This is an updated version of an article posted online on Friday, March 7, 2014. Since that date, numerous other parties have come forth with reactions to the union’s exit from the summit. This version reflects those reactions.
While the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) election continued outside the second last meeting of the Student Societies’ Summit, Agnes So, current vice-president, university affairs of the UTSU, quietly announced the union’s intention to withdraw. U of T Voice presidential candidate Yolen Bollo-Kamara, who has represented the UTSU at summit meetings throughout the year in her current role as vice-president, equity, was not present.
According to So, the decision was prompted by the exit of the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU) last month, and by a survey of 1,200 undergraduate members conducted by the union. “Eighty per cent of the students we polled told us that they did not want the UTSU’s future to be decided by administrative faculty,” said So in a letter sent to Summit participants. “It does not escape me that the university is extending a hand into this issue at a time when they are likely frustrated with us for our work on Flat Fees, Access Copyright, ancillary fees, the Transitional Year Program and other such issues,” she added. When contacted by The Varsity Saturday evening So further explained her decision.
“No one should have the false assumption that input from the union was being encouraged or respected. Our number one cry was always that all interested parties, especially within our membership, should be able to participate, and that was ignored,” said So. “Combined with the fact that the Summit discussed cultural clubs, the Centre for Women and Trans People, and the Sexual Education Centre in disparaging ways, I am confident in the direction that I took to protect these necessary student groups.”
Directors blind-sided
The decision to withdraw from the Summit was immediately met with outrage from a number of directors, who were not aware the union had conducted the survey, let alone that a decision had been reached to leave the summit.
“It’s a completely disingenuous and slanted articulation of the UTSU’s involvement in the summit meetings, specifically designed to confuse and deceive uninformed students,” said Aimee Quenneville, an independent director from University College who is currently in Paris on exchange. Ben Coleman, an independent arts and sciences at-large director, who was recently elected to the university’s Governing Council for the next academic year, was similarly critical of the survey. “I already talked to [So] and I made it pretty clear that I think the survey is bullshit, it’s designed to make people answer a certain way” he said when contacted Friday. On Sunday, he was less frustrated, more concerned with the long term effects of the union’s ability to engage with other groups on campus: “The way the survey has been done breaks trust with a lot of people” he said.
Pierre Harfouche, an engineering director on board and candidate for VP-university affairs with Team Unite resigned in protest over the lack of board consultation. “The Board of Directors gave us clear direction in our February Board Meeting to consult our membership before taking action and surveys was a suggestion during the discussion,” said So. “When the Board gives the Executive Committee a direction, we follow through, whether that be the individual membership surveys, the clubs surveys or various letters we’ve written throughout the year.”
Nine UTSU directors responded to request for comment when The Varsity contacted every member of the board Sunday afternoon. Many directors expressed concern about their lack of knowledge that a survey was going on, let alone what the content of the survey was.
“Neither was the Board informed that the UTSU was planning to leave the SSS, nor did we ever receive details of what happens at the meetings,” said Sanchit Mathur of New College. Bill Wun of the Faculty of Law added, “I am very disappointed that the executive chose to do this and I find it even more outrageous that the executive then proceeded to withdraw from the summit based on the results of this biased survey, all without Board approval.”
One director out of the nine offered a full-throated defense of the union’s actions, Nzube Ekpunobi, an arts & sciences at large director, and according to his LinkedIn profile — associate president to Munib Sajjad. Ekpunobi contended that 1200 students is a “fantastic sample size” when compared with national surveys that use a similar sample.
Ekpunobi was very critical of the summit process, saying: “In my opinion, I think it’s better to discuss university issues in a panel-style manner, than in closed forums, privy to a select few of heavily biased individuals. As a chicken, you don’t go into a den of wolves to discuss what’s for dinner.”
Sajjad said that no Board vote was needed. “There was a desire to have a motion; Ben left the meeting early and missed this,” said Sajjad, referencing Coleman. “Our chair advised that it was unnecessary, since it was clear from the discussion that members of the Board of Directors were advising that consultations be sought.”
Divisional leaders react
On Friday, the student presidents of Innis, Victoria and Trinity expressed significant concern over the union’s decision to withdraw from the summit, and the survey which they used to justify the move. A number of other societal presidents have now joined them, voicing significant concerns. “They were just never willing to engage in the discussion in the same way that we were. We always thought it was a process where policy could change at the university.
“They made it very clear at the beginning that the university has no role in ensuring the accountability of student societies,” said Mauricio Curbelo, president of the Engineering Society (EngSoc). “I think they should engage with the process in good faith — the way the rest of us are,” he added.“By them leaving, all that happened was their input will not reach the recommendations that will be presented to Governing Council. To me, that is a detrimental effect. That’s why I don’t agree with the UTSU’s decision to leave the summit,” said Ashkan Azimi, president of the New College Student Council (NCSC). “I find it to be one of the most powerful tools we have for potential policy changes. If the UTSU wanted to make a case, they had to make it there and then,” he added.
“I don’t think walking out of the student summit was a good choice on UTSU’s behalf. I personally feel as though the summit was a neutral meeting ground where a bunch of student leaders across two campuses could come together and discuss matters in a way that was overseen by the university,” said Alex Zappone, president of the St. Michael’s College Students’ Union (SMCSU). “The purpose of this meeting was that Governing Council felt there should be a body constructed to come to a resolution about how to make UTSU better. Everyone’s concern was to make the UTSU a better institution, and one that was more fair and democratic. I really do believe that everyone at the table had those concerns in mind,” he added.
Implications for the election
“They are promoting that they should be the voice of U of T students,” said Ye Huang, Team Unite’s candidate for UTSU president, referencing Bollo-Kamara’s candidacy. “But right now, they are leaving the Student Societies Summit, which was a very great opportunity to discuss issues with college unions and the school administration, but now they’ve made this decision, which is actually something that won’t improve communication between UTSU and the college councils and the school administration.”
“I do not think this was a good idea for them, and I really regret that they made such a decision,” added Huang. He expressed concern that the current UTSU executives were declining to advance their members’ interests to other student leaders and the administration.
Yolen Bollo-Kamara did not reply to requests for comment as of press time.
With files from Iris Robin, James Flynn & Sarah Niedoba
