In the wake of David Naylor’s comments about the possibility that the administration will speak with the St. George Round Table if dialogue breaks down with the University of Toronto Students’ Union, some have wondered if the SGRT will usurp UTSU’s authority. The most public expression of this opinion came from Walied Khogali, a former president of the U of T Mississauga Students’ Union, who accused Naylor of “proposing an ‘alternative’ to a democratic students’ union” and suggested the SGRT “consists largely of failed candidates in past UTSU elections.” Such uninformed opinions overestimate the SGRT’s political ambitions and denigrate the good work they do on this campus.
The SGRT is neither a sinister shadow government nor a revenge council bent on exercising a political vendetta. Instead, it is a forum for the presidents of college and faculty councils to discuss ideas, share knowledge, and learn how they can improve the experience of St. George students within their respective constituencies.
As Tom Pinnington, Head of College at Trinity College, pointed out in his response letter to Khogali, the SGRT is made up of the democratically elected representatives of various college and faculty councils here at St. George, none of whom fit Khogali’s dismissive description. Also, any resolutions ratified by the SGRT are, according to their charter, non-binding, and any decisions made by the presidents need to be discussed and approved by their councils first. The SGRT does not set policy for the college and faculty council, which retain their independence and continue to be fully responsible for their own decisions. The SGRT has no budget and its sole mandate is to be a discussion forum, not to provide an alternative to UTSU.
Attached to Khogali’s false idea of failed candidacy is the notion that the SGRT consists of students who uncritically accept university policy. This is also false. Last year the presidents of colleges and faculties wrote a joint letter in which they expressed their opposition to flat fees. This was not forced on any of the presidents and was done with the full approval of their councils.
It should also be pointed out that all of the SGRT’s meetings are open to anyone who wants to attend, and all attendees are granted speaking rights. Notably, UTSU president Sandy Hudson, VP university affairs Adam Awad, and VP campus life Danielle Sandhu have all attended SGRT meetings to update the round table on their activities, provide their input, and learn what the SGRT is doing. If UTSU thought of the SGRT as an illegitimate and undemocratic organization, then its executives would not be attending their meetings or working with members of the SGRT on campus events like Winterfest. In fact, a body like the SGRT is not unprecedented in U of T’s history. In the 1980s a group called the Council of Presidents of the University of Toronto functioned similarly to the SGRT. In a later iteration, it would become the Council of University of Toronto Student Unions, and last year they were known as the Presidents’ Roundtable, made up of EngSoc, PHEUA, and other councils. However, this is the first year that this informal discussion group has been formalized with its own charter. This is so future college councils can continue the tradition of round table discussions about areas of mutual concern. College and faculty presidents meeting can only be a boon to students on this campus.
This year’s Winterfest can be taken as an exemplar of why the SGRT should continue to meet and share ideas. Over 35 club representatives—and members of the UTSU executive—met for over two months to plan Winterfest and make it a successful event. This was done with all of the colleges cooperating and working together. Such cohesiveness is possible thanks to the existence of a body like the SGRT.
Their next meeting will be sometime in the last week of February and I encourage St. George students to attend if they can. The SGRT is a great idea that should be replicated elsewhere in politics and business, demonstrating the effectiveness of conservation and shared knowledge over bitter division and ideology.
