SRA meeting on Jan. 29 involved discussions on the role of the Ombuds Office, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the MSU rejoining CASA.
he Student Representative Assembly meeting 22M took place on Jan. 29 in Gilmour Hall. In this meeting, the assembly covered the accessibility and services of the Ombuds Office, the initiatives being pushed by the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and a motion for the McMaster Students Union to have observer status on the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations.
University Ombuds Carolyn Brendon and Assistant Ombuds Meghan Rego attended the SRA meeting and spoke on the role of the Ombuds Office and the services it offers to McMaster University students.
The Ombuds Office representatives as a part of an outreach initiative to help the university better understand the role of the office within the community.
The Ombuds Office is located at MUSC 210 and offers free and confidential counseling to all members of the McMaster community. Brendan explained that the mandate of the Ombuds details three key principles by which their practices abide by — independence, impartiality and confidentiality.
The Ombuds Office operates outside of the academic and administrative hierarchy and strives for minimal institutional impediments. They also abide by standard confidentiality principles, in which all information discussed is confidential unless there is an imminent risk of harm.
The Ombuds Office operates outside of the academic and administrative hierarchy and strives for minimal institutional impediments. They also abide by standard confidentiality principles, in which all information discussed is confidential unless there is an imminent risk of harm.
The Ombuds Office deals with academic and non-academic issues, including student financial matters, behavioral and professional codes of conduct, employment and any other student-related issues and concerns.
OUSA President Jessica Look and executive director Malika Dhanani also spoke at the SRA meeting about their organization. OUSA is a collaboration of student governments across the province that advocates for affordable, accessible, accountable and high quality post-secondary education.
Some of the core functions of OUSA include developing informed substantive policy papers, lobbying the provincial government to enact changes and representing the student perspective on the provincial level.
Some of the core functions of OUSA include developing informed substantive policy papers, lobbying the provincial government to enact changes and representing the student perspective on the provincial level.
Look and Dhanani detailed how they aim to uplift the student voice through their blog, where student contributors outside of OUSA are free to submit pieces on policy issues they are passionate about. Additionally, OUSA offers summer student internships.
Following the discussion on OUSA’s initiatives and role representing the MSU, the meeting transitioned to other matters, including a discussion around seeking observership with CASA.
The motion to discuss and vote on CASA observership was moved by MSU President Simranjeet Singh and seconded by Vice President (Education) Elizabeth Wong. Singh shared that CASA is currently the largest body that does advocacy work for student unions at the federal level.
The MSU is currently part of a separate federal advocacy organization, the Undergraduates of Canadian Research-Intensive Universities. Singh explained that with UCRU, the MSU was able to meet with 20 Members of Parliament during lobbying week, while members of CASA were able to meet with 156. The MSU was a member of CASA in the past but left in 2017 due to issues with their management of affairs.
Singh and Wong are proposing CASA observership, a two-year process in which the MSU would attend meetings and try out a CASA membership. Observership would allow the MSU to make an informed decision about whether shifting to CASA involvement would be beneficial.
Singh and Wong are proposing CASA observership, a two-year process in which the MSU would attend meetings and try out a CASA membership. Observership would allow the MSU to make an informed decision about whether shifting to CASA involvement would be beneficial.
Observership can be revoked at any point with no consequence and the MSU would remain with UCRU throughout the observership. Following some discussion, the motion was passed with 26 in favour, zero opposed and two abstaining.
When I started out as the Opinions Editor for The Silhouette this past year, I admittedly didn’t care much about student politics or governance. I was unfamiliar with the policies of the McMaster Students Union and had no idea what happened during Student Representative Assembly meetings.
Nowadays, I regularly watch the SRA livestreams and perform my due diligence to be aware of changes occurring within the MSU. A large part of that is for my job, but I’ve found that staying informed has benefits beyond finding something to write about.
The purpose of the MSU is to “represent you and to help build a better community for all students”. As the governing body of the MSU, SRA members have a responsibility to represent and lobby on behalf of their students.
It’s only fair then that we as students hold these members, and the MSU in general, accountable for their actions. In doing so, we are ensuring that any changes occurring are truly reflective of the needs and desires of students.
There’s many ways for students can hold these organizations accountable. They can attend SRA meetings, speak to their SRA representative, voice their concerns online or even protest for change.
Alternatively, you can do what I do, and write about your concerns for the campus newspaper. Perhaps some of my criticisms have been harsh or slightly misguided. But at the end of the day, I’m proud of the articles that I’ve written and edited for The Silhouette. Even if they have stepped on some toes, I’d like to think they’ve helped incite some positive changes on campus.
Whether these changes are a fully-stocked Union Market or investigations into MSU-recognized clubs, it’s evident that speaking out on issues is important.
Not everything the SRA or MSU has done has been negative. In fact, they have made some great, positive changes that are deserving of praise, or at the very least, of respect.
A few weeks ago, I had plans to write about the SRA’s contradictory playing of the national anthem and delivery of a land acknowledgment at their meetings. To my surprise, I found that they passed a motion to stop playing the national anthem at their meetings altogether. Things like these are positive changes that students should be aware of.
Of course, there is only so much that students can do. Given the record eight students who attended the General Assembly on March 20, it is obvious that the MSU must do a better job at engaging with their student constituents.
But just because the MSU and SRA have much to improve doesn’t mean that students are off the hook for staying informed. Without student input and advocacy efforts, organizations are given too much power and can make decisions that negatively impact us all.
For example, without the efforts of a few brave survivors telling their experiences with sexual assault within the MSU Maroons, it’s unlikely that the service would be doing anything to account for the issue, much less propose developing a long-overdue sexual assault and harassment policy.
I encourage students to get engaged with their university’s politics. It might seem overwhelming, and the information is certainly not easy to navigate, but it’s important work.
Especially in light of the upcoming changes to post-secondary education made by the provincial government, it is in the best interests of all students to be engaged with their union’s activities.
My term at The Silhouette is reaching a close. I’ve learned a lot during my time working for the newspaper but my biggest takeaway is that student politics affects us all, including those outside of the MSU bubble. For our own sake, we ought to keep our student organizations accountable for their actions.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Attendance at the annual McMaster Students Union General Assembly hit a new low this year, with a total of eight members showing up.
Eight students represent 0.0293 per cent of the MSU’s student membership. The number of students needed to reach quorum this year was 724.
We're here at the annual MSU General Assembly! The assembly officially started at 4pm, but there are <10 attendees (including the full MSU board of directors) pic.twitter.com/Kf9YvrJQLL
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) March 20, 2019
MSU president Ikram Farah delivered an address at the start of the assembly, speaking about the recent Ontario government cuts to the Ontario Student Assistance Program and new Student Choice Initiative guidelines.
Following Farah’s remarks, a motion to adjourn the meeting passed unanimously.
The assembly lasted a little longer than five minutes.
GA frequently sees a low turnout. Last year and in 2016, approximately fifty students attended. In 2017, just 27 students were present.
Still, this year marked a sharp decline in attendance.
Moreover, unlike in previous years, no GA motions were submitted to the MSU by the March 13 deadline.
The low turnout raises questions as to whether the MSU sufficiently advertised GA, which is the main constitutionally-mandated meeting for students to pass motions affecting the entire student body.
MSU speaker Elizabeth Wong said that many channels were used to promote GA, including social media pushes, text messages and posters and banners in public spaces.
However, Student Representative Assembly social science caucus leader Fawziyah Ali said that promotion this year was less effective than in previous years.
“In terms of Facebook promotion, poster promotion, I don’t think it was as advertised as it could be, so people didn’t know that it was happening,” Ali said. “There should have been better promotion, because MSU GA is an important event, especially to bridge that gap between the MSU and students.”
Student engagement with the MSU, particularly regarding elections, has been relatively positive this year, with a record number of students running in the SRA general elections and increased candidate turnout for first-year council elections.
These increases in MSU engagement have been largely attributed to improved promotion efforts from the MSU.
This year, the GA event page on Facebook page was created only one night before the event, and a total of 164 students were invited.
For comparison, last year’s event page included 212 invitations and was created more than a week in advance.
GA has hit quorum before, most recently in 2015 and 2012. While this was largely due to the boycott, divestments and sanctions motion in 2015, the high attendance in 2012 is considered to have been the result of an extensive promotion campaign run by the board of directors.
“It’s not like you want contentious issues to happen so people come out. That’s not at all what it is. You hope that there are no contentious issues, but there is always something to talk about,” Ali said.
Vania Pagniello, an incoming SRA representative, noted there may still be a significant gap when it comes to educating students about how GA works and why it is important.
“I think the average student doesn’t even know what a motion is,” Pagniello said.
Ali speculates that students may also be looking to non-MSU networks, such as the Hamilton Student Mobilization Network, to raise awareness of social issues.
“I think there’s some disenchantment in terms of students and their relationship to the MSU,” said Ali.
Until more is done, it seems that GA will continue to be an under-utilized tool for effecting change on campus.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Neda Pirouzmand
One of the key issues that the MSU points out in the “Health and Wellness” policy paper is that referrals from the Student Wellness Centre are not tailored to the needs of students.
The MSU suggests that the SWC neglects to account for how students will reach community referrals or how much it will cost them.
The policy paper brings forward a number of recommendations to combat these issues, proposing the SWC connect with MSU peer support services to provide support for McMaster’s diverse student population.
The MSU also recommends that the SWC offer harm reduction services and feedback opportunities to students.
The policy paper also includes recommendations for other university stakeholders, suggesting that professors and teaching assistants be required to undergo mental health first aid training.
According to this policy paper, McMaster off-campus resource centre resources are underused by students. The OCRC has not posted on Facebook since April 2017.
Another issue is that demand is overtaking supply in the student housing market. The quantity and quality of available housing opportunities is on the decline.
In light of these issues, the MSU recommends the city of Hamilton to proceed with its proposed investment of $347,463 to hire three full-time employees for a two-year rental licensing pilot project beginning in 2019 to annually inspect buildings in Hamilton.
The MSU also suggests that McMaster seek more public-private partnerships to improve the supply of nearby student housing.
This policy paper first notes that McMaster has a ten year plan to make its campus “car free,” which would reduce accessibility by moving the HSR bus stop from University and Sterling Street to the McMaster Go bus station.
According to the paper, another accessibility concern lies in the fact that most McMaster professors neither consider nor actively incorporate strategies and recommendations outlined in McMaster’s accessibility resources.
The paper also points out that learning materials are often inequitable and the university has significant work to do when it comes to promoting and implementing accessible pedagogy.
The MSU puts forward a number of recommendations to improve the university’s accessibility practices.
The paper argues that all professors teaching in rooms fitted for podcasting should post podcasts and use accessible formats for supplementary class material.
In addition, the paper suggests that intramurals reduce their pre-playoff participation requirement from 50 to 30 per cent, as students with disabilities may not be able to make all games.
According to the paper, student accessibility services should have an open catalogue for student notes, where students in need would not be limited to resources from one student.
The dominant issue highlighted in this policy paper is the fact that faculty staff and many student groups do not receive mandatory anti-oppressive practices training.
In addition, according to the paper, McMaster Security Services has been involved in the excessive carding and racial profiling of students.
Another issue concerns the fact that there exists no record-keeping system of student demographics in relation to enrollment and dropout rates by faculty.
Students are also largely unaware of the McMaster Religious, Spiritual, and Indigenous Observances policy.
Some recommendations in the paper call for McMaster to explore alternative enrollment application streams for underrepresented groups.
The paper also suggests that applicants looking for research funding from Mcmaster identify how their research will appeal to or account for marginalized populations.
According to the paper, McMaster should mandate equity and diversity requirements for all undergrads.
Chairs of hiring committees, security staff, teaching assistants and faculty members should undergo mandatory AOP training.
Another recommendation calls for the EIO to investigate carding and racial profiling trends centered around McMaster Security Services.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Rida Pasha
I am a first-year student who wasn’t aware of the Student Representative Assembly until just a few months ago. I am not alone in this experience.
Many first-year students only became aware of the presence of the SRA after the recent election campaign, with posters plastered around campus.
It is not news that it is difficult to find clear information about what the SRA does as the supposed voice of McMaster University students. There are plenty of upper years that are still oblivious to the SRA’s workings, so imagine being a first-year and all of sudden receiving dozens of Facebook notifications to like election pages and vote for certain candidates.
If you go to the McMaster Students Union website and search the SRA, you’re met with a very vague explanation of what this assembly does, and to someone who knows little to nothing about how their meetings work, it can be very confusing.
As first-year students make up a large percentage of the McMaster population, it is essential that the SRA increases its engagement with these students, especially considering that many are simply unaware of the function of student governance at McMaster.
This engagement should begin at the beginning of the school year at many students’ most memorable time of university, Welcome Week.
Welcome Week is dedicated to making first-year students feel comfortable and aware of the different clubs, services, resources and events available on campus.
The SRA should be heavily involved in Welcome Week so that first-year students at least have the opportunity to learn the basics of student governance and politics.
Not only would this be a great way for students to understand that the SRA works to improve the experience of all students, but it is also an excellent way for SRA members to build connections and truly represent the student body.
However, it can’t just stop there. While there needs to be more interaction between SRA members and all students, first-year students should be specifically targeted because they are a demographic that is often not given enough attention.
While upper-year students are at least able to have fellow SRA members in their years support and speak on their behalf, most first-year students are left out of the picture since apart from the few first-year representatives, rarely any first-year students attend assembly meetings.
Though all students have the opportunity to speak at a meeting in order to bring up an issue, what is the likelihood that the average first-year student is confident enough to speak up at a meeting with 35 upper-year students ready to debate, let alone know that the SRA is a service that they can turn to?
It is important that first-year students recognize that the decisions the SRA makes impact us the most. These are decisions that may directly affect us not just for this year, but for years to come.
Many SRA members will be graduating in one to two years so the decisions made won’t be affecting them later on. But as first-year students will likely be here for another three or four years, we need to be made aware of the issues, topics and decisions that are being made.
It is time that the SRA finds better ways to reach the students they are representing. While the SRA mailing list is a start in updating students, more has to be done.
This engagement has to go beyond emails and become a more interactive experience with first-year students that remains consistent throughout the year.
So for the newest elected members of the 2019-2020 SRA term, what will you do to build a connection with first-year students?
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
A record 79 candidates were vying for a position on the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly general elections, which ended last Monday.
Seventy-nine candidates competed for 31 SRA seats across all faculties, the highest number ever.
Last year, there were just 41 candidates running for 31 seats. Two years ago, there were 50 candidates.
The highest number of candidates came from the SRA science and SRA social science faculties.
Twenty-five candidates ran for seven seats for science, while 16 candidates ran for five seats in social science.
In 2018, there were just nine and five candidates for the science and social science faculties.
Candidate turnout was higher than last year for other faculties as well.
SRA commerce had eight candidates running for four seats this year compared to five candidates last year, and the arts and science faculty had four nominees running for one seat compared to one nominee last year.
Voter turnout was markedly high as well. Twenty per cent of undergraduate students, or a total of 4283, voted in the SRA generals election, a dramatic increase from last year’s election, which saw 1064 voters.
Several current SRA members and winning candidates attributed the increase in candidate turnout to more effective advertising from the McMaster Student Union elections department this year, made up of chief returning officer Uwais Patel and deputy returning officer Emily Yang.
“This year, the CRO and DRO did a really good job in doing outreach. It was a lot of promotion, and it was faculty-specific promotion as well,” said Tasneem Warwani, current SRA arts and science representative.
“I think what they did really well was reach out to SRA members to ensure that they were reaching out to their constituents,” said Devin Roshan, current SRA health sciences representative.
One new initiative the elections team took on this year was sending faculty-specific emails directly to students to remind them of nomination deadlines and how many seats were available.
“On the MSU pages, social media-wise, I saw more promotion about it,” said third-year social sciences student Allie Kampan, who won an SRA seat. “More people were aware of it this year.”
Some faculties also tried to host more faculty-specific events encouraging students to run. For example, the social science caucus ran an event where they handed out nomination forms.
“I think the SRA reps made it more approachable this year,” Kampman said. “There’s a stigma around a lot of MSU things, specifically SRA, which is that it’s unapproachable.”
Roshan pointed out that increased turnout also comes from regular efforts through the year to educate students on issues and what the SRA is doing.
The health sciences election this year featured eight candidates for two positions, building off seven candidates last year after just two in 2017.
Students entering post-secondary education may also be becoming more interested in politics.
“Looking at the first years specifically, in my interactions I’ve had with them, they’re very passionate about getting involved,” Warwani said.
First year council elections this year featured a record high of 54 candidates running for sixteen positions.
Not all faculties saw a rise in candidate turnout. Humanities had only three nominees, meaning all three available seats were acclaimed. There were just two nursing nominees for one seat and four kinesiology nominees for two seats. SRA engineering also had just eight candidates for six available seats.
All of these faculties have struggled to put forth nominees in recent years, with seats often being acclaimed.
According to incoming SRA engineering representative Hawk Yang, one possible reason for the typically low candidate turnout is that the engineering faculty has a prominent engineering society, which often overshadows SRA engineering initiatives.
Nonetheless, as evidenced by the SRA statistics, the MSU is still seeing refreshingly high interest in student government this year.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Nominations for spring 2019 valedictorians closed on March 4. Interviews with the selection committee are taking place until March 29, with decisions releasing in early April.
In total, the spring 2019 convocation will consist of 11 valedictorians, one for each convocation ceremony, with representation from McMaster University’s different faculties and programs.
Historically, the valedictorian is the student with the highest ranking amongst their graduating class, where highest ranking is determined by grade point average. This student is expected to deliver a closing statement at their graduation ceremony.
While valedictorians are still required to deliver a farewell remark, the definition has greatly changed. According to the McMaster Students Union, valedictorians are graduating students who “best represents the student community at McMaster University.”
In regards to grades, valedictorians are only required to have an average of at least 7.0 in their last academic year, or as their cumulative average.
While this definition does not appear to be problematic, and in fact makes the title more inclusive, the selection process for valedictorians does not reflect this positive change.
To be nominated for valedictorian, students must complete a lengthy valedictorian nomination package. This includes signatures from at least three members of the graduating student’s respective faculty, a two-page letter outlining why the student is best suited for the valedictorian title, a copy of their curriculum vitae or resume and two letters of reference, one academic and one work or volunteer related.
The requirements of this package already discriminates against students who do not have the time to thoroughly complete it. Especially considering the horrible job the MSU did in advertising valedictorian nominations, many students did not have time to complete their applications despite the nomination period opening on Jan. 28.
One of the largest issue with Mac’s valedictorian process is the selection committee itself. While the committee is comprised of both faculty and students, the student representation on the committee is severely lacking.
According to the valediction information package, the student representation consists of students from the Student Representative Assembly and MSU members appointed by the MSU vice president (Education).
Although this means that the selection committee may contain students from the graduating class, the seats on the selection committee were also poorly advertised.
The poor advertising for seats on the selection committee and the actual nomination period does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of only individuals within the MSU bubble being aware and taking advantage of these opportunities.
It makes no sense why faculty members especially are allowed to determine who best represents students. Even the few selected students on the selection committee are not a good representation of the student community, but rather, a representation of those few already involved in the MSU.
If the university truly wanted to elect valedictorians who best represents the student community at McMaster, and not just the MSU bubble, they would allow the graduating student community to vote for their representative through an election.
If an election were to occur, students would have the opportunity to pick who they’d like to have speak at their convocation. Students could run based on whatever merits they feel they possess, rather than those arbitrarily set out by the selection committee.
Perhaps the winning valedictorian isn’t the most “involved” student, but their actions and character make them somebody that their fellow peers opt to vote-in.
As it stands, the selection committee for valedictorian focuses on “McMaster and/or community involvement”, which is listed as involvement in student groups, student support, student government and community involvement. Of the listed examples, almost all have some relation to the MSU.
Being valedictorian shouldn’t equate to being the ideal and involved MSU member. It should, as their definition states, be an accurate reflection of the diverse student community at McMaster.
Beyond the title and delivering a five-minute speech at convocation, valedictorians don’t receive anything. Personally, I don’t see the point of having valedictorians. It’s pretty much impossible to have a single student be truly representative of their entire faculty.
But if the university wishes to keep the tradition, they ought to do a better job of ensuring that whoever gets the accolade is supported by the graduating class.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Brian Zheng
Since I started at McMaster University in 2014, I’ve been involved with the McMaster Students Union, from involvement with a presidential campaign to eventually being elected on the Student Representative Assembly. I quit the SRA six months in.
When I started, I was handed several documents to help me understand the MSU and my role within it. Even after two training sessions and reading multiple documents, I still didn’t have a clear understanding of the possibilities within my role.
This is due to the sheer volume of functions the MSU oversees. The MSU consists of over 30 different business units and services, along with individual committees that address issues affecting the 20,000+ undergraduate students represented by the union.
Along with this, there are 35 student representatives from each faculty that make up the SRA. These students are elected each year, based hopefully on their platform points.
With the diversity of functions that exist within the MSU, keeping track of the hundreds of members involved is more than a full-time job; hence, the existence of four full-time student jobs, the board of directors, dedicated to managing all these portfolios.
So, if a potential SRA candidate wants to grasp this wealth of information, it would require them to sift through an incredibly disorganized website, spend hours reading jargon-riddled meeting minutes and likely set-up meetings with a few SRA members.
It’s no secret that the SRA struggles with transparency. The point is, it is not easy to disseminate information about the MSU, let alone in a format that’s easily digestible by students.
But is this the reason why candidates continuously repeat previous or unfeasible platform points? I don’t think so.
The reason why the average student doesn’t understand the MSU has little to do with the disorganization of the information. Instead, students’ lack of awareness is due to the existence of the elitist culture rampant within the SRA.
During my time involved with the MSU, I’ve noticed several condescending statements released both publicly and privately ridiculing the SRA candidate pool.
For example, a current SRA member, on their public twitter stated, “If I hear extended library hours as a platform point one more time I’m gonna lose it”.
In a separate instance, during last year’s SRA elections, another heavily-involved MSU member wrote as their Facebook status, “Lol, @SRA candidate saying that the MSU should make job descriptions, we are doomed”.
These are only a few public statements made by elected members that dramatically contribute to the MSU bubble that many of the same individuals supposedly ran to help dissolve.
After releasing these statements, SRA members had the audacity to wonder why such a limited number of candidates reached out to consult their platform points.
It is important to note that while these factors alone don’t contribute to the unapproachability of the SRA, the public ridicule of students aspiring to volunteer their time is equivalent to schoolyard bullying and needs to stop.
While it is more than possible to develop comprehensive platform points without the help of current and previous assembly members, it is so much more difficult given the overwhelming disorganization of the available information.
Unfortunately, not everyone has the time to sort through the disorganized mess. The inaccessibility of this information can be easily tested by simply trying to figure out where to find the most recent SRA meeting minutes.
Candidates aren’t reaching out, not because they don’t want to, but because the assembly does not appear to be an approachable group. The MSU does not reflect the welcoming environment that it boasts, and as a result, candidates are more likely to run on limited information. Hence, the epidemic of repeated and unfeasible platform points.
Over the years, I have constantly heard the notion that the lack of student engagement within the MSU is a result of apathy on the student end. Maybe it’s about time the assembly made it worth students’ time.
Halfway through my term, I left my seat on the SRA. This was not because I couldn’t learn about the organization, but because I didn’t feel like being ridiculed for not knowing.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Abi Sudharshan
On Feb 3 at 5 p.m, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly convened for the second time since the Ontario government announced major changes to the Ontario Student Assistance Program and tuition framework.
In the first portion of the meeting, MSU president Ikram Farah took to the floor to address the issue. According to Farah, by the end of this week, the MSU and university administration expect to see the release of an exact breakdown of affected ancillary fees.
Farah says this expected announcement will guide the MSU’s response moving forward.
During the delegation, Farah highlighted the MSU’s current campaign to mobilize students through promoting an understanding of the effects that these changes will have on McMaster students.
Ikram encouraged the assembly disseminate information regarding the impact and importance of MSU-funded services.
Stephanie Bertolo, MSU vice president (Education) noted a modest victory thus far: initially removed, transit passes have been re-included in the list of mandatory fees under the Ontario government’s student choice initiative.
The SRA meeting also focused heavily on updates on the construction of the Student Activity Building, a four-story building that is projected to feature a grocery store, study spaces, a multi-faith prayer space and a nap room.
According to MSU vice president (Finance) Scott Robinson, the SAB has experienced a minor setback.
Quotes by companies regarding materials and services for the SAB came back much higher than the original 2016-17 projections.
The past four months have been spent negotiating to bring the project back within the parameters of the viable budget.
Initially, construction for the SAB was slated to begin in October.
Robinson reported that these decisions are to be solidified shortly and that the construction of this student space will begin construction in March 2019.
This will likely mean that the SAB is not in full operation by the fall of 2020 as promised.
Apart from these two primary items, much of the meeting was allotted to the opening and closing of seats on the MSU services, university affairs and elections committees.
Another message stressed the meeting was the importance of ensuring that the SRA maintains a respectful environment and allows all voices to flourish.
The next SRA meeting will held at 5 p.m. on Feb 24 in Room 111 of Gilmour Hall.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
One of the biggest talking points that most candidates make when running for a seat on the Student Representative Assembly is transparency. The word has been tossed around so much that it has basically become a buzzword. But transparency is more than just a talking point; it’s an incredibly important behaviour that the SRA needs to adopt.
During the SRA meeting on Jan. 20, the SRA discussed how they can make their assembly more survivor-centric. Namely, a motion was passed to task the vice president (Administration), in collaboration with the sexual violence response coordinator Meaghan Ross, to develop an amendment to the constitution which includes an emergency response procedure for sexual violence.
This occurred after an SRA member was accused of engaging in sexual assault and another member supported that member. As of now, the SRA cannot ask these members to step down from their positions, only suggest that they should.
The proposed changes to the constitution could allow the SRA to remove such members from their assembly. This is important news in support of survivors, but unfortunately this information has not been made widely available.
Navigating the SRA website is far from an easy task. While the interface itself is user-friendly, information is difficult to find. For example, one would think that meeting minutes from SRA meetings would be listed under SRA minutes but this webpage only contains broken links from April 2018. The actual minutes from SRA meetings are posted under SRA documents amidst other documents and memos.
The minutes themselves are lengthy and filled with unfamiliar jargon that the average student should not be expected to know. This length and volume leads to the vast majority of students not reading the minutes and remaining unaware of the changes that are occurring within the university.
Beyond the content of the minutes, it is also unclear when the meeting minutes are posted. Two weeks ago, on Jan. 9, I was searching for the Jan. 6 meeting minutes, found nothing, and was forced to watch the hour-long livestream to understand what happened.
Though the Jan. 6 meeting minutes are posted now, they are posted under the Jan. 20 heading. I’m not sure when they were posted considering that nowhere on the SRA site do they state when they post meeting minutes after each meeting. Students should not be expected to consistently check the site or watch hours of livestream footage to stay informed.
Instead, minutes should be posted as soon as they are available. A three-day turnaround seems more than reasonable.
If the meeting minutes take long to post, at the very least the SRA or its individual caucuses should create summary documents for students to review. These documents can forgo the jargon and essentially list the important details that were discussed.
Students interested for more information can then consult the meeting minutes, or better yet, review a transcript of the livestream, which remain available to view after the meetings occur. I understand that it is difficult to transcribe a live meeting however, in the interests of accessibility, SRA meetings should be transcribed afterwards to allow individuals who require accommodations the ability to access the livestream videos.
Moreso, when watching the Jan. 20 livestream, a comment was made that some of the information that was discussed would not be included in the meeting minutes. There must be a reason — not all comments made are deemed important enough to include in the minutes — but if the SRA would like to be considered transparent, these comments should be made available for students to interpret on their own. A transcript of the meetings could provide this transparency.
This is not the first time that the SRA has been called out for its lack of transparency. As a governing body that is meant to represent the entire student body of McMaster University, the SRA has a responsibility to do better. The SRA is making some important, positive changes for the university — if only students were aware.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
