On October 8 in the OISE auditorium, the UTSU Annual General Meeting convened with a great deal of anticipation. For the second year in a row, a vote to change the board structure of the student government representing all 47,000 full- and part-time undergraduate and professional faculty students was to take place, with two proposals hitting the floor for a vote.
The board structure proposal, put forth by Khrystyna Zhuk and Daman Singh, was elected by a margin of 607-529 with support from the vast majority of St. George campus students and their student governments. However, when it came to ratification of the new structure, the two-thirds majority which was needed was not achieved.
The major addition outlined in their proposal was the creation of six general equity director positions, to be elected by a university-wide electorate, as well as continued proportional representation for colleges and professional faculties.
“It’s a nice hybrid, making sure people who are connected to their college and the college itself, which has its own resources, are properly represented, as well as people who may not be connected with their college but can connect through these marginalized groups and general equity directors,” said VUSAC Co-President Gabriel Zoltan-Johan, speaking on the merits of the Zhuk/Singh proposal. Zoltan-Johan and his co-president, Benjamin Atkins, were involved in the proposal’s creation.
Through amendments on the floor, several new positions were added, including a vice president, professional faculties to sit on the executive committee, as well as both a mental wellness director and an international students’ issues director.
The competing proposal, put forward by Grayce Slobodian and otherwise known as Appendix B, would see the elimination of proportional representation among colleges and professional faculties, instead limiting them to one seat each.
This proposal would see the Mississauga campus representation increased from seven to eight seats, as well as the creation of 12 issue-specific constituency and equity directors.
Slobodian noted that UTM students would not be able to run for equity positions, and each of the eight UTM seats titles and portfolios would be decided within UTM student government.
In order for Appendix B to be ratified, a two-thirds majority was needed. After a great deal of procedural showboating, a common theme throughout the night, the proposal was put to a ratification vote. The vote failed by a margin of 562-445.
Despite the urgent need expressed by UTSU legal counsel to create a new board structure in order to meet new regulations under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, it was made clear that UTSU is not in danger of dissolving.
At an early four and a half hour mark, the UTSU Annual General Meeting came to a close, achieving nearly none of what it set out to do.
Motion 10 on the agenda, which would see a shift to computerized voting in UTSU elections if passed, was pulled from the agenda over accessibility concerns by Natalie Petra and Mathias Memmel, the proposers of the motion.
Despite the lack of productivity, some positive notes can be taken away from this year’s meeting.
“You’re actually seeing colleges, for whatever reason, getting a lot more excited about being involved in their union. They want to be a part of the UTSU…they want to make their voices heard, [and] they really want to affect positive change, social change, [and] structural change,” said VUSAC Co-President Ben Atkins in an interview.
