minutes - central student association bd mtg 14 mar 13 19 fina… · 14.7.1 president 14.7.2 vp...

MINUTES Board of Directors Meeting # 14

March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

1 of 42

Members Present: Jena-Lee Ashley, Zante Botha (left at 6:52 pm), Isaiah Burton, Hesham Farag, Jamie Gibson, Horeen Hassan, Claudia Idzik, Nick Kowaleski, Patrick MacCarthy, Sean Mitchell (left at 7:00 pm), Daniel Nardone, Alan Negrin, Matteo Raso, Rachel Vear (arrived 6:25 pm)

Regrets: Anna Canella, Matthew Fletcher, Bret Flynn, Chris Giampaolo, Andrew Hodgkinson, Nate Lewko, Margarita Wilson, Jayden Wlasichuk, Afshaun Zaman

Guest: Bella Harris

Executive Present: Jack Fisher, Aidan Paskinov, Natalie Clarke, Kayla Weiler (arrived at 6:17 pm)

Chair: Cameron Olesen

Policy & Transition Manager: Earl Evans

Scribe: Thibeca Kengatharan

Guests: Bella Harris

Overview of Motions 14.2. Adoption of the Agenda

14.2.1. Motion to Approve the Agenda MOTION AS AMENDED: To approve the agenda for the CSA Board of Directors Meeting on March 13, 2019, as amended, with the addition of three reports as follows:

14.10.4. Hiring Committee Report – Poster Runners 14.10.5. Hiring Committee Report – SHAC Coordinator 14.10.6. Hiring Committee Report – FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator

Motion carried 14.5. Approval of Past Board Minutes

14.5.1. Board Meeting # 13 – February 27, 2019

MOTION: To approve the Minutes for the following meeting: 14.5.1. Board Meeting # 13 – February 27, 2019 Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

2 of 42

14.6. Executive Committee Minutes

MOTION: To receive the Executive Committee Minutes as information for the following meetings: 14.6.1. Meeting # 25 – January 16, 2019 14.6.2. Meeting # 26 – January 25, 2019 Motion carried 14.7. Executive Updates

MOTION: To receive the following Executive Updates as information:

14.7.1 President 14.7.2 VP Student Experience 14.7.3. VP Academic 14.7.4. VP External Motion carried 14.10. Committee Updates and Reports 14.10.1 Hiring Committee Report – Bike Centre Coordinator MOTION: That the hiring of Dustin Brown as Bike Centre Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. Motion carried 14.10.2. Hiring Committee Report – Bike Centre Repair Coordinator MOTION: That the hiring of Giancarlo Martini as Bike Centre Repair Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. Motion carried 14.10.3. Hiring Committee Report – Front Office Assistants MOTION: That the hiring of Oluwafunlayo Aremu, Meghan Goodall, and Kate Rowsell as Front Office Assistants be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

3 of 42

14.10.4. Hiring Committee Report – Poster Runners MOTION: That the hiring of Grace Bilger and John Keenan as Poster Runners be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. 14.10.5. Hiring Committee Report – SHAC Coordinator

MOTION: That the hiring of Margaret (Maggy) Watson as SHAC Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. Motion carried 14.10.6. Hiring Committee Report – FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator MOTION: That the hiring of Olivia Wells as FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. Motion carried 14.11. Business 14.11.1. Fall Reading Week MOTION AS AMENDED: That, in the event of a second consultative poll between administration and the student population, that the CSA makes public and promotes the results of the poll. Motion carried 14.11.2. Solution re Conflict of Interest – Elections Office MOTION: That the report from the Policy & Transition Manager entitled Solution re. Conflict of Interest – Elections Office, be received at the CSA Board Meeting on March 13, 2019. Motion carried 14.11.3. Administrative Fee – Menstrual Hygiene Initiative MOTION: That an annual administrative fee of $2,000.00 be transferred from the Menstrual Hygiene Initiative revenue into the CSA Administration Budget, effective for the budget year 2018-2019. Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

4 of 42

14.11.4. Administrative Fee – Cannon

MOTION: That pending approval from Guelph Campus Co-Op, an annual administrative fee of $2,000.00 be transferred from the Cannon budget into the CSA Administration Budget, effective for the budget year 2018-2019.

Motion carried 14.11.5. Memorandum of Understanding – University Centre (UC) Services

MOTION AS AMENDED: That the CSA approve the Memorandum of Understanding with University Centre (UC) Services to contribute to the creation of a new auxiliary lounge connected to Brass Taps; BIRT the present and future Executive maintain active communication with groups including but not limited to Special Status Groups and other groups representing marginalized students during the planning, renovation and administration of the space; BIFRT these communications contain updates and consultation with aforementioned groups; and. BIFRT these communications would entail bi-weekly email updates from the CSA Executive

Motion carried 14.11.6. Local 54 Representative Report

MOTION: That the Local 54 Representative Report from Kayla Weiler, CSA Vice President External, be received as information at the CSA Board Meeting on March 13, 2019.

Motion carried 14.11.7. CSA Organizational Policy

MOTION: That the CSA Organizational Policy as amended, be received as information at the CSA Board Meeting on March 13, 2019.

Motion carried

Agenda # 14 – March 13, 2019

14.0. Call to Order

14.1. Land Acknowledgement

14.2. Adoption of the Agenda

14.2.1. Motion to Approve the Agenda


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

5 of 42

14.3. Ratifications and De-Ratifications

14.4. Comments from the Chair

14.4.1. Introductions and Pronouns

14.5. Approval of Past Board Minutes



14.6.1. Meeting # 25 – January 16, 2019 14.6.2. Meeting # 26 – January 25, 2019

14.7. Executive Updates

14.7.1. President

14.7.2. VP Student Experience

14.7.3. VP Academic

14.7.4. VP External

14.8. Director Reports

14.9. CSA Services Updates and Reports

14.10. Committee Updates and Reports

14.10.1. Hiring Committee Report – Bike Centre Coordinator 14.10.2. Hiring Committee Report – Bike Centre Repair Coordinator 14.10.3. Hiring Committee Report – Front Office Assistants 14.10.4. Hiring Committee Report – Poster Runners 14.10.5. Hiring Committee Report – SHAC Coordinator 14.10.6. Hiring Committee Report – FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator

14.11. Business 14.11.1. Fall Reading Week 14.11.2. Solution re Conflict of Interest – Elections Office 14.11.3. Administrative Fee – Menstrual Hygiene Initiative 14.11.4. Administrative Fee – Cannon 14.11.5. Memorandum of Understanding – University Centre (UC) Services 14.11.6. Local 54 Representative Report 14.11.7. CSA Organizational Policy 14.11.8. NOTICE: Amendment to Bylaw 1 re Summer Board Meetings

14.12. New Business 14.13. Announcements 14.14. In Camera Session 14.15. Adjournment

Minutes # 14 – March 13, 2019

14.0. Call to Order

Chair Cameron Oleson called the meeting to order at 6:10 pm.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

6 of 42

14.1. Land Acknowledgement

Land Acknowledgement by Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience

We acknowledge that the University of Guelph resides on the ancestral lands of Attawandaron people and the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit. We recognize the significance of the Dish with One Spoon Covenant to this land and offer our respect to our Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee and Métis neighbours as we strive to strengthen our relationships with them.

Today, this gathering place is home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and acknowledging them reminds us of our important connection to this land where we learn and work.

We do this land acknowledgement at the start of every meeting, not just as a checking of a box and we try again to move off the script because we try to really mean it. We do acknowledge that we are on unseated territory, stolen territory and we have to constantly work towards reconciling those differences with our Indigenous neighbours.

14.2. Adoption of the Agenda

14.2.1. Motion to Approve the Agenda

MOTION: To approve the agenda for the CSA Board of Directors Meeting on March 13, 2019, as printed and distributed. Moved: Horeen Hassan Seconded: Jamie Gibson

MOTION TO AMEND: To amend the agenda by adding three reports as follows: 14.10.4. Hiring Committee Report – Poster Runners

14.10.5. Hiring Committee Report – SHAC Coordinator 14.10.6. Hiring Committee Report – FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator

Moved: Jack Fisher, President Seconded: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience

Vote on Motion to amend Motion carried MOTION AS AMENDED: To approve the agenda for the CSA Board of Directors Meeting on March 13, 2019, as amended, with the addition of three reports as follows:

14.10.4. Hiring Committee Report – Poster Runners 14.10.5. Hiring Committee Report – SHAC Coordinator 14.10.6. Hiring Committee Report – FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

7 of 42

Vote on Motion as amended Motion carried

14.3. Ratifications and De-Ratifications 14.4. Comments from the Chair

Chair: Good evening everyone. Thank you for being here. Reminder as usual, raise your placard to request to be added to the speakers list and please raise your hand for a point of information, point of order, point of personal privilege or point of parliamentary procedure. As always, please speak loudly and clearly for the sake of the recording and the sake of our scribe. 14.4.1. Introductions and Pronouns

14.5. Approval of Past Board Minutes


MOTION: To approve the Minutes for the following meeting:

14.5.1. Board Meeting # 13 – February 27, 2019 Moved: Isaiah Burton Seconded: Patrick MacCarthy

Vote on Motion Motion carried


MOTION: To receive the Executive Committee Minutes as information for the following meetings:

14.6.1. Meeting # 25 – January 16, 2019 14.6.2. Meeting # 26 – January 25, 2019

Moved: Sean Mitchell Seconded: Patrick MacCarthy

Nick: I have a small question about a comment found on page 15 of the package. Actually, never mind. They’re not here, so I can’t really ask the question.

Vote on motion Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

8 of 42

14.7. Executive Updates

14.7.1. President

Jack: Hello everybody! I wanted to thank everyone once again for having that Board meeting right after the AGM. We had some important hiring committee business done that day, helping us move forward with the semester. In other news, the election met quorum in all our accounts, so for everybody who helped advertise and for anybody who was running, thank you for participating in the democratic process here on campus. I just wanted to point out, in my update here, I’ve got the total number of votes for the last three years. Actually, the 2018 one was only for the FRT referendum after the extension so the difference between the general election and the extension is actually quite stark where there is 3000 something in 2018. Good job and kudos to everybody that helped. Since we last met, there have been some really cool events that Aidan and John have helped facilitate and run. I know that Aidan has more updates on the events that are coming up so I’m not going to mention those. We are currently in the thick of budgeting for next year with the uncertainty in the air. It’s not an easy process. It’s not as easy as it has been in the past, knowing what we want to do and what we might not be able to do. Something that we’re trying to reconcile, with our staff. And hopefully, we’ll be bringing that to Board for the next meeting. Our Finance Committee will be meeting tomorrow so we’ll talk more about those numbers. But it’s the dark cloud on the horizon for the organization, I think, as a whole. So stay tuned. Jamie: I’m just going to address this question to the President but it’s actually for the Executive generally speaking. This is a question more of just curiosity than concern. Is there any progress in terms of lobbying the Co-Op Bookstore or would that be the responsibility of the incoming Executive team? Patrick: Point of privilege – lobbying the Co-Op Bookstore for what? Jamie: The textbook delivery service. Aidan: At our Executive Committee meeting last week, we did touch on it as an agenda point and so we’ve actually narrowed down a working group that is consisting of the VP Academic and the President. That was going to be more of an informal announcement, if people wanted to join. More members are encouraged but it’s more resting with those two as something to get out as one of our last projects. Natalie: It was going to be in my update. 14.7.2. VP Student Experience

Aidan: Hi folks! I don’t think I really have much to touch on aside of the actual Executive update. I’m happy to answer questions as always. Just really, we’ve only got roughly a month left so we’re kind of wrapping down. We’ve got three more major things – Karaoke Pub Night, tomorrow night. It should be a lot of fun


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

9 of 42

and a little different from what CSA has run in the past. Sexy Bingo, the last one on March 28 and Last Toast is in April. That’s part of an exciting thing we’re doing this year with Alumni, Student Experience and the Experiential Learning Hub, where rather than years past, each of those groups have run their own thing during that first week of April as Grad Week. This year, we’ve actually met as an established committee and been a lot more intentional so the CSA is more involved with that. We’re running a new event this year called Grad Fest which is more a fun, light-hearted celebration – get a cupcake and photo taken. That’s an exciting partnership so hopefully graduating students notice the difference.

14.7.3. VP Academic Natalie: I have a couple of updates that are not in my package because they happened after I wrote it. First of all, probably the most important is in the last section of your package, number 4 is the Fall Reading Break information survey. It’s been on my radar for my whole term and in January, I decided to start compiling all of the information over the past year into a package that students would be able to access online. It’s being a little tedious. I’m having to pick bits and pieces from hundreds of Senate meetings, various meetings that I went to last year as well as Board of Governors and Board of Undergraduate Studies (BUGS). It’s taking a bit longer but I’m hoping to have it done by the end of the month. One of the components that I planned to do is a send out a new information survey to all undergraduate students, basically asking, would you want to have a Fall Reading Break? Yes or no. It would have none of the information from last year. I believe I attached a sample of it to the back of my update. However, Aidan cracked the survey for us and sent it to Jessica Westlake. All of our Listservs have to be approved by Jessica and they can be sent out. We found out that there’s apparently a process that all surveys have to go through. We’ve hit a small snag and are waiting for our survey to be approved by Karen Menard, the Assistant Vice-President of Institutional Analysis and Research. Karen has been away all week and she gets back tomorrow so we’ll hopefully have it ready to go out by Friday. We hope to have it done by Monday. Jamie, just to your point about textbooks, I plan to reach out to get the ball rolling next week and start creating a list of people to contact. I want to send an invitation to anyone of you who would like to participate in this. Basically, from a motion at our AGM, we’re going to attempt to get textbooks delivered to students with accessibility needs who cannot access the Co-Op Bookstore. If any of you have any interest in that, please let me know. My email is at the top of my update.

I was contacted by Ray Darling yesterday with an invitation for everyone to meet with a series of consultants for helping the University create a Strategic Enrollment Management Plan at the University of Guelph. They would like to meet with an undergraduate student focus group. The date is April 2 from 2:15 to 4:45 pm. If any of you are available or are interested, please send me an email by the end of next week and I can get those numbers to Ray.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

10 of 42

Jamie: With regards to the survey, that is a sure thing? Natalie: Yes. Jamie: Does that render by motion about it redundant? Natalie: Yes.

14.7.4. VP External

Kayla: Happy belated International Working Women’s Day! It was super fun. I ran a cool feminist embroidery event and saw some really cool stuff people made. Going to dive into the update into #4 Canadian Federation of Students, Local 54. For two weeks, I was out of the office because I was away in Ottawa and Toronto, lobbying politicians. Lobbying is one of the methods the CFS uses; it’s not the only method but it’s one of the methods they use to achieve things that are really due to students’ interest. The National Lobby Week was the February 19-22 in Ottawa. I listed the MPs there so if you want to go through your MPs, that’s cool. I’d just like to shout-out to Larry Miller, MP for Grey, Bruce, Owen Sound so the neighbouring MP from Sean Mitchell and I. He was okay. It was just a weird meeting. He was like “Are you actually from my riding?” and I was like “kind of” so that was interesting. If you want to look at the lobby document, it’s in the CSA Office. There are three recommendations about a free post-secondary education system, better access for Indigenous Students in campuses and better access for student funding. So that’s Lobby Week for National level. Ontario Lobby week was February 26 to March 1. I also listed the MPs in the report, that’s who I met with. My favourite was John Vanthof who is the critic for the Ministry of Agriculture because the Minister of Agriculture was his uncle so that was cool to talk about. He knew somebody that I used to talk to so that was cool. If you would like to see that lobby document as well, I can email that to you since it’s a PDF. There are several recommendations and one of them was the removal of the Student Choice Initiative because that was an important thing to talk to MPs about. If you want to talk to me about the Lobby Week after, it would be kind of fun to chat about it. My other update is that, it’s not written in the document but on March 20, the CSA along with the CFS is doing a walk-out. It is different from the rally that’s being planned by the Revolutionary Student Movement. We’re meeting in the UC Courtyard at 12 noon. If you want to take part in it, please talk to me after the meeting or during our break. It would be cool to see some folks there. If you want to get more information, just let me know. Daniel: What was the status or feel in terms of the Student Choice Initiative, with its policy under the bridge? Kayla: I guess the answer is some members of parliament for Ontario were really receptive. To note, two of the members that I met with that were not receptive were Dave Smith and Aris Babikian. They were the only two that disagreed with the removal of the Student Choice Initiative. The rest of them had agreed.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

11 of 42

Nick: In your update, you mention the FoodBank. I remember a few Board meetings ago, when they gave their update, they mentioned they were nearly at capacity and there may be some issues if they get any more clients. Are there any updates around that situation? Kayla: I guess the update is that there is no update. There are currently about 250 registered visitors at the FoodBank, feeding roughly 500 people. With the Foodbank, this is the largest number of visitors we’ve ever had, well in the last four years, that we have record of. We’re not too sure this will change with the Student Choice Initiative and I guess we’ll just have to see. Something that I can confirm is that last summer, we saw that the numbers did not decline. Normally in the summer, we see the numbers decrease in people visiting the FoodBank and so there’s a financial break during the summer. But last summer and the previous summer, we’ve seen that the numbers have stayed the same. I don’t know if that answers your question or not. Nick: Yes, thank you. MOTION: To receive the following Executive Updates as information:

14.7.1 President 14.7.2 VP Student Experience 14.7.3. VP Academic 14.7.3. VP External

Moved: Horeen Hassan Seconded: Patrick MacCarthy Vote on Motion Motion carried

14.8. Director Reports Alan: I was doing the CRO interviews. Those went great and I think we have a candidate chosen so that will probably be talked about later. Jamie: It’s been very, very busy since the last two weeks since our last Board meeting. I’ve been doing a lot of preparation and organizing for the March 20 walkout. Please get involved. Strength in numbers, strength in unity. As well, this is something the VP External did not mention but I’ll just mention it. On March 26, we are in the early stages of planning a Town Hall about the implementation of gender-neutral washrooms in the Bullring as per a motion from last year. Kayla: On campus. It’s not just restricted to the Bullring. It’s on campus. Jamie: It’s the whole campus as it turns out. I don’t know if we have a space booked yet or if we have any details in that way, but that is something coming up on the radar soon. I met to get some Social Media Assistant resumes but I don’t know if I’m going to continue with that because we’re not 100% sure if we’ll be able to keep the position or not after all the cuts. That’s all.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

12 of 42

Isaiah: waive Zante: waive Rachel: waive Daniel: waive Hesham: waive Horeen: I was at the Angela Davis event and it was amazing and Angela Davis is amazing. Yesterday, we tabled at the UC for the We are the Students Movement. We also had CFS come and help with outreach. We got over 400 petition signatures which is awesome. Also, I am on the SHAC Hiring Committee and FoodBank Hiring Committee and basically this week we conducted all of those job interviews so we’re just waiting on the people to get back to us on whether they’ve accepted the jobs or not. The March 20 walkout which I’m excited for and I hope you all show up. Sean: waive Patrick: Just briefly, I also sat on the CRO/ARO hiring committee and we got a candidate for the ARO as well so that was really good. Nick: waive Claudia: waive Jena-Lee: waive Matteo: I was on the Hiring Committee for Bike Centre Repair Coordinator. Turned out only one person had the experience and that’s the person we’re going to give the job to so no interviews had to be conducted.

14.9. CSA Services Updates and Reports 14.10. Committee Updates and Reports

14.10.1 Hiring Committee Report – Bike Centre Coordinator

MOTION: That the hiring of Dustin Brown as Bike Centre Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. Moved: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience Seconded: Patrick MacCarthy Aidan: Dustin has been great this year and will continue to be great next year. MOTION: To consider all Hiring Committee reports as omnibus.

Moved: Nick Kowaleski Seconded: Matteo Raso Nick: We should approve them all.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

13 of 42

Vote on Motion re omnibus Motion carried Items 14.10.1, 14.10.2, 14.10.3, 14.10.4 and 14.10.5 were voted on as omnbus. 14.10.1 Hiring Committee Report – Bike Centre Coordinator

MOTION: That the hiring of Dustin Brown as Bike Centre Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. 14.10.2. Hiring Committee Report – Bike Centre Repair Coordinator MOTION: That the hiring of Giancarlo Martini as Bike Centre Repair Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. 14.10.3. Hiring Committee Report – Front Office Assistants MOTION: That the hiring of Oluwafunlayo Aremu, Meghan Goodall, and Kate Rowsell as Front Office Assistants be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. 14.10.4. Hiring Committee Report – Poster Runners MOTION: That the hiring of Grace Bilger and John Keenan as Poster Runners be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. 14.10.5. Hiring Committee Report – SHAC Coordinator MOTION: That the hiring of Margaret (Maggy) Watson as SHAC Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. 14.10.6. Hiring Committee Report – FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator MOTION: That the hiring of Olivia Wells as FoodBank Volunteer Coordinator be ratified for the 2019-2020 term, as recommended by the Hiring Committee. Discussion: Jamie: Let’s hire some people. Sean: I’d like to speak in favour of the Front Office staff. Vote on Omnibus Motion Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

14 of 42

14.11. Business 14.11.1. Fall Reading Week WHEREAS the Central Student Association (CSA) advocates for the livelihood and improved wellbeing of all undergraduate students at the University of Guelph; WHEREAS mental health services at the University and other public institutions continue to be insufficient to meet students’ needs; WHEREAS the pressures of everyday life, between the cancellations to the minimum wage increase and the increasing cost of living, impose further difficulties upon students; WHEREAS numerous universities and colleges in Ontario currently provide to their students a reading week in the fall semester; WHEREAS it is imperative that the CSA demands, at a very minimum, for accountability measures to be imposed upon University administration; and WHEREAS the available responses for a survey ought to be mutually-exclusive and collectively-exhaustive; MOTION: That the CSA launches a poll, through the members’ Gryphmail inboxes, with the question: “Through lobbying University administration and other means, would you support a CSA campaign to create a fall reading week?” BIRT the three choices for respondents to choose from are “yes,” “no,” and “unsure”; BIFRT the duration of this poll will transpire between March 15 and March 26, 2019, with the results reviewed at the CSA Board of Directors meeting on March 27, 2019, wherein the Board will discuss the CSA’s next steps; and BIFRT, in the event of a second consultative poll between administration and the student population, that the CSA demands that the University administration makes public the results of the poll.

Moved: Jamie Gibson Seconded: Zante Botha Nick: I’d like to object to the consideration of this motion. We’re already doing a poll so this is completely redundant. Jamie: I wrote this before Natalie’s announcement, obviously. I wrote this a long time ago. This is like verbatim what I put in the AGM package. I did make some changes about doing an online poll and that stuff as per our discussion in the AGM. I would still like to pass this motion anyway, just so there is a sure option. I feel like you have to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive in your surveys. I’m all about research methods. Aidan: If we would like to add an ensure option to the poll, I can do that right now on Qualtrics if people would like. I don’t think we should pass this motion


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

15 of 42

because it is so specific and because it hasn’t been reviewed by the University yet. I’m not saying we’re going to let the University make substantial changes but the person who does the, Jessica Westlake, she does the University’s surveys so she will probably have input about what are our precursor questions. Do we even have to ask people’s gender identity and stuff like that? What is her best advice on conducting a survey because she’s done a lot of them? Jack: She’s basically the non-academic Ethics Board. Jamie: This is a question going back to the example of the survey in the Executive Update reports. What is the purpose of asking for respondents’ gender and different things like that? Natalie: One, we didn’t ask for anyone’s gender. The reason we ask the questions that we did is because I felt strongly that for the CSA to represent all students, we need to understand what portion of our students wanted a Fall Reading Break and if the students in the GTA wanted one and all International Students / Guelph students said no, that’s something we need to take into consideration. We represent all students, not just the ones that can commute to and from school easily. That’s why the questions are there. Jamie: I would like to speak in this favour anyway so that we can hold the administration to account if they do their poll again, rather than having our hardworking VP Academic have to go through all these minutes and put together a report or package of her own. I think it be on the University to make any results and any poll transparent at the very least. Patrick: In light of Member Gibson, I move to divide the question that the second consultative poll be available to the public. We can vote on that and then we can still have the survey that our lovely Executive team has put forward. I think that would make everybody happy and we can wrap this up. MOTION: To divide the question so that the fourth clause is removed from the other three. Moved: Patrick MacCarthy Seconded: Horeen Hassan Vote on Motion to divide Motion carried MOTION: That the CSA launches a poll, through the members’ Gryphmail inboxes, with the question: “Through lobbying University administration and other means, would you support a CSA campaign to create a fall reading week?” BIRT the three choices for respondents to choose from are “yes,” “no,” and “unsure”; and BIFRT the duration of this poll will transpire between March 15 and March 26, 2019, with the results reviewed at the CSA Board of Directors meeting on March 27, 2019, wherein the Board will discuss the CSA’s next steps.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

16 of 42

Discussion: Nick: I’d like to speak against these clauses, simply because we are already conducting a poll and this would be redundant and confusing. Jamie: Point of information – what is the tentative timeframe of the survey currently? Natalie: Do you mean how long it’s open or when we can send it out? Jamie: How long it’s open. Natalie: I think the date was around the last week of March. Aidan: We were hoping to have it out by Tuesday morning and it would stay open until March 29. Kayla: I just wanted to make the note that when it comes to us sending emails out as an organization, we do have access to several different ListServs. But there are a lot of policies in place in regards to that. For example, if we wanted to send an email out to the ListServ that people will continue to opt in to in terms of our ListServ, there is a policy around that with timelines. As well, if we request the University send out an email on our behalf as well, there’s a timeline for that too. So just noting that the dates in the motion might not be possible because from my understanding, it is a two week time period that is required to send out an email. Vote on Motion (three clauses) Motion defeated MOTION: That, in the event of a second consultative poll between administration and the student population, the CSA demands that the University administration makes public the results of the poll. Discussion: Natalie: My concern with this is if I bring this to Administration, they can argue back and say that the results are public because they are public. All Board of Governors, all Senate, all BUGS meeting packages and minutes are available online. Are they easily accessible? Are they easy to find? No. If we want to create this motion and we want to still keep this, it needs to be specific and the wording needs to be changed so it’s not public. It needs to be easily accessible or available on the CSA website or something like that. Jamie: Motion to amend the motion by adding the words “and promotes” so that it now reads:

MOTION TO AMEND: That, in the event of a second consultative poll between administration and the student population, that the CSA demands that the University administration makes public and promotes the results of the poll. Moved: Jamie Gibson Seconded: Hesham Farag


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

17 of 42

Vote on Motion to Amend Motion carried Aidan: Motion to amend the motion by deleting the words “demands that the University administration” so that it now reads: MOTION TO AMEND: That, in the event of a second consultative poll between administration and the student population, that the CSA makes public and promotes the results of the poll. Moved: Aidan Paskinov Seconded: Horeen Hassan MOTION: To call the question Moved: Nick Kowaleski Seconded: Horeen Hassan Vote on Motion to Call the Question Motion carried MOTION TO AMEND: That, in the event of a second consultative poll between administration and the student population, that the CSA makes public and promotes the results of the poll. Aidan: The system of the University survey is Qualtrics. The CSA has access to that. That’s how we create the survey. It’ll have the CSA’s letterhead on it. We see the results and technically, the University doesn’t, so we would be the ones making it public so I don’t think there’s a need to worry that it will be hidden or hard to access. MOTION: To call the question Moved: Nick Kowaleski Seconded: Horeen Hassan Vote on Motion to Call the Question Motion carried Vote on Motion to Amend Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

18 of 42

Jamie: If I get this correct, we would have access to information collected by the University, not by us in that in the event of a poll between admin and the population, not between us and the population. We wouldn’t have access to it? Natalie: No, we would not. MOTION: To call the question Moved: Nick Kowaleski Seconded: Matteo Raso Vote on Motion to Call the Question Motion carried MOTION AS AMENDED: That, in the event of a second consultative poll between administration and the student population, that the CSA makes public and promotes the results of the poll. Vote on Motion as amended Motion carried

14.11.2. Solution re Conflict of Interest – Elections Office MOTION: That the report from the Policy & Transition Manager entitled Solution re. Conflict of Interest – Elections Office, be received at the CSA Board Meeting on March 13, 2019. Earl: During the election, the sister of the CRO was one of the candidates. We have a process in place where all communication with that candidate does not take place with the relative but with the Assistant Returning Officer. That was drawn to my attention and I wanted to report to you as required in our bylaws, that it worked very well. I can attest to the fact that the integrity of the Elections Office was maintained and there were no problems. Basically, the result was that no conflict of interest occurred and there was no interference with the impartial operations of the Elections Office. Moved: Patrick MacCarthy Seconded: Horeen Hassan Vote on Motion Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

19 of 42

14.11.3. Administrative Fee – Menstrual Hygiene Initiative WHEREAS the Central Student Association administers and facilitates several different referendum fees outside the CSA membership fee; and WHEREAS the CSA commits resources and time to the operation of these student-initiated referendum services; MOTION: That an annual administrative fee of $2,000.00 be transferred from the Menstrual Hygiene Initiative revenue into the CSA Administration Budget, effective for the budget year 2018-2019.

Moved: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience Seconded: Horeen Hassan Aidan: This is the heavy stuff. This is what we’ve been talking about. This is stuff that nobody in the CSA office is happy about. I really did want to stress that. This is not something we’ve ever wanted to do with any of the student fees we administer but we’re in that reality where it’s either this or severe cuts to some of the things we do. We’ve had to look at the way we do things, our full-time staff who facilitate in so many different ways, that are hard to put on paper, all the services that we do. Those staff, they were just paid by the $17.55 Central Student Association fee. But this year, because that fee is becoming optional, we have to re-evaluate. We have to look at how we can guarantee revenue. We’re framing this in the sense of that $2000 theoretically pays for the labour and resources and the hours that the CSA staff and Executive put into this initiative to make it happen every year. That’s why it’s an administrative fee. Matteo: Point of information – how much exactly is the Menstrual Hygiene Initiative revenue? Daniel: I don’t know if it’s the right time for this but I wanted to comment on – I think it’s good if we keep that fee because it has to do with a health aspect like Student Health Services that they should have access to. Aidan: Roughly $20,000. I don’t know the exact number but that’s just about because it’s 92 cents a student multiplied by about 22,000 undergrads. That’s the revenue collected. To speak to Member Nardone’s point, there’s a hope, we can’t guarantee it, that because this is framed as a health-based fee that when the technical documents from the Government actually reach the University, it would allow for enough flexibility that this fee would become mandatory but we have no clarification on that. Jamie: This is a comment, bear with me. There’s $20,000 right now coming in through the Menstrual Hygiene Initiative. When this was a referendum question a few years ago, I remember, I think it passed for 77% of students. So if we assume that 77% of students are okay with paying this, then just take $20,000 multiply by 77% and subtract $2000 so I’ve got that as being $13,400 which we still have even after those reductions for the initiative.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

20 of 42

Matteo: I’d like to speak against this motion. This fee was democratically decided by referendum and we’re voting on taking more than 10% of that assuming that the revenue doesn’t go down which it most likely will with the Student Choice Initiative. I know Member Aidan said we’re going to have to make cuts later on if we don’t have this but later on the agenda, it asks us to spend $35,000 on a lounge so it’s not as if cuts aren’t possible. I think it would be better to be doing cuts than, I don’t want to say stealing but taking money that students democratically decided should go towards this issue. MOTION: To call the question Moved: Horeen Hassan Seconded: Alan Negrin Vote on Motion to call the question Motion defeated Jack: We’ve been working on a budget to bring to the Board. We’re building the budget on the assumption that we’re going to have about 40% of current students opt out of the CSA fee, based on partly the Ontarion’s referendum question that resides there and partly based on the people that opt-out of our Dental Plan, because we really have no other base for opt-outs in that scale. What we’re trying to do is find different ways to basically cement the services that we currently operate into our functionality as an organization. If we can’t justify cementing staff hours with the Poster Runners or with our Front Office Assistants or with our Bookkeepers to run a Menstrual Product referendum, nobody will be there to facilitate those products getting delivered to the machines that have been purchased. What this is doing is directly funding the service itself with the acknowledgment that basically we’re the ones doing. In another way, that could technically be applied to anybody. If somebody else was facilitating this referendum, they would also be entitled to the money that it would take to operate it. The way that Carrie Chassels, the VP of Student Affairs in the University explains is, what we haven’t done on campus is submit our referendum question, acknowledge how we keep the lights on. It’s those part of the administration that we assume we can just do while directing all the money towards the referendum and services that we’ve chosen to provide to ourselves as the student body. This $2000 is the acknowledgement that it takes $2000 to keep the referendum actually functioning on campus. We just happen to be the ones currently facilitating that and we’re trying to make ends meet. Hesham: This is just a question to the Exec, but do you folks have any information about how the salaries of the administrative staff and Executive will be affected next year? If the Student Choice Initiative goes through. Jack: I don’t have solid information for you right now because depending on how the next three motions go, that could change wildly.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

21 of 42

Aidan: Briefly to Member Raso’s point about the lounge, I think we’ll touch on that when we get there but that is actually a similar point as this where it is guaranteeing revenue. That’s what we have to think of and again, this is an initiative that is very important. None of us want to do this. There isn’t appetite for this. There is a reason we didn’t build any of the referendum questions that we facilitate. We didn’t build in an administrative fee because we didn’t want to. Because it wasn’t needed. It’s just a silly thing to have to do. But we’re at that point where $2000 could make or break a service and could make or break our Executive. That matters a lot and we need that to keep the Menstrual Health Initiative running and benefitting students. Rachel: What is this going to look like in terms of the service, will it be disrupted at all or will it still continue? Aidan: Like we mentioned earlier, it does kind of depend on if this fee becomes mandatory or not. Thankfully we have a sizable surplus in this account specifically so we can hopefully continue running it regularly because we realize we might not need the same amount every year because the main expense for this isn’t the actual products. It’s the purchasing of machines and stuff like that. We are hoping to expand and continue expanding the service so I wouldn’t say it would face any disruption, provided we can keep the lights on, like Jack said. If that makes sense. Patrick: I’m just wondering, I appreciate what you guys are trying to do here but was the $2000 number drawn from something specific or was it an arbitrary number because I noticed it’s the same for a couple of them and obviously the cost for administering is different per referendum question, right? Aidan: These are costed out actually. For this one, it was more specifically between me, Lee Anne and the Poster Runners; those are the three main administrators of this. For the Cannon one that we touch on, it’s myself, Jack, our programmer and our Promo person and our Business Manager and our Office Manager. We sat down and went month by month, how many hours do you spend working on this and then Lee Anne multiplied that by our hourly wages and these were the numbers we came to. So they are costed out. Nick: I just looked up the wording of the referendum question in response to a concern that was previously raised. It did say the mandatory fee of $0.90 with the intention of freely supplying and distributing the menstrual products so I think looking at the administrative fee and how to actually get these products across campus is an important factor to look at. Also, it is $0.90 per student per semester actually so that does come closer to $35,000 or $40,000 per year. Jamie: If it’s actually twice the figure that Member Paskinov gave and so $2,000 is even more of a drop in the bucket. Just wanted to point that out to people. Nick: Has it been considered that since the fee could fluctuate, that instead of just staying at the flat $2000 that we can put forward a certain percentage of the fees that are taken in? Jack: If the fee fluctuates, the work it takes to administrate won’t. It would stay the same carrying forward.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

22 of 42

Aidan: In the same vein, just because we’ll probably end up having discussions later in this meeting and in future meetings, the amount of costing out and things like that and budgetary work that our Business Manager has done for this coming year because of this is outrageous. She’s been working overtime and it’s not great to see how much work has been put on her shoulders. So if we tried to move to a percentage-based idea where we’re factoring different fees and how they’re working, I think it’s just too much to ask for her. I know it could end up being more money for us and would be beneficial but ultimately for the hours it would take for her to do the work around that, I think it would be too much. Nick: Next Board meeting, is next year’s budget going to be presented? Jack: It should be. Matteo: Will the administrative fee be used solely to help administer the Menstrual Health Initiative or would it be used as a slush fund for all the operations in the CSA. Aidan: That’s what I was trying to get out earlier is that for all of our Executive and our staff, we’re paid out of that $17.55. What percentage, I think 70% of that total money goes towards our salaries. Those salaries then make people and those people are distributed among all of the things that the CSA does including this, including the Cannon, etc. etc. But we aren’t able to keep the same pot of money this year to pay all of those staff so we have to kind of pull out of smaller different pots to mesh together one person’s salary. If that makes sense as in the Poster Runners were previously paid out of that $17.55 pot but now part of their payment comes from a different pot that directly relates to what they do. So yes, to directly answer your question, Member Raso, that $2,000 will strictly go to administrating the menstrual products. We are going to be very strict on that. Patrick: Just to clarify, will the Menstrual Health Product Initiative be affected by this Student Choice Initiative or is it a health service? Aidan: Normally for stuff like this, Universities receive a technical document that would give very strict definitions of what is a health service, how does the transit pass, all those very clear directives that have not been sent to universities yet. So they don’t know. Even the compulsory fees and the meetings the Executive have been at, even the University departments still don’t know because they’re still waiting on that document. They would love to have that broad net that they can classify, outline this GRCGED as health service fees, but they don’t know for sure.


14.11.4. Administrative Fee – Cannon WHEREAS the Central Student Association administers and facilitates several different referendum fees outside the CSA membership fee; and


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

23 of 42

WHEREAS the CSA commits resources and time to the operation of these student-initiated referendum services; MOTION: That pending approval from Guelph Campus Co-Op, an annual administrative fee of $2,000.00 be transferred from the Cannon budget into the CSA Administration Budget, effective for the budget year 2018-2019. Moved: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience Seconded: Nick Kowaleski Aidan: This is worded almost exactly the same because once again we costed out the hours that all our different roles spend working on specifically Cannon things and it comes out to $2,000. Jamie: The motion says pending approval from the Guelph Campus Co-Op. Can we assume that if this motion is passed that Guelph Campus Co-Op will likely just flip the bill for the $2,000 that is getting removed by the CSA? Aidan: The Cannon budget is a pool that is simultaneously controlled by both the CSA and the Guelph Campus Co-Cop. It isn’t part of the Guelph Campus Co-Op budget so the $2,000 wouldn’t come out of that pool, it would come out of the budget. The CSA Board and the Guelph Campus Co-Op Board together have control of the Guelph Campus Co-Op budget. That’s why they also have to give approval to this as well. Vote on Motion Motion carried 14.11.5. Memorandum of Understanding – University Centre (UC) Services MOTION: That the CSA approve the Memorandum of Understanding with University Centre (UC) Services to contribute to the creation of a new auxiliary lounge connected to Brass Taps. Moved: Jack Fisher, President Seconded: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience Jack: This has been coming down the pipes as an idea for a couple of months now but we’ve only been taking it seriously recently. I’m just going to review our process, how we got to where we are and why we’re asking. At the end of last year, the Photo Arts Club left the space that they had previously been occupying due to a number of factors that wasn’t the fault of the Executive before us. It’s just life happens. Over the course of the summer, the space was cleaned out and old furniture in the space had been repurposed or thrown out. What we started talking about in May, moving forward, was what groups or services would be most benefitted by adapting and taking over the Photo Arts Club space. We went


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

24 of 42

through this in a rigorous process of talking to each other and talking to people around us who don’t currently have space and going through groups that would be most easily accessed to that space. With the acknowledgement that the easiest group to give it to SSG or five of which recently had new or renovated spaces. SSG is a Special Status Group so almost all of you are here right now: International Student Organization, OPIRG, GRCGED, the GBSA and GQE. We talked about that and going through that, we also acknowledge that we can’t give the space to a CSA Club because that would defeat the purpose of the recent club rumination that is supposed to give the space to everybody. Part of the problem with the old Clubs Hallway was that there were groups that had space and groups that didn’t have space. And the groups that didn’t have space, didn’t have anywhere they could book space that was student-focused. That’s old, that’s all history. That happened in the past. What takes away from us is a lot of clubs that we may have looked at in the past that didn’t have an office in the hallway, giving them an office in the Photo Arts space. So that’s off the table. We then lookied into the CSA and how the CSA could functionally use the space and one of the only things we came up with was that fact that SafeWalk was using our Boardroom for their walks because they shared an office with the Clubs Administrative and Programming Coordinator. We solved that problem last semester as I think you all know if you had been here at Board or read in the Board updates, by just moving the Elections Office into our office and then moving Clubs over one. They all now have their own space in our service hallway and we didn’t have to take over any extra student space we weren’t currently occupying. At that point, we started reaching out and looking for other ways we can use the space because we’re trying to give the space to the most number of students. We came here in the Fall, in September and October, and asked if anybody had any ideas to let us know and we floated the idea back and forth. And then everything changed. Aidan was definitely very much against this idea. MOTION: To extend speaking time to Member Fisher until he finishes. Moved: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience Seconded: Patrick MacCarthy Vote on Motion Motion carried Jack: January 17 hits us, the Student Choice Initiative gets introduced and as an organization, just following the last two items of business, we’re trying to make ends meet in a way that can guarantee the continuation of the services we offer and the support that we offer to students as a whole but also with precision, advertise ourselves in a way where it’s more noticeable what CSA does on campus. This came from our budget presentations. We talked last semester or earlier this year about the Finance Committee report and the goals that we had,


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

25 of 42

thinking big picture about where the CSA could go in the future and what we wanted to do and all those amazing things but that was on January 16. So January 17, Student Choice Initiative, we now know we have to make cuts and changes to the way we function as an organization. We know that we have a fiscal responsibility to maintain the level of service that we are currently providing at a much reduced rate of pay, of intake of money from the student body. What we’re starting to generate is, unfortunately, internally a cultural of compromise, where even though in the past, this might not have been the ideal choice. What we’re now looking at is some really positive continuing income for the CSA, the maintenance of the space and new space that will be prioritized for student groups and anybody who is a student over somebody who may need to pay. If you go over the MOU, a couple of things I just want to highlight. It’s going to, over the next 10 years, inject funding and money into the CSA operating budget from the investment that we’re going to make into the lounge as a whole, should we move forward with it. With the money that we’re going to pay out of the surplus, we’re investing $35,000 which we’ll be making back over the next ten years. Right now, we cannot access that money in the surplus. We went over this in January when we talked about the golf cart. We can’t access the surplus in a normal day and if the organization has to start dipping into its surplus, we’re already in a bad financial standing and that’s probably not a good thing. All that aside, the question of the price tag shouldn’t be a stopping decision maker because we’re actually going to be getting the money back and that’s the important part I want to emphasize. As we get the money back, we’re able to inject it into our operating budget in a way that allows us to continue to pay the people that we pay, run the services that we run, provide the campaigns and advocacy support that we provide for students. It’s a new way of getting revenue. It is my responsibility is to find new forms of revenue for CSA. Especially at this time, it’s become more critical that we think about these things so that’s the fiscal responsibility that we all share here at the Board table. I think it’s really positive. The name is up in the air, if that’s a concern for anybody, I know Nick’s mentioned something earlier. But the really important parts are the relationships we have built with the University Centre and the administration over the past few years. We have written guarantees now that this will remain student space, it will remain student focused. And after ten years, I want to emphasize this part too, it will come back to the Board and they will again have the chance to decide whether it remains the way it is now or not, or if the CSA wants to take it and repurpose for it for something else. Matteo: Besides the $7,000 annual payback, the UC will be giving over the course of five years, how much revenue can we expect from this?

Jack: I realize the other day I didn’t submit this to Earl but it’s actually ten years. But the numbers stay the same. Matteo: So $7,000 for ten years? Jack: Right.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

26 of 42

Matteo: So $70,000 total? Jack: Yes. Patrick: Effectively, we’re transferring $35,000 from the surplus into revenue creatively and then gaining an additional $35,000. Am I correct? Jack: Yes. Alan: Last year in the previous year for when we had the previous Executive, we had a discussion about what we do about the Photo Arts Club and there was a motion made and right now we’re not really sure of the process because the motion was made in camera but the policy says that if a motion is made in camera it has to be made public. But it was not made public. If we want to just really quickly go in camera to see that motion. Unless anyone has any questions or objections. Nick: In camera motions, the wording of the motion is publicly available. It’s just the discussion around that motion that’s kept in camera. Displays Motion - March 14, 2018

That the CSA use the space previously utilized by the Photo Arts Club in a way that prioritizes marginalized students on campus when making a decision on what to do with the space. Alan: This is the motion that was made last year which the issues that I had with this memorandum was that this was not mentioned at all. I don’t know if it was mentioned in November during the meeting about how we wanted the space to be repurposed for the benefit of marginalized students. MOTION: To extend speaking rights to guests in the room. Moved: Kayla Weiler Seconded: Matteo Raso Vote on motion Motion carried MOTION: To rescind the in-camera motion dated March 14, 2018 re Photo Arts Club space. Moved: Nick Kowaleski Seconded: Patrick MacCarthy Nick: Although at the time, it was a very good-spirited motion, I believe I did agree with it then. Our financial is very different now than it was a year ago. Due to the Student Choice Initiative, we are put in a tough place and although I would love to allocate this space to a group that really needed the space on campus or a group that didn’t have space, the reality now is that we have a proposal in front of us that


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

27 of 42

can generate revenue for the CSA at a time where we need to continue providing services to everybody on campus, including marginalized folks... So I think that at this time, although this was a good-spirited motion a year ago, I think it would be best to rescind this so that we can continue with the proposal at the table. Jack: I also want to let the Board know that I have an email from Mike Calvert saying in writing here that the UC has plans to continue building space for marginalized groups in the building in a similar way that they had with the GQE moving forward. And I know that this is true. I talked to him a week ago and they’re currently forming a space downstairs as a prayer space for the Muslim Students Association because they are one of the groups that have been requesting a larger prayer space. Although this is one room in the building, I know that the building itself is working towards the same goal. Jamie: Are these two motions mutually exclusive? Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t know that we can really monetize the space while also making it available to marginalized students. Never mind. We’re going to have to pick on of them. Bella Harris, guest: I recognize that when this motion was made, we were in a different space financially but I also believe that we’re in a very challenging situation. Although CSA is in dire need of money, when given the opportunity to make money or prioritize marginalized folks, marginalized folks are always going to be put under the table. I think it would be best if the CSA would not make this choice, although it is a difficult one because given this Student Choice Initiative, marginalized folks are going to need a space with resources even more so. While it’s difficult to still ask that marginalized students take what little resources the CSA has left, I think it’s the best thing to do; the least oppressive thing to do. Patrick: I really appreciate what Bella had to say and I think that we often see that the needs of marginalized students are preceded by needs for financial stability. But I would just like to caution that the CSA is probably the premier organization for providing services for marginalized students or supporting services for marginalized students and without this funding, we might not be able to do that at all. I think it’s really critical that we don’t take this as a strawman argument where it’s, oh, we’re going to support the marginalized people or make money. In making money, and not really making money, we’re not trying to make a profit, but in order to stay afloat. We’re actually supporting the marginalized communities in the ways that we know best. I think, yes it would be really great to have more space for marginalized communities, but if we don’t exist as a whole, then all the support services for marginalized communities that currently exist are going to disappear. And so personally, I would ask members to vote in favour of rescinding this motion so that we can continue providing funding for all the great services that the CSA has. Rachel: I would say that by upholding this motion by Bella last year, it’s a way of protecting marginalized students furthermore who utilize, yes we utilize students … within the CSA, but we utilize even more so special status groups who are even more in danger of losing funding. We don’t have any revenue – GRCGED, OPIRG; they’re almost lost causes. It’s pretty devasting. By having places like this that are


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

28 of 42

reserved for marginalized students, it does a little bit of hope in the upcoming year. I appreciate everything that the CSA does but there are a lot of other groups out there as well and I think this is a really good thing. Nick: I want to mention a couple of things. As was previously said, we’re not trying to make money instead of helping marginalized people. We’re trying to stay afloat as an organization and I think that’s a really important point to look at. UC building as a whole, there are other places in this building that are prioritized towards students who need that space. Many of our clubs that the space will be pirortized towards represent marginalized students over other students who might be in groups that could use a space to gather. Matteo: I’d like to speak in favour of rescinding this motion. I know that everybody has really good intentions, but you can’t really speak on good intentions alone, you need money to do that. We’ve already established that the CSA is not in a good financial position so it’s imperative that we rescind this motion so that we can make money to keep the CSA afloat. Bella: To echo what Member Vear said, there are organizations on campus that I think it’s important to recognize that hold space for different marginalized folks. Although, each individual SSG struggles to hold space for the intersectionally marginalized folks. For example, GQE has only recently worked towards bringing in queer trans people of colour because it’s a very white organization, globally. In terms of the University Centre trying to upgrade constantly, with wonderful intentions, to hold spaces for marginalized folks, in a way that involves consultation of marginalized folks. For example, the Clubs Hallway took away spaces for various organizations and put in these clear glass fish tank-looking things so people who want to organize – queer folks, religious folks, different cultural backgrounds, don’t have the privacy that they once had having those spaces. Again, looking at the proposal, this is going to be a large visible space so marginalized folks who would like to gather – for example, there are events held specifically for queer trans people of colour who need to be in private. We have Keg Lounges and gets very quiet when the door is open because we need that privacy so having another large space that is open and visible to other people is not prioritizing marginalized people at all, it’s pushing them further out of spaces they could have had. Aidan: To speak to that point. In terms of the intentions of the space, it will look very similar to the other lounges that are currently in Brass Taps, where it will have doors that can be closed and block out the sound and visibility from the outside restaurant. I will let Jack answer because he actually has blueprints in front of him but it’s not just going to be another part of Brass Taps. It will be a lounge that can be closed off specifically for events or gatherings of marginalized folks. Patrick: Is the Photo Arts space currently being used? Jack: It can’t be. Patrick: In that light, if we don’t rescind this motion to transform the Photo Arts Club space into a space for marginalized students, not only will we lose the


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

29 of 42

revenue from Brass Taps, we actually have to pay money to make the space accessible. And it’s not currently being used so we’re not actually taking away from minority groups right now. While giving them more space would be ideal, we’re not actually subtracting space and in light of the CSA’s financial position, even if we don’t rescind this motion, we probably won’t have the finances to make this the kind of space we envision it for marginalized folks to use. It would be great to say, we’re going to reserve this space for marginalized folks but it’s going to cost us $35,000 to fix it. We don’t have $35,000 so guess it just sits empty. Unfortunately, due to this difficult situation, I really do think we need to rescind this motion in order to continue doing what we pride ourselves in doing which is providing great services for all University students. Daniel: I think of this lounge next to Brass Taps, an idea where essentially people can hold events in there and we can have catering from Brass Taps and that’s essentially what you’re eluding to. Does that make sense? [Yes] That’s what I thought, that was my question. Jack: I also want to echo Member MacCarthy’s point. Without guaranteeing return on investments for renovating the space, the space is unusable. It’s currently toxic. The walls and air in the room are probably dangerous to breathe and similar to the Clubs Hallway when it was renovated, we know for a fact that the wall and ceilings are filled with asbestos. If we were to renovate it, it would take more money than we’re currently putting in because we’d be doing the renovation on our own. Right now, if we move forward with this, it is being tagged onto a renovation that the University Centre is doing to its offices and so we’re actually getting a significant discount on how much it would cost to renovate the space, to clean it out, to make it safe for people to use. We don’t have the money to do that on our own and if we don’t renovate it, no matter what we do with it, we can’t in good faith give it to anybody else. The walls will be soundproofed. What we’re trying to do is install a large screen to play movies or something. All four walls should be totally sound proof so it’ll make it a bit smaller than it is now. There’s a soundproof barrier so when the doors are closed, it’ll be also quieter than if you’ve been in the Keg Lounge or the 74 Lounge. Jamie: Does it cost anything to book these rooms? Jack: Not for student groups. Jamie: But for the general public it does? Jack: Yes. Jamie: But not for student groups. So if you were a certified club or something or a special status group, it wouldn’t cost you a thing to book it. Nick: There are many spaces on this campus but this is next to the Ontarion space. This is the only one adjacent to Brass Taps. This is a very limited opportunity and with the renovation that they are doing to that wing of the second floor of the UC, this will be much reduced in costs versus if we tried to do it on our own. This would be the only time that we’re going to get such a good deal on making the space usable for students.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

30 of 42

Bella: To speak to Member MacCarthy’s point I believe, in terms of this not taking any space that’s already allocated to marginalized folks. This space, in case folks don’t know, is next to the Guelph Queer Equality room, meaning anybody going into that space, because right now it’s close to the Brass Taps accessibility entrance which is not really something marginalized folks accept. Except for folks who are trans because they need to use the universal washroom, who have mobility needs and need to use the universal washroom or people who are in Guelph Queer Equality or the CSA. It’s a relatively safe hallway for us. This is a really cool, new lounge accessible to all students, has a really cool screen, that sounds like something everyone would love but things that are ideal for everybody and really cool, often bring people who are not safe. Our hallway, while our doors are open with a giant rainbow on the wall, I have a great concern, not just personally but speaking with other people from Guelph Queer Equality that something this attractive in our hallway might bring about more micro-aggressions or full-on hate crimes that GQE has experienced to a small extent, despite us being in very back alley locations. We’ve been a really small closet space, we’re in a fairly empty hallway right now. We had people scribble on our signs. I do have a fear these things would escalate in that hallway. Rachel: If this space were to happen, is there a way to prioritize marginalized groups accessing the space, being able to make it so that they pretty much have the first choices on dates so they can use the space most effectively? Aidan: Yes. To directly answer that question, we can definitely build that into the MOU and based on our conversations with the UC, they would be very receptive to that. Also, I want to stress that I do think that everyone’s points around the table are totally valid. They’re all just coming from different perspective. I really do hope the folks around the table who are representing SSGs and marginalized groups aren’t feeling silenced or oppressed or anything like that because I really hope this conversation doesn’t do that. I think we just have to acknowledge that we’re all coming from different perspectives in the sense that obviously the marginalized groups are trying to represent marginalized groups and while the CSA does that as well, like we talked about, we also represent all students and so we have to think about how we can also benefit the wider majority of students. I know that is a problematic thing to say and I hope it doesn’t come across as bad but I just want to throw it out there with that perspective which is why we’re talking about fiscal responsibility and all of those extra things that are often thrown around when groups get silenced and oppressed. I just want to acknowledge that. Also, to the point of increasing traffic in the hallway, the main entrance to the lounge will not be through the hallway, it will be through Brass Taps. The door that will exist in the hallway will strictly be if clubs book out the room when Brass Taps isn’t operating, which is very strange hours. Usually Brass Taps operates fairly regularly. The main access is whether a club or a student or whoever was to book this lounge, the entrance would be through Brass Taps. They’re planning on putting a hole through that wall basically. When you go in through the accessible side entrance and immediately turn right and there’s a long booth along the wall, that’s where the


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

31 of 42

entrance is going to be. That’s where two sliding doors will be installed. It’s not going to be through the hallway. Daniel: I’ve done these types of events at this place at a café that acted as venue. The fact that it’s in Brass Taps is pretty interesting because then you can have catering come right through there. If you make it like a soundproof, AV, screening with surround sound and comments on how this can be used once this kind of moves forward to have kind of a solid AV space would be useful. Alan: Speaking to the motion that made to rescind the motion Bella made in camera. I feel like with what Member Paskinov has said and some of the discussion saying that if we do get the space, it still prioritize marginalized group and such, I feel like we can still continue with the Memorandum while also keeping this motion as a reminder that we want to use this space to prioritize these marginalized students. Matteo: Point of information – isn’t the lounge being controlled by the UC? Jack: Only for the purposes of catering and serving food. It remains student space. Kayla: Point of information – if we were to rescind this motion, would it still be on the record that this motion existed? Chair: Yes. Matteo: We’re talking about rescinding the memorandum in favour of an abstract notion of giving the space to some unknown group for some unknown reason. If we do decide to leave this motion, we don’t know who we’re giving it to, we don’t know what we’re going to do, it’s an abstract motion. Whereas with this memorandum, we have a concrete plan to make the revenue that the CSA so desperately needs and while it is bad to take away space that was for marginalized students, groups supporting marginalized students can still continue without the space. It is still possible to organize it through the Internet. In fact, it’s mostly preferable to do so by means that taking the space away will not harm them in any real measure. Rachel: I just want to point that if the entrance is through Brass Taps, you’re asking marginalized who may be uncomfortable in these types of spaces to walk through Brass Taps and if they’re having special events like obviously, if it is possible to use the door from the hallway that would be allowed, I hope. But if the main access, if people do have to walk through there. I just want to, I like this motion and even if it was just adjusted that marginalized students are just spoken to every step of the way and included in every decision, you have people from every group to make a point, to say hey, we need to have like to make all these different points very clear and very loud, that would be essential. Even if it’s not prioritized, it’s that they’re having their voice heard every step of the way so that they are being utilized. I don’t think we can amend this motion and it’s in camera so I don’t know how any of this works but I think it needs to be. That’s my thoughts. Jamie: I don’t think that voting to rescind this motion makes sense. I think that this motion can stand and we could have a separate conversation about the Memorandum of Understanding and we could potentially amend that motion, such that as Member Vear suggested, we are actually keeping special status groups and other marginalized student groups informed and consulting with them the


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

32 of 42

whole way through. But I do not think necessarily we need to rescind this motion because I think that even after the ten years are over, this motion could still stand and I think that it ought to and for that reason, I am speaking against rescinding this motion. Kayla: I speak against rescinding the motion. I think it’s good to not rescind. Even though it’s still on the record that this motion existed, I think it would be strange to rescind this motion since it is talking about marginalized students on campus and talking about the Photo Arts Club and last year that was a big topic of discussion. So I think it’s just good for this Board to not necessarily rescind this motion since it is really significant to be honest. Even looking back at, this is almost a year ago today and I remember this discussion it was really fruitful and really positive so I think it’s a good motion to keep and not for our Board to rescind. As well, I think there’s a way for the space that we are talking about in the Memorandum of Understanding could potentially still meet this motion as space that prioritizes marginalized students. For an example, the clubs space renovation that was discussed in the 2016-2017 year, I personally had a lot of concerns with when it came to the renovation but after having chats and conversations with the Executive at the time, a lot of those concerns were mitigated but also still to be improved upon. There are still some improvements we can make to the clubs’ space, where there is physical improvements or attitude improvements or environment improvements, there is definitely more things we can do. A lot of these discussions in the past had left out marginalized students until people came to the Board to speak about this. It shouldn’t be necessary for groups to come to this Board to have to express directly unless they want to. It’s the job of the Executive to outreach to these groups to do this groundwork first so that there are already consulted from at the beginning. I think with this Memorandum of Understanding, since it has been sent to Board a couple of times, it’ll be good to continue to get feedback about it and the goal ahead and continue to have conversations because the points brought up today were super-important. I learned a bit about the experience about others on campus today and I think we just need to continue to do this. MOTION: To withdraw the Motion to rescind.

Moved by Nick Kowaleski Motion to rescind was withdrawn Motion: To call for a five-minute recess.

Moved: Nick Kowaleski Seconded: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience Vote on Motion Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

33 of 42

Meeting called back to order 7:57 pm Aidan: Just to speak to the point Member Vear made before, that is something that unfortunately we won’t be around to administer because it would be over the summer during the renovations, provided this gets approved. We would definitely ensure some type of working group gets established about the operations of the space and that would include SSGs and representatives from marginalized groups in terms of how we would operate the external door of the hallway. Would that be open for all groups? How would the prioritization of the marginalized groups look and how would it actually be enforced by the UC? How would the booking look? All of that stuff. That was a really good point and you’re correct. I definitely think that is something we will make sure the incoming Exec does over the summer to make sure that in the Fall when this renovation will hopefully finish, that it can be implemented so marginalized groups can best utilize the space. MOTION TO AMEND: BIRT the present and future Executive maintain active communication with groups including but not limited to Special Status Groups and other groups representing marginalized students during the planning, renovation and administration of the space. BIFRT these communications contain updates and consultation with aforementioned groups.

Moved: Jamie Gibson Seconded: Alan Negrin Bella: I’m referencing the last one, where I said the space should be used generally for marginalized folks; I made it very vague on purpose. In order to that vagueness of prioritizing marginalized folks into this very specific Memorandum, this is the space, this is how it will be used, I would prefer if we could make this more specific in how we would prioritize folks. One of the best ways to figure out how we can prioritize best marginalized folks is to directly ask them. Might I suggest, some callout for marginalized groups coming back saying these are our needs? We’ll do it in the CSA Board space, something like that so we have very specific details on what it is marginalized groups would expect of the space so they can be prioritized. Patrick: Point of information – If we proceed with Bella’s recommendations, then we could not approve the Memorandum of Understanding tonight, correct? Jack: I think that there are two things happening on the table right now, along the same lines. What Aidan and I suggested just before this amendment was that we are going to be putting a group soon but you have more of this idea than I do because you wrote it down. It might make more sense to add that working group into that motion because I think that they’re trying to accomplish the same thing. That’s what I’m hearing. But I think the answer to your question is no.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

34 of 42

Nick: Direct question to Member Fisher – are you suggesting we delete the amendment and give an alternate amendment? Jack: No. In addition to this, we’ll have a working group. Jamie: I would like to invite people to amend this amendment to have it see fit and what they have in mind. Aidan: I would like to add another BIFRT clause. Unfortunately, because I know most of this would be done over the summer with the construction, building something in person would just halt the process and it wouldn’t end up going smoothly. But I think it would be a BIFRT these communications consist of bi-weekly email updates from the CSA Executive. Jamie: Point of information - Do we typically have working groups or committees are anything like that over the summer? Aidan: Typically, we do not because we acknowledge that most students aren’t here over the summer. Sometimes, we do if everybody on the committee is agreeable to that and is willing to make the time to either commute or send a representative into town, that can be done. But it’s difficult to administer directly. MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT: BIFRT these communications would entail bi-weekly email updates from the CSA Executive. Moved: Aidan Paskinov, VP Student Experience Seconded: Jamie Gibson Aidan: I tried to make this a bit more specific. I think what is also missing is more restrictive of what would be the content of these updates. But maybe somebody who is representing one of these groups that we would be consulting with could speak to that. They know better what they would actually want to take out of these updates but this I guess ensures that there is more strict, clear communication. Rachel: I don’t know how useful that is. We still have, realistically folks stay around until the end of April. I personally don’t think this should be voted on tonight. I think there’s way too much up in the air. We have way too much to talk about because I think a working group struck now and we need to have meetings about this right now. This is a lot of money that we’re talking about. Yes, there’s a possibility of bringing in a lot of revenue but also has different things at stake and I think there needs to be a working group enacted immediately with all the Special Status Groups to go over this that’s outside the Board Meeting as opposed to just email updates. I think that’s not enough, at all. Bella: I feel like this motion is unnecessary in a lot of ways because it adds a lot of extra work in order to get information that I don’t think needs Board approval to get. I think that for example, we could accept the Memorandum as it is. We could have a motion that says the CSA will seek information from folks. But I feel like the Executive already have that in mind. I don’t think they need a motion in order to do that. I think just having similarly with the renovation of the GQE space, where you


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

35 of 42

didn’t need to come to Board in order to figure out what our wall colour was. That was something we were able to do with our contractors. We were able to figure out what the wall colour would be with the Board. If the Execs feel confident that they can receive information such as we want the doors to be wider to have a mobility device come in or have the lighting visible for folks with sensitivities to light, then I don’t think a motion is necessary if the Execs think this something that they can do without the motion. Daniel: What would be a good idea is with these groups, is have a series of open houses and town halls where I guess the folks planning to develop the space, showcase what they’re interested in putting in the space and then you have these groups that essentially are the ones that are consulted with and guiding the development of this space. Maybe they want members of the public to come in, meet certain criteria. I guess moving in the future, although it’s already. Patrick: I have a direct question. What is the expected start date for construction of this project? Jack: Some time in May. Patrick: Would the amount of consultation being discussed hamper the ability to start in a timely fashion? Jack: It depends on the ask. If the ask is to not start the project until the space is accessible, yes. But that could be more time needed. Jamie: Speaking to some of the points raised earlier, the whole purpose of even amending this motion at all is the extent to which folks want something concrete and written down and passed by this Board by which people can be held to account. If there is the trust collectively that this Executive and the incoming Executive will have explicitly time to do so, then by all means, we don’t need this amendment. But the read that I have in the room is this is some really contentious stuff we’re dealing with and we should take the proper procedure in addressing it in some way, in some explicit kind of way. Horeen: Is there any interest right now in forming a working group now? And can we do that? Jack: Member Paskinov brought up a point. To actually get started, we do need to approve something tonight. What we could do is we could approve it with the note in the MOU that a working group will be consulted. But moving forward, that’s our intent, that we’re on board but we want to know if the UC is on board too. But yes, it sounds like there’s interest. Aidan: Like Member Fisher said, we do have to at least approve something tonight for this to get underway because the UC needs to bring in contractors and they need to start tearing down the space and start getting things working. Obviously, construction won’t start until May but they have to do all the measuring and all the architectural stuff. But there is a built-in time and we’ve already pushed the deadline. I think this was supposed to come to our last Board meeting but didn’t because the AGM got moved. I just wanted to throw that out there in the sense of we do need to approve it tonight. But to Member Vear’s point, there is more consultation that needs to be done and I think we can do that consultation. We can


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

36 of 42

do our best to get a lot of it done before the end of April. We can start calling those regular working groups because I do think there is an avenue and there is clearly appetite for facilitated discussion with the CSA, all the representatives of the SSGs that wish to be present and the UC of just what’s your wish list, what are your asks here. I think we can break it down to something more simple. I added the email update more because I know that scheduling things with that many groups is usually very difficult. But if there is appetite for actually sitting down and putting together those asks, we can do that. We can just have groups send us what those ask us would be and we can discuss with the UC. But you’re right, there is more consultation to be done. We can do it, it’s just we can’t do it before this because like Jack said at the start of the meeting, ideally we would have been able to hear these concerns earlier in the year and we could have done that through a consultation process which is not how it panned out I guess. Bella: Extra information is that GQE hires a summer coordinator who has historically not been a good representative of GQE, which is all our fault. But there is someone to communicate with towards that area of SSGs. But I also think that it’s equally reasonable to just have an ask and then have updates without so much trying to meet every week with a working group to say here are the updates, what kind of information do you need. To speak to this motion, not necessary.

MOTION: To call the question for secondary amendment (to the amendment) Moved: Matteo Raso Seconded: Nick Kowaleski Vote on Motion to call the question Motion carried Vote on Motion to amend the amendment Motion carried

MOTION: To call the question (on the amendment) Moved: Patrick MacCarthy Seconded: Nick Kowaleski Vote on Motion to call the question Motion carried Vote on Motion to amend Motion carried


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

37 of 42

MOTION: To conduct a roll call vote on the main motion Moved: Nick Kowaleski Seconded: Patrick MacCarthy Vote on Motion to conduct a roll call vote Motion carried MOTION AS AMENDED: That the CSA approve the Memorandum of Understanding with University Centre (UC) Services to contribute to the creation of a new auxiliary lounge connected to Brass Taps; BIRT the present and future Executive maintain active communication with groups including but not limited to Special Status Groups and other groups representing marginalized students during the planning, renovation and administration of the space; BIFRT these communications contain updates and consultation with aforementioned groups; and. BIFRT these communications would entail bi-weekly email updates from the CSA Executive Roll Call Vote: In favour: Alan Negrin, Jamie Gibson, Isaiah Burton, Hesham Farag, Horeen Hassan, Patrick MacCarthy, Nick Kowaleski, Claudia Idzik, Jena-Lee Ashley, Matteo Raso Opposed: Rachel Vear, Daniel Nardone MOTION CARRIED: 10 votes in favour, 2 votes opposed. 14.11.6. Local 54 Representative Report MOTION: That the Local 54 Representative Report from Kayla Weiler, CSA Vice President External, be received as information at the CSA Board Meeting on March 13, 2019. Moved: Horeen Hassan Seconded: Hesham Farag Kayla: I just wanted to put this in the Board package as information. Part of my role as our representative of Local 54 on the Ontario Executive committee is to submit a report every time we have an in-person meeting. For example, there is a meeting on March 23 and 24 so I will be going and presenting this report. I have just been submitted as information so that you folks know that your lovely names are listed as our Board of Directors and then if there’s anything that you


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

38 of 42

wanted to comment or for me to bring up at the meeting, I can definitely do that. For example, when it mentions, clause number 2, internal issues, see local financial status. Currently, our finances are sound but because of the Student Choice Initiative, we’re having a discussion. If you have questions for the Federation or if you want me to report something to the Federation, just let me know and I can do that as your Local 54 Rep. Matteo: You forgot vacant At-Large Kayla: Thank you, I guess that’s a typo since we’ve only had one member at large. I’ve just removed the vacant at large. This report is a timeline of October 29 to Friday, March 22 so in that time, we’ve had other positions filled but just not that one. Vote on Motion Motion carried 14.11.7. CSA Organizational Policy MOTION: That the CSA Organizational Policy be received as information at the CSA Board Meeting on March 13, 2019. Moved: Patrick MacCarthy Seconded: Horeen Hassan Kayla: This is entitled CSA Organizational Policy. This is the first notice of this policy. I’ve submitted this policy. I would normally send it to PBRC, but due to Hiring Committees and the stress of the winter semester, I guess PBRC and I checked with the PTM, we won’t be able to meeting until potentially after the next meeting. That’s why I submitted it to this meeting as notice. This used to be part of Appendix E: Issues and Organizational Policy, that was discussed briefly at PBRC in the previous school year. I did some research since then after discussing it and discovered that Issue Policy and Organizational Policy are two different policies and it’s better if they’re just separate documents. An Organizational Policy outlines the organizations that our organization works with. For example, one of the organizations listed is Guelph Transit and we have a relationship with them through our bus pass and as well through other committees. Another example is the VP External’s role already works with many of the organizations listed in this policy, such as unions, the CFS, the GSA and then other Executive work with the UC admin, City of Guelph, etc. The Organizational Policy outlines the groups CSA works with and continues to work with and our policies, bylaws, budgets, etc. show our priorities. When we’re having this organizational policy, it shows that one of our priorities is working with these organizations. These groups are also referenced in the Executive Policy and this Organizational policy outlines additional background information/history that is helpful as an introduction to new members as undergraduates of the


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

39 of 42

organization or new Board Members or Executive. Our Organizational Policy also outlines how to work with these bodies such as UC Administration, the Faculty Association, Senate, other University committees and how we see ourselves working with these groups. As well, this Organizational Policy, I just took the original policy and had made some small edits. For example, on page 41 of your Board package, I added little preamble/history to the section about the Canadian Confederation of Students. Another example is under relationship with Guelph Transit, I also added that we support Universal Bus Pass contract with Guelph Transit but we also work with the Late Night Bus Service. That’s something that we provide. Those are just some examples of what I changed. It’s very minimal to be honest and I can give you copies if you want to be more informed before the next meeting where this will be voted on. Just to see the differences I’ve highlighted. It’s just important to note that this policy has already existed in policies prior so this is not necessarily something new, rather than just presenting as a separate document from the Issues Policy. I’ve been working on this for a while so this is just the first step of me completing my two years here at the CSA. Jamie: Given that this is a notice, now would be an inappropriate time to mention that when I was reading through this earlier week when the package got sent out, there are a few typos and whatnot just sprinkled through there. Would you like me to do a once over? Kayla: No, sorry. Nick: This essentially is separating Appendix E into two main policies? Kayla: Yes. Nick: So this would become Appendix J? Kayla: Yes. MOTION TO AMEND: To amend the draft Organizational Policy (Page 41), Policy with Stakeholder Organizations, to strike bullet 3: CEP Local 2003. Moved: Kayla Weiler, VP External Seconded: Jamie Gibson Kayla: I would just like to note that the union doesn’t work like this anymore. It’s now become Unifor, it’s just not represented in that same title. But the nice thing is that policy says such organizations include but are not limited to, so that Unifor Local does move back to our campus, then it can be added. There is no limitation that the CSA cannot work with them. Vote on Motion to Amend Motion carried Jamie: Under policy of CSA Economy and Fees, it references last sentence of the first paragraph, currently it says right but it’s supposed to say rights with an s.


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

40 of 42

Jack: I’d like to suggest that people review this over the course of the next two weeks and come back to the Board meeting with any changes. MOTION: That the CSA Organizational Policy as amended, be received as information at the CSA Board Meeting on March 13, 2019. Motion carried Notice of this item, as amended, was provided, to be considered at the next meeting. 14.11.8. NOTICE: Amendment to Bylaw 1 re Summer Board Meetings Notice of this item was provided, to be considered at the next meeting.

14.12. New Business

14.13. Announcements

Earl:

• CSA bylaws and policies and CSA Rules of Order are now up to date on the website as a result of being confirmed at the AGM.

Jack:

• One Hiring Committee away from doing 30 Hiring Committees Aidan:

• Stress that although a motion doesn’t go your way or brought up, please talk to the Executive or send us an email because most of the time, we can work something out

• Karaoke Pub Night, tomorrow night – free drink token for undergrads

• Last Sexy Bingo – March 28

• Last Toast tickets on sale hopefully next week Natalie:

• Getting over jetlag

• We only have a month and a bit left Kayla:

• I will be at Karaoke on Thursday and going to Jimmy Jazz after for eight hours of Karaoke

• Walkout is on March 20 Alan:

• Thank you for the discussion on the Photo Arts club. It was just a bit of frustration on the part of a lot of members at GQE but thanks to the Executive and the Board members here, we’re fairly comfortable with what is to come with that


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

41 of 42

Jamie:

• Thanks to Bella for sticking around and lending insight into that motion

• Global Strike, this Friday at noon for climate catastrophe

• Walkout next Monday Isaiah:

• GBSA is doing a trip to an Escape Room on Friday with 20 people

• GBSA formal – Saturday, March 23; BET themed

• Beginning election process – running for GBSA president and CSA liaison is running and will be on Board next year

Rachel:

• Appreciate the discussion from everyone Daniel:

• OPIRG is having its AGM Hasheem:

• I want to graduate Horeen:

• My fish died and it’s a sad story. Patrick:

• College Royal is this weekend so if you’re in town come join all the fun stuff that’s happening this Saturday and Sunday

Nick:

• Thank you for the debate.

• Last week – Queen’s Park for the morning Claudia:

• CBSE is having a trip to the Ontario Science Centre.

• Next Senate meeting is April 1.

• UC Board meeting – Tuesday, April 2 at 5:30 pm Jena-Lee:

• Moccasin-making workshop

• Beading workshop for earrings – March 27 o Only have 15 spots

• AGM is on Tuesday Matteo:

• Thank Member Farag for staying an hour (to maintain quorum). Natalie:

• February 6 – event that supposed to be run by SHAC is being rescheduled to March 22 at 2:30 pm

14.14. In Camera Session

14.15. Adjournment


March 13, 2019 – 6:00 pm – UC 442

42 of 42

MOTION: To adjourn the CSA Board of Directors Meeting of March 13, 2019 at 8:49 pm.

Moved: Matteo Raso Seconded: Horeen Hassan


Approved by the Board of Directors on Date:

Signed Date:

Cameron Olesen Board Chair, 2018-2019

Signed Date:

Earl Evans Policy and Transition Manager 2018-2019

minutes - central student association bd mtg 14 mar 13 19 fina… · 14.7.1 president 14.7.2 vp...

Documents