 and has no about section. Essentially this group established in 2009 died in 2010, UNTIL NOW!
    As a student I realize we deserve more, why should we settle for lefty activist advocates when we can have an army of zombies represent us to the government! Zombies dont care abotu anything except BRAINS! Which, like our old motto “Great Minds” suggest the average uofT student is interested in BRAINS!
    Sam Greene at my home college Trin argues “UTSU has a formal mandate to lobby on behalf of students, but what they’re actually doing is lobbying on behalf of special interests”. This week we can see them lobbying for special interest groups instead of normal students at expressions against opression week XOA! panel on marginalized women? Psht… we solved sexism in the 60s. Panel on racism? BS! Also solved in the 60s. Zombies from SGRT will focus on zombie issues, not dead issues from the 60s! Zombie issues include: how to raise from the dead every few years for student advocacy, and how to consume enough brains for students to pass their midterm. REAL ISSUES!
    Jscott by far said it the best that SGRT is the most representative group. And that they will no longer invite other unions. Everyone voted in their college right?! Screw grad, med, law, and pharmacy students, their brains and flesh is not tastey as those of undergrads! Screw part time and continuing education students who dont have a college, they aren’t even here half the time for zombies to eat. Undergrad students make the perfect people for zombies since they don’t ask what the positions are of SGRT (pre-2010 websites is fine by them) and no one from sgrt has stated ever where they stand on the issues (nor have they gotten student input for it)!
    This is how zombies and SGRT work, raise from the dead, cause mass confusion and chaos through biting people and advocating for things without them knowing, go back to your graves until a fresh group of undergrads replenish the supply of BRAINS!

    • http://twitter.com/BenDionne Benjamin Dionne

      Please, we’re not trying to steal anyone’s place. We want to add one more player, one that doesn’t systematically push its personal political agenda.

      • okay

        Okay. What is the SGRT advocating for with regards 2 the policy paper?

      • Hardy Weinberg

        Ben, I fear you may have been infected by the zombie virus, where is my shotgun?
        i think most people want more players at the table, except JScott who disinvites certain unions to future meetings and claims SGRT is the most representative group on campus.
        And yeah, no pushing personal political agenda, unless you’re president of the UofT Liberals and calling the shots on who can and cannot attend a meeting with a liberal MPP.
        Ben, you have two options, 1) be consistant and tell JScott to STFU; 2) take yourself out before yo ubecome a zombie

        • Jonathan Scott

          To be clear: the CFS maintains its meeting schedule with the Minister regardless of whether they continue coming as guests of the SGRT, which is up to the SGRT to decide, not me. There is some concern about continuing to have a giant meeting rather than smaller, more focused consultations. That’s what the Minister said: “…Although Murray made clear that he would continue to meet separately with the union”.

          • Graduand

            Just to note, Mr. Scott’s inability to differentiate between the various unions on campus and the Federation in terms of their lobbying with the Ministry or in any matters is patently hilarious.

            That said, Mr. Scott’s commentary here – which doesn’t well line up with his quoted comments – underplays his notion that a council made up of constituent-less Presidents of full-time undergraduate represent the entire will of the UofT student community. Cutting out the voices of UTM, UTSC, graduates, and part-time undergrads is despicable but exactly what Scott’s limited perception can process.

            But, so it goes with all things. Rather than have partisan interest dominate our conversation, as students, we must strive beyond the hackery of Scott and others.

          • Jonathan Scott

            You clearly are unfamiliar with how college presidents are elected. They are elected by the highest percentage of students on campus. They report directly to their students, both at almost-weekly meetings and the fact many have a leadership role in residence.

            Scott Dallen and I, who coordinate this meeting, wanted it to have all groups from UofT represented. Minister Murray has committed to continue meeting as usual with the CFS and its affiliated campus groups — that’s never been an issue and I’m unclear why you can’t understand that having different meetings with individual organisations is not some nefarious ploy but rather an attempt to have a focused discussion with a manageable sized group.

            There simply weren’t enough chairs in the room, on a very practical level, and there wasn’t time to hear from every member — though Scotty Dallen made sure to ask the UTSU to speak first, which I thought was the height of courtesy. But going forward, the CFS et al (including UTSU) should meet with the Minister as per usual and the SGRT should have their own, focused meetings with Murray.

    • Name

      This comment would have been far more reasonable if you left out all the “BRAINS” nonsense and just told us your opinion.

  • Daniel Tsekhman

    Having been on the SGRT in the 2009-2010 school year (UC Lit President), I must say that this is definitely a positive step. While things may have changed over the past 2-3 years, my impression of UTSU/CFS continues to be that they go after the government on the offensive– kick, scream, cry, and hope the government gives in to giving more funding to post-secondary education.

    Having a group of elected representatives sit down and have a productive conversation with the Minister is a step in the right direction.

    Having the President of UTSU call this meeting a waste of time, is a great indicator of how committed he is to working with the government….

  • Francesca

    Am I the only one that finds it disturbing that the Minister was not willing to attend the town hall where all students had the opportunity to voice their thoughts and opinions, but agreed to attend this closed meeting that was organized by the president of the UofT Liberals?

    • Rowan DeBues

      He was not willing to attend the Town Hall I believe due to being informed that he wasn’t going to be allowed to speak/was treated discourteously.

      To the Zombie guy, honestly, what is the problem with having another elected body try and further understanding of the situation? Clearly the UTSU is being rather unsuccessful in even having a mature conversation with the Ontario Government, so it is logical that another elected body would try and meet and get somewhere. Do you have something against trying to resolve the situation? Or must it be resolved by only a certain group of people?

    • http://twitter.com/BenDionne Benjamin Dionne

      He mentioned at least 20 times during the meeting that he was willing to come to any future town halls as long as he gets enough time to speak.

      • Conspiracy theorist

        How long is enough time to speak?
        A number of people have pointed out that Glen Murray takes up far too much space in meetings, leaving little room for others. That defeats the purpose of “student consultation.”
        His attendance at a closed meeting organized by a member of his party instead doesn’t sound like a solution to me.
        (See Bahram’s comment below about GSU’s townhall and previous articles which mention the same thing about SCSU’s townhall).

        • Conspiracy theorist

          Also, what exactly is the SGRT? What does it do? Does it have an opinion on this issue? Is it organizing its own town hall?

          How does it speak for students if no one even knows that it exists? Does it speak to students?

          What consultation did the SGRT did to prepare for this meeting? How were its members prepared to speak on my behalf?

          Were they speaking on behalf of UofT students? I sure hope not, but if they weren’t, then what exactly was the point of this meeting?

          I’m from SMC and I don’t think Mike Cowan ever asked me how I feel about post-secondary education reform. I don’t think I’ve seen him out talking to anyone about post-secondary education reform. Was he speaking for SMC?

          Was this meeting supposed to make up for Glen’s absence at the UTSU town hall? Is this the space where he was supposed to learn how UofT students feel about proposed changes to our education system?

          Why is no one talking about Jonathan Scott’s obvious bias?

          • Conspiracy theorist

            Lastly, I’d like to use this space to recognize Jonathan Scott, Glen Murray, and the entire Liberal party as a whole, for their efforts to:
            1- Undermine the only body that I ever saw speaking to students about this issue and providing a space for students to speak themselves.
            2- Provide Glen Murray (future candidate for Premier?) with an incredible opportunity to grandstand AND network with a group of student leaders who is unlikely to ever criticize him or his party (due to political affiliations for some and lack of knowledge about the issues)
            3- Shut out “ordinary” students from the discussion

            Three birds with one stone – pure brilliance!

            (But really, thank you to Shaun Shepherd and Katherine Ball for calling bullshit)

          • Bahram Farzady

            Everything you’ve written is spot-on.

      • what the

        Still waiting on you to give some sort of idea about what your/the SGRT’s policy is regarding the discussion paper?

  • Jason

    Actually, the GSU had a larger consultation process then UTSU. Over 50 people in five different town hall sessions, separate meetings with Department reps (total time of over ten hours) and over 300 detailed survey responses that included long written descriptions of what students wanted to see changed.

    • Anon

      Who is this ‘actually’ a response to, dimwit?

    • Ivan

      Lol, is this coming from Jason Dumelie, the GSU Executive member that wrote an article praising the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities on behalf of the GSU despite it being in contradiction to the rest of the GSU Executive and Departmental Council. I believe this clarification is posted in this issue of the Varsity.

      So I’m pretty hesitant on any consultations claimed to be hosted by Jason.

      • Bahram Farzady

        Quite justifiably. He advertised these ‘town halls’ less than a week in advance of them in some cases. At OISE’s townhall only one person showed up (a former GSU Exec). He postered, minimally.

        Most of the people who showed up came during the one where he invited Murray. Their voices were dwarfed by Murray who went on about non-sense and didn’t address a single concern of the students. Everyone, including his liberal party hack friends left extremely disenfranchised and disappointed.

        The consultations Jason has are a lot like Murray’s. They are their pretend versions of appealing to democracy, conversation, deliberation etc. When, in reality, any thought that is not concerned primarily to further partisan political interests in dismissed out of hand, much like the church will dismiss anything that goes against its dogmas.

        They both deserve to be condemned for such partisan-shillery. They’re truly shameful and horrible individuals. Jason is an enemy of democracy. Please make no mistake about this.