UTSU AGM 2013-2014: Items of business passed after opposition movement silenced

If you’re a student at the University of Toronto, and you find yourself exasperated about the state of our student leadership machine, think twice — there is more to it. The 2013 Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) was a perfect storm of humble goals and stunted ambitions. The meeting served to emphasize the UTSU’s skilled coordination and mobilization expertise — in sharp contrast to the opposition’s splintered, under-active base — as both contend to represent mainstream grievances within the U of T community.

Notwithstanding the boycotting of the AGM by a few college leaders, the meeting was more notable for its emphasis on bureaucracy than it was for its agenda. Three hours of debate over Robert’s Rules — guidelines for decorum during meetings and other events — and elaborate voting on whether votes apply and which format subsequent votes should take, is not a good way of keeping students engaged. The obstruction that the meeting faced was typical of past opposition attempts to hold up the UTSU. The collective sigh that often accompanies talks of the UTSU on campus does not amount to much — at least not at this Annual General Meeting.

The UTSU’s support base, however, is lively, uniform, and unquestioningly loyal to what its detractors call “The Agenda.” A large part of this base hails from the Mississauga campus, and is keen on actively supporting what its leaders stand for. The UTSU’s supporters make the St. George campus’s current opposition pale in comparison, especially when turnout at meetings is concerned. The sharply drawn divide between these two groups and the leadership teams they stand for explains the gradually professionalized and fringe nature of student leadership at U of T. Do we realize that this gives the UTSU a prized opportunity to draft and wantonly rubber-stamp gravy train resolutions? The growing trend of colleges giving up altogether on engagement with the union ensures that opposition will be weak and that power will rest with whoever leaves the auditorium last.

The way the meeting ended is a perfect analogy of the present state of the UTSU: with 25 minutes to go in a four-hour meeting, deputies hurriedly spoke in favour and against causes that students hardly had a chance to consider before voting. The whole democratic process is validated by a professional, resilient, and single-minded group of reliable union supporters. During this speedy voting, around two-thirds of the opposition had left — while possibly 80 per cent of the pro-UTSU throng sat resolute until the last knock of the gavel. By the meeting’s end, about eight opposition representatives remained, swamped by the pro-UTSU crowd.

This process taught me that, while we have highly effective leadership at the helm of the UTSU, it disregards many of the real divisive issues facing student politics at the St. George campus in favour of less provocative issues which appeal more to U of T students at the other campuses.

So long as they do little more than unfriend our UTSU executives, discontented students lose the moral high ground. There is no shortcut to improving the students’ union. Ask yourself this: when is the last time you saw a mob of UTSU reform-minded students in front of Convocation Hall, in the dead of winter, protesting for a better agenda? The answer speaks volumes more than we might like.

Yves Guillaume is in his final year of a specialist in political science. He is a political commentator on CTV National News.

The auditorium seemed subdued at the outset of last week’s University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) Annual General Meeting (AGM) — surprising, when you consider the combative nature of these meetings in recent memory.

The AGM began around 6:30 pm with  the chair, Ashkon Hashemi, making announcements and stressing the need for decorum and professionalism at the meeting.

Andrew Langille, the guest speaker for the evening, discussed a number of hot-button issues for students, including unpaid internships, and our generation’s job prospects and debt load

Much of UTSU president Munib Sajjad’s speech focused on the work that the union has already done for students, while also making note of the need to overcome the animosity that has hung over governance discussions on campus in recent months. However, he did not make it clear how exactly he would change this culture — beyond of a vague notion of involving all campus groups to accomplish it “together.”

Sajjad’s view of a centralized students’ union is opposed by several divisions on campus — such as the Engineering Society (EngSoc), as well as Trinity College and Victoria College. Many of these groups’ leaders and supporters opted not to attend the meeting. Still, Pierre Harfouche, one of two EngSoc representatives on the union’s Board of Directors, ensured that opossing voices were heard.

During Harfouche’s first visit to the microphone, he motioned to dismiss each of the orders of business on the meeting’s agenda. If this motion had passed, it would have effectively brought the meeting to an end. The crowd erupted in laughter at Harfouche’s audacity. Harfouche’s motion was seconded by another opposition member, but was defeated because it didn’t receive the required two-thirds majority support of those in attendance.

Harfouche left the microphone briefly, only to return with a copy of Robert’s rules and a fresh procedural argument.

This prompted a procedural wrangle, as Harfouche and Hashemi argued over their respective interpretations of rules and bylaws. The disagreement ultimately resulted in Harfouche challenging Hashemi’s decision, only to be shut down by a vote.

Hashemi was often visibly frustrated during the meeting. What he found “especially galling” was that the meeting’s proceedings had been entirely derailed up to that point by Harfouche. Overall, the majority of the audience clearly supported the union, and patience for dissent had dissipated.

One cannot help but wonder how the meeting would have proceeded had the disgruntled student divisions made a bigger showing. Concerns over a $50,000 discrepancy in last year’s budget were glossed over in the auditor’s presentation, and a number of other questions were left unanswered. Many other motions passed without much debate or scrutiny.

The UTSU remains supported by those that are loyal to it, but largely ignores legitimate grievances from other members. For the time being, the UTSU remains a centralized union, representing an increasingly divided campus.

J.P. Kaczur is a fourth-year women and gender studies specialist. He is also The Varsity’s associate sports editor.