On Wednesday, the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) Board of Directors shot down a proposal by Ryan Gomes, Engineering Society (EngSoc) vice-president, academic and director for the Faculty of Engineering, that provided a layout for an alternative board structure.
The meeting, which was a continuation of a five-hour session on Monday, was the latest chapter in an ongoing discussion on structural change for the union.
A number of other motions were on the agenda for the session, many of which were contentious in light of the meeting’s proximity to the UTSU Annual General Meeting (AGM). The AGM was originally scheduled for Thursday, October 30 but was moved to Wednesday, October 29.
In April, the UTSU Board of Directors passed several changes to the board’s structure, which would eliminate college and most divisional directors while adding constituency directors to represent marginalized groups. The move drew widespread criticism.
Gomes’s proposal kept the college and faculty classes as they currently are, and enshrined these definitions in the union’s new charter documents created as per the Articles of Continuance, which govern the transition from the Canada Corporations Act (CCA) to the new Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA). Gomes’s proposal also stipulated the creation of an equity committee, chaired by the UTSU vice-president, equity.
Nineteen classes of membership were laid out under Gomes’s proposed arrangement — largely representing divisional societies — with the intention of giving them more extensive consultation on society-specific issues. The proposal also provided veto power over the addition of new classes and the potential removal of classes.
Gomes submitted the proposal with the intention that it would be voted on at the AGM.
UTSU legal counsel — who deemed the proposal “unfeasible” — did not dismiss it entirely but expressed surprise that it was developed without legal advice. Gomes insisted that legal counsel was consistently denied to him.
Cameron Wathey, UTSU vice-president, internal and services, said that Gomes’s proposal was not developed enough to prevent logistical issues in its implementation.
Najiba Ali Sardar, UTSU vice-president, equity, added that while she liked the proposal and was impressed with the consultation that went into it, putting it on the AGM agenda would limit any more adjustments to it.
“We have 12 months to debate this proposal,” she said, adding: “I have no problem passing this on to the AGM, but if it was approved there, we’d be married to it.”
Gomes said he would continue to push the issue. “I will not stop until our membership is heard…Until an even better version of my motion gets on an AGM agenda, I won’t rest,” he said.
Ashkon Hashemi, UTSU chair, ruled two other motions out of order, arguing that he saw them as a disingenuous and problematic change to the union’s bylaws. “It’s a backdoor bylaw amendment,” Hashemi said.
Hashemi’s ruling was immediately appealed by UTSU vice-president, university affairs Pierre Harfouche. Following a vote, the ruling stood.
Full story online and in print on Monday.