Several motions were defeated at meetings of the University of Toronto Students’ Union’s (UTSU) Board of Directors on September 29 and October 1. These motions will not be put before UTSU members for a vote at the Annual General Meeting (AGM).
The defeated motions included a motion to change election rules through changes to the Articles of Continuance, an alternative Board of Directors structure, and a motion to investigate the relationship between divisional societies and the UTSU.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UTSU AND DIVISIONS
The investigation motion, moved by Pierre Harfouche, UTSU vice-president, university affairs, was aimed at improving the relationship between the UTSU and divisional societies on the St. George campus. Harfouche identified a positive relationship between the UTSU and the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU) and proposed that a report be drawn to examine the feasibility of replicating the UTSU-UTMSU relationship with divisions on the St. George campus.
The motion proposed that the UTSU executive committee carry out the examination, and requested that a report be drafted by Harfouche and Yolen Bollo-Kamara, UTSU president.
However, Bollo-Kamara spoke against Harfouche’s motion, noting that the existing arms-length relationship between the UTSU and the UTMSU evolved under different historical circumstances. Bollo-Kamara attributed the arrangement, which includes stipulations in the UTSU’s bylaws about fee collection and UTMSU representation in the UTSU, to logistical demands from the distance between campuses, which made access to UTSU services difficult for UTM students.
Ella Henry, director for the Faculty of Law, put forth an amendment to the motion that would hand over responsibility for the investigation from the executive to the Policies and Procedures committee, which she considered more suitable to conduct the investigation due to its knowledge of structural changes. “I proposed amendments because, in general, I prefer to delegate substantive decisions to committees of board members rather than the executive,” said Henry.
Bollo-Kamara supported Henry’s amendment, while representatives of student societies seeking fee diversion from the UTSU to their respective student councils — Engineering Society, Trinity College, and Victoria University Student Administrative Council (VUSAC) — expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed changes.
“The intention of the original amendment was to make it bipartisan,” said Ryan Gomes, director for the Faculty of Engineering, adding: “To take it to a different committee with a more partisan affiliation is unfair and inappropriate.”
Henry’s amendment was passed but the motion as a whole was defeated. “I expected the motion to pass, so I thought it was worthwhile to amend it. I may bring forward a different motion at the next meeting along similar lines,” she said.
Elections Procedure Code violations “a technicality”
Harfouche also proposed amendments to the rules that govern UTSU elections through changes to the Articles of Continuance. The amendments, if passed, would have banned cross-campaigning between director and executive candidates, and restricted the right to campaign to U of T students, alumni, faculty and staff. UTSU chair Ashkon Hashemi argued that one could not amend articles to include items which should be covered by the EPC.
However, the board approved amendments to the EPC recommended by the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) from last year’s March elections. These will effectively allow the Elections and Referenda Committee (ERC) to override UTSU’s bylaws at their discretion. Additionally, any endorsements that slates receive during elections must now be approved by the CRO before being made public.
Bollo-Kamara said that the ERC has the sole authority to amend the EPC, though changes must be approved by the board “as a formality.”
The changes were approved despite the EPC forbidding any changes once the nomination period of an election had begun. The nomination period for the UTSU by-election began on September 29, the same day as the first Board of Directors meeting. When this issue was raised, Ashkon Hashimi, UTSU chair, dismissed it as a technicality. Bollo-Kamara said at the meeting that the EPC, complete with the proposed amendments, had already been given to candidates before the amendments were approved.
Connor Anear and Tina Saban, co-heads of college at Trinity College, were concerned with the UTSU’s actions. “We were very disturbed that the UTSU was willing to act in direct violation of its bylaws,” they said in a joint statement. “The fact that the UTSU handed out the the EPC before it was approved by the [Board of Directors], and then used this to convince people at the meeting that the new EPC needed to approved in order to maintain procedural fairness — effectively handcuffing the directors into making a certain decision — shows the troubling lengths the organization will go to in order to have its way,” they added.
“Inequitable structure or nothing at all”
Gomes also brought an alternative Board of Directors structure to the table, under the intention that it would proceed to the AGM for consideration by the membership. The proposal was defeated. At the meeting on September 29, Gomes was handed documents containing legal counsel from the UTSU’s lawyers, which stated that his proposal was unfeasible. Gomes was given just five minutes to read the documents and prepare his defense. “I crafted that motion in good faith and we did a lot of consultation on it,” said Gomes. “I honestly don’t know if everything they did was in good faith. It’s hard to say. I’m on very good personal terms with all of the executive… but the way that everything was done and the fact that I wasn’t allowed to have legal counsel, I found that to be very concerning,” he added.
Saban also expressed discontent at the board’s rejection of Gomes’ proposal. “I’m extremely disappointed, though I can’t say I’m surprised, that the UTSU chose to shoot Ryan’s motion down internally rather than allowing the greater student body to make a decision. Now we are faced with an inequitable structure or nothing at all. This is just another case of undemocratic behaviour by a broken union,” she said. Gomes plans to keep pushing his proposal forward. According to Gomes, any motions received 90 days before the articles of continuance come into effect on October 17 must appear on an agenda. Gomes plans to petition for another General Meeting, likely in January of February, where his motion will appear on the agenda.
Gomes’ proposal includes the creation of 19 membership classes to keep college and faculty representation on the board, as well as the creation of an Equity Committee to address representation of marginalized groups. “I think it’s very important for our membership to actually have a say on these things,” Gomes said. Gomes added that he would look at the motion again and see if there are ways he can make it better, taking into consideration the concerns of legal counsel.
Bollo-Kamara said that the UTSU sought a legal opinion to ensure that the board fully understood the implication of the motion. “[I]t would be irresponsible and a violation of fiduciary duty to submit a proposal for consideration that is ‘infeasible’ and would cause ‘paralysis’ of the UTSU,” she said.
UTSU’S response “frustrating”
Rowan DeBues, VUSAC president, along with Ben Coleman, student governor, and Kaleem Hawa, chair of the Trinity College Meeting, proposed that all potential members of the Student Commons Management Committee immediately declare conflicts of interests and club affiliations — a move designed to reduce biases and conflicts of interest regarding the postponed Student Commons project.
DeBues described the experience as “frustrating.” DeBues expressed that he does not want to see the UTSU fail. Instead, he wishes to see it reformed and stronger. “I think that by blocking motions left, right, and centre, limiting discussion, by leaving things opaque, just mean[s] the more frustrated people will be, and the more likely they’ll want to dissent,” DeBues said.
The AGM is scheduled for October 29.
Correction: An earlier version of this article said that the Student Commons Management Committee motion was defeated at the board meeting. In fact, the motion was not discussed at the board meeting. Additionally, the motion to change election rules was actually proposed as a change to the Articles of Continuance.
