Sam Reynolds / McGill Tribune

Last week, the SSMU executive held a series of Town Halls to address General Assembly (GA) reform. Under a dozen students attended the Town Halls, which were intended to solicit feedback from and engage students in a discussion on various suggested changes to the GA. Most of the attendees were students already intimately involved in SSMU, who took the chance to discuss solutions to some of the key structural issues with the deliberative body of SSMU. The discussion included a debate on voting methods and on the possibility of suspending or simplifying Robert’s Rules of Order.

GA reform centres around the issue of facilitating and increasing student participation. The issue at the heart of attempts to simplify the GA is the voting method. There is no one time in which students can all attend a GA, nor is there a forum large enough to hold all of SSMU’s members, should they all be interested in attending the GA.

“While quorum is important, what’s really important [to me] is democracy: one person, one vote,” Zach Newburgh, former SSMU President, said. (Newburgh currently sits on the Tribune Publication Society’s Board of Directors.) 

Other members of the executive are nervous about a shift online, which could increase participation but would preclude any sort of debate.

 “I think the reality about a lot of proposals about moving things online is basically saying ‘I don’t think the GAs work and I don’t think we should have them,'” Arts Representative Jamie Burnett said.

Another discussion regarding the suspension of Robert’s Rules came down to a debate over sacrificing procedure in the interest of accessibility. Participants acknowledged that students find the rules of debate confusing and alienating, and suggestions ranged from handing out printed guides before the General Assembly to adopting a modified version of Roberts Rules to introducing differently coloured placards for “Yes” or “No” votes, as well as “Question” or even “I’m confused.” However, for Newburgh, having a structure like Robert’s Rules is important because it works as a mechanism to facilitate more respectful and orderly debate, which protects minorities in potentially heated debates.

“The minority, being people who are undecided and actually want to hear the debate, get lost in translation essentially … it happens every time,” Education Representative Kady Paterson said. “But Robert’s Rules is, to a certain extent, a good safeguard against that.”

At the same time, debate often finds itself bogged down in procedural issues that many members of the audience don’t understand. The onus of facilitating debate is placed on the Speakers of Council, Nida Nizam and Michael Tong. Many Town Hall participants made an effort to mention that this year’s Speakers are particularly good at striking a balance.

“I think, with all things procedural, we’re looking at that tension of how do we facilitate a process moving forward quickly, while making sure it doesn’t become a messy disaster,” Knight said.

VP External Joël Pedneault explained that the GA is a relatively new forum and flaws in its structure are in part due to the fact that the rules governing the body have been introduced piecemeal, and the current executive demonstrated a desire to move forward with   the reform process constructively.

“I think it’s time that we stopped to circulate [the] notion that the General Assembly is just this place where intimidation is rampant … it’ll become a self-fulfilling prophecy if people paint the GA as this place that people act disrespectfully to each other; I think it’s time to circulate the notion that this is the place for respectful direct democracy to happen on campus if you’re an undergraduate,” he said.

Reforms will be passed in council as part of broader changes in SSMU’s bylaws. Students can contribute to the discussion by filling out SSMU’s survey—accessible via Facebook—speaking to their faculty councilors, and attending further town halls (dates to be determined).

In the early hours of Friday morning, SSMU’s Legislative Council voted on two motions with huge implications for the future of the society. In a confidential session, the council voted in favour of signing a new Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the McGill administration, and voted against accepting the administration’s current lease proposal for the Shatner Building.

The MoA, which outlines the legal relationship between SSMU and the university, is up for renewal this year. The document contains a controversial section on the use of the McGill name by student groups. The result of last week’s vote to accept the document will effectively force up to 130 student associations who use ‘McGill’ in their name to rename and re-brand themselves.

McGill has sought to make changes to the names of student groups on campus since the 1990s. Their chief concerns with the explicit use of the McGill name by student groups, such as the McGill First Aid Service, are related to liability and reputation. The administration argues that it is often difficult for outsiders to tell whether a group is run by students or the university’s administration.

Morton Mendelson, Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning, expressed the administration’s viewpoint in an email to the Tribune.

“The administration is … responsible for ensuring that the McGill name continues to enjoy the same prestige that it currently does,” he wrote. “The primary beneficiaries of this are McGill students and alumni, because it is the ‘brand’ of McGill’s credentials, including degrees and transcripts, that we are protecting.”

There was strong student opposition to the MoA vote at council. Groups held signs reading ‘We are all McGill’—a tongue-in-cheek reference to Principal Heather Munroe-Blum’s email to faculty and students on Oct. 18. Many attendees voiced their concerns.

“We are McGill’s brand, and they want to try to protect it. This rationale makes sense if we’re in a corporation, but we’re in a university,” Josh Redel, president of the Engineering Undergraduate Society, said. “As soon as we lose this, we lose many of the things we fight for.”

“I feel kind of hoodwinked by my university, trying to take away the name McGill from tons of students who, like me, have done tons of effort to make this campus a better place in the name of McGill,” echoed Allan Cyrill, a former executive of the EUS.

In spite of overwhelming student opposition, councillors knew that the name use agreement they had reached was probably the best that they would be able to negotiate.  While this year’s MoA means the loss of the McGill name for many clubs, the current agreement represents an improvement in many ways over both the 2006 MoA and the administration’s initial offers. In the 2006 agreement, new clubs could not use ‘McGill’ in their names at all, and instead had to use ‘SSMU.’ Though many existing groups will have to rename themselves this year, they will have a number of name change options which include using the phrase ‘McGill Students.’ SSMU also fought to have the right to grandfather some names of historical importance and names which clearly imply that a group is student-run, like the McGill Debating Union. The administration will  provide $25,000 to help groups with the cost of having to undergo a name change, as some groups may have to change their official gear.

Maggie Knight, President of SSMU, and Emily Yee Clare, VP University Affairs of SSMU discussed the vote with the Tribune. As SSMU’s principal negotiators with the administration since June, they felt they had a personal stake in the motion and abstained from the vote, but discussed the major points the council saw in favour of voting for the MoA.

“It was sad,” Clare said of the atmosphere in the room following the vote, “especially because I think we’re all human. The sad thing is I think we agreed with … everything the gallery members said … but we still had to look at the implications of not signing it and looking at what fundamentally would be in the best interest for students.”

“I think we had to face the fact that it wouldn’t have been possible to renegotiate the MoA, specifically to do with the McGill name, without a substantial change in tactics or ideology on the part of the university,” Knight said. “We spent many long hours in negotiations … expressing to them every argument we’ve heard from our constituents and every argument we could think of trying to communicate just how important many groups feel like their names are.”

Importantly, the administration did not want to renew SSMU’s lease of the Shatner Building or of the SSMU Daycare (which is a separate entity from SSMU) until SSMU signed the MoA. The previous lease expired May 31, 2011, and SSMU is currently operating in Shatner without a legal agreement. The desire to secure a lease for Shatner was an important motivator for councillors to accept the MoA. By law, universities are only required to provide student societies with a room and a phone.

Council voted not to accept the lease as currently proposed. McGill offered to sign a 15-year lease and also wants to implement a new fee structure. Ultimately, the council found that current estimates of the long-term financial consequences would strain the society, according to Knight and Clare. Based on their calculations, signing the lease as it currently stands would have forced SSMU to increase student fees in the long term. SSMU would have been responsible for paying an increasing portion of the building’s utilities each year, which representatives of the society say would be unsustainable.

The administration wanted to sign all three documents, but Knight and Clare hope McGill will renegotiate the terms of the lease now that they have the council’s mandate to sign the MoA.

—Additional reporting by Carolina Millán Ronchetti

The fall referendum period continues this week, with questions that put the ongoing existence of QPIRG McGill and CKUT in jeopardy. This semester’s referendum questions are on whether the groups should continue to receive student funds and if said fees should cease to be opt-outable via Minerva and instead be refundable directly through each organization. The referendum period opened last Friday with steady campaigning by QPIRG and CKUT’s respective ‘Yes’ committees and was marked by the absence of campaigns by opposing ‘No’ committees.

Rebecca Tacoma, CEO of Elections McGill, noted that several students had expressed interest in forming a ‘No’ committee but that none had followed the steps to create one.

“I was kind of surprised—I was expecting ‘No’ committees,” Tacoma said. “We’re all aware of the opt-out campaigns, especially [against] QPIRG, that went on during the fall. It seemed there are some people who are willing to take the effort on getting the word out that they don’t agree, so I was surprised that there [aren’t] any.”

Opposing students may have decided to avoid campaigning as a strategic move, noted Alexandre Meterissian, board member of Conservative McGill, CEO of the Prince Arthur Herald, and participant of past opt-out campaigns.

“A lot of [Conservative McGill] members believe that if we fight this referendum, we will push QPIRG and CKUT to get their numbers out and they will be able to hit the quorum level that they need,” Meterissian said. “Ultimately if we vote, the ‘yes’ will probably win … so we think that strategically it would be much more intelligent if we just did not campaign.”

In a recent email, Tacoma addressed instances of illegal campaigning from students who support a ‘No’ answer to the referendum questions. Meterissian said he was surprised to hear of such campaigning and reiterated that members of Conservative McGill are abstaining from campaigning. Tacoma explained that the illegal campaigning consisted of a few Facebook groups that have now been closed.

“We wanted to make students aware that Elections McGill was not able to ensure that any of the information there is correct, or we aren’t able to ensure that they were campaigning in a fair spirit,” she said.

The groups posing the questions have mixed reactions towards the lack of official ‘No’ committees. Adam Wheeler and Camillia Elachqar, co-chairs of the QPIRG ‘Yes’ committee noted their disappointment with the illegal campaigning, but Niko Block, co-chair of the CKUT ‘Yes’ committee, emphasized the lack of official opposition as validation for CKUT.

“Ultimately, I think the fact that there is no ‘No’ committee is kind of demonstrative of the fact that students by and large recognize that even if they don’t listen to CKUT every day, it does offer an incredibly important service to the McGill and Montreal community,” Block said.

Last Thursday, at SSMU Council, many gallery members voiced their support for QPIRG and CKUT, and after much debate on the referenda’s intended changes to the opt-out system, SSMU voted to endorse QPIRG and CKUT.

Wheeler and Elachqar expressed their satisfaction at the SSMU endorsement and with student support at council.

“We’re so excited. We’re glad that students value [our] work and want to see it continue in the future,” Wheeler said. “That, to me, is more of a sign that we’re doing things right.”

The quorum for the fall referendum is 15 per cent of the students represented by SSMU, or 3,200 students. If quorum is not reached, both organizations may have to pose the question again in the winter referendum. Wheeler and Elachqar said they were confident quorum would be reached, but Block noted quorum was his “main concern.”

Tacoma encouraged all students to vote in the elections.

“It’s your school and you should have your say. It’s your student groups and your student fees, so I think it’s important to take the one minute that it takes to vote,” she said. “If [quorum] doesn’t reach 15 per cent, it doesn’t matter if the majority of people voted yes or no, it doesn’t count.”

Students can vote at https://ovs.ssmu.mcgill.ca/  Results will be announced on Thursday, Nov. 10 at 6:30 p.m. in Gerts.

Last Wednesday, SSMU hosted the inaugural Consultation Fair, a joint effort by SSMU, McGill faculty and administrators, and a number of other members of the McGill community.

The fair, initiated by the Working Group on Consultation and Communication, was designed to respond to calls for a more transparent administration and to address frustration over limited participation in important areas of student life. The event’s organizers hope that this was the first in a series of Consultation Fairs that will facilitate and improve communication between members of the McGill community in the coming years.

“[We] want to put an end to the belief that administrators [are unwilling] to listen,”  Provost Anthony Masi said in his introductory speech. “Today is the first step in … a continuing effort to get student voices on a variety of perspectives that will shape the direction McGill will pursue.”

The fair provided an opportunity for students to engage in face-to-face discussions with faculty, administrators, and representatives of various student services about what can be done to improve the student experience at McGill.

Participants divided in 10 discussion tables, covering a different topic each. Discussions ranged from Survey Evaluations and Food and Dining Services, to Students in the Strategic Research Plan.

Consultations were divided into three 15-minute sessions, allowing for rotation and participation in multiple discussions.

Dean of Students Jane Everett facilitated discussion at the Academic Advising table. Participants were particularly troubled by the indifference of academic advisors.

“Education students feel their concerns are … brushed off,” U1 EdUS Secondary Representative Latoya Belfon said. “Students come out feeling like a burden [to advisors].”

Other important issues included poor online publicity of available resources, and the need for advisors to have inter-faculty knowledge.

“Sometimes advisors don’t know enough about other faculties and students end up bouncing back and forth between advisors,” one U2 arts and science student said.

A proposed solution was the creation of peer advisor associations for each faculty. Making student advisors available to incoming and current undergraduates could release some of the pressure on academic advisors.

Director of Social Equity & Diversity Education Office Veronica Amberg facilitated consultation at the Diversity and Equity table. While McGill works hard to ensure that everyone has access to the same rights and services on campus, the consensus was that there is room for progress.

“The people who need the system the most are unable to access it […] and don’t necessarily have confidence in it,” SSMU Vice President University Affairs Emily Yee Clare said.

Participants expressed a desire for McGill to be known for its diverse and equal environment as much as for its achievements in academics and research.

“When people come to McGill, they know they cannot plagiarize, whether they read the university’s statement or not,” PGSS President Roland Nassim said. “It should be the same way for diversity and equity—people should perceive McGill as an inherently safe and respectful environment where some things simply aren’t appropriate.”

Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning Morton Mendelson chaired proceedings at the Freedom of Expression on Campus table.

Mendelson asked whether free expression at McGill—including picketing and pamphleting on campus—should be subject to substantive constraints.

“It’s very hard to draw a line if one wants to prohibit expression of certain viewpoints,” University Affairs General Secretariat Janina Grabs said. “I believe it should not be prohibited except if it is clearly targeting people who don’t want to have anything to do with it.”

McGill permits demonstrations on campus, provided that they don’t disturb the university’s day-to-day activities. Participants questioned why some noisy demonstrations, such as last spring’s vote mob, are tolerated while other peaceful protests, such as the recent Y-intersection student protest in support of MUNACA, are deemed ‘disruptive.’

“It’s difficult,” Mendelson said. “I get pushback from students about allowing certain activities […] but also for not allowing certain forms of expression.”

As the fair drew to a close,  many participants left pleased with how the consultations unfolded.

“I’m really happy with how the event turned out,” Grabs, who was instrumental in the organization of the fair, said. “I think it was a great opportunity for [a] better exchange of ideas.”

“A lot of students weren’t afraid to say how they really felt,”  U2 voice major and Music Undergraduate Students’ Association President Katie Larson said. “I think [the administrators] were very receptive.”

McGill students Joel Pedneault and Micha Stettin were exonerated Friday on charges of disrupting university activities due to their involvement in a demonstration in support of MUNACA on Oct. 11.

Pedneault, VP External of SSMU, and Stettin, Arts Representative to SSMU, were originally accused of violating two sections of the McGill Code of Student Conduct which included ‘disruption of university activities’ and ‘unauthorized presence.’

Both were cleared of any offences after an interview on Friday morning with Associate Dean of Arts Andre Costopoulos. Costopoulos found the evidence against them to be inadequate.

Stettin and Pedneault were both satisfied by the outcome.

“It was clear throughout the half hour interview that the evidence was patently false on numerous counts and deliberately selective and exaggerated where it described actual occurrences,” Stettin said in an email to the Tribune.

Pedneault had not been present at the demonstration. His name was mentioned in a report by McGill’s head of security to the associate dean, likely because he is a notable activist and supporter of the Mob Squad, the organization that planned the demonstration. Pedneault said he feels that the university had taken issue with the anti-administration stance of the demonstration.

“It’s almost as if [McGill security was] saying, ‘these people are guilty by association, so please be advised to go after them,'” Pedneault said. “I don’t think there’s any doubt as to why they decided to go after [us]. We’ve been in the media a lot to support labour rights on campus and speak out against the administration’s approach to labour relations.”

In the days following the announcement of the allegations, the claims received much attention from local media. On Oct. 25, Pedneault and Stettin appeared on CBC’s Daybreak Montreal to discuss the accusations.

While he wouldn’t comment on the specific incident, McGill’s Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning, Morton Mendelson, told the Tribune that expression of free speech is always permitted on campus, but that it must be done in an organized way so as to not disrupt the workings of the university.

“All kinds of opinions are welcomed on campus,” Mendelson said. “There are constraints, [however], on forms of expression. Bullhorns outside a building with classrooms, [for example], aren’t acceptable.”

“Permission is granted independent of the content, as long as the content is legal,” he said. “If there is a barbeque to promote cause A versus cause B, there is nothing taken into account that says ‘well, we agree with cause A but we don’t agree with cause B, so we’re going to let cause A hold a barbeque and cause B not.’ That’s not what we do at a university.”

Stettin disagreed with Mendelson’s comments.

 “The administration has a robust disdain for any freedom of speech and assembly directed against them and their interests,” he said.