MINUTES B&P SRA STANDING COMMITTEE ON BYLAWS & PROCEDURES Friday, September 27, 11:30 am MSU Committee Room (GH 201fa)

Transcription

1 MINUTES B&P SRA STANDING COMMITTEE ON BYLAWS & PROCEDURES Friday, September 27, 11:30 am MSU Committee Room (GH 201fa) Call to Order at 11:35 a.m. CALL OF THE ROLL Present Absent Excused Absent Late Others Present Chair Kristine Dicenzo (SRA Member), Naomi Pullen (SRA Member), Eric Gillis (SRA Member) Arnav Agarwal (MSU Member), Sarah Kanko (MSU Member), Ryan Sparrow (SRA Member) Jess Bauman (Administrative Assistant), Maria Daniel (MSU Speaker) Gabriel Jeyasingham (SRA Bylaws and Procedures Commissioner) ANNOUNCEMENTS & REPORTS 1. Committee Involvement Jeyasingham stated that committee members may add anything they wish to discuss to the agenda. If it cannot be discussed during one meeting, it will be discussed during the next meeting. 2. Meeting Cancellation Jeyasingham stated that the B&P meeting scheduled for October 4, 2013 is cancelled. 3. Constitutional Amendment Jeyasingham stated that the committee will work on Constitutional amendments throughout the year in order to avoid making rushed decisions. The amendments will either be sent to referendum during the Presidential election in 2015, or will be left to next year s B&P committee to review as they see fit.

2 MSU SRA Bylaws & Procedures Committee Meeting Minutes (27 September 2013) BUSINESS 1. Approve Minutes from B&P (17 September 2013) There was no discussion on the minutes from B&P Moved by Jeyasingham that the SRA Standing Committee on Bylaws and Procedures approve the minutes for B&P (17 September 2013), as circulated. In Favour: 4 Opposed: 0 Abstentions: 0 MOTION PASSES 2. Discussion: Lobbying Organization Bylaws Jeyasingham that the SRA Standing Committee on Bylaws and Procedures explained the reasons for reviewing these bylaws, as explained in the memo that was circulated. He stated that there were many minor changes as well as one major change. The major change would be having students at-large decide whether to leave or join a lobbying organization, rather than having the SRA make that decision. The committee discussed having students or the SRA make the decision on leaving or joining a lobbying organization. Dicenzo asked how other universities make this decision. She pointed out that UofT has students make this type of decision. o Bauman explained that it usually depends on the type of lobbying organization. For the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), each and every student is a member. However, for OUSA and CASA, the McMaster Students Union is a member rather than each McMaster student. For example, the CFS fee would appear as a separate independent fee for each student, while the OUSA and CASA fees are allocated from the MSU operating fund. Bauman stated that schools typically make this type of decision based on whether the fee is directly paid by students or not. Gillis asked if both the SRA and the students could have the authority to make this decision. o Jeyasingham clarified that this is already the case under the current bylaws, since students always have the right to call a referendum on any issue or bring a motion to the General Assembly. The results of a referendum are binding on the SRA. For example, if a referendum initiated by students or initiated by the SRA on leaving OUSA is passed, the SRA is forced to leave OUSA. o Bauman stated that having the 2/3 majority vote by the SRA to leave or join a lobbying organization is there as an intermediate mechanism, since the SRA is the representative body of students at McMaster. 2

3 MSU SRA Bylaws & Procedures Committee Meeting Minutes (27 September 2013) Jeyasingham clarified that the discussion is on taking away the SRA s authority to make this type of decision, since students will always have the authority to make this decision. Jeyasingham asked whether there were any pros and cons to having only students make this decision. o Pullen stated that a pro would be since this is student money, the decision should be made by students. However, Pullen stated that students should not have to necessarily take on the burden of learning about these organizations and making an informed decision. o Jeyasingham stated that the MSU operates under a representative democracy in order to act on behalf of students, and that leaving this decision solely to students would defeat the purpose of the SRA. Gillis stated that both bodies should be able to make the decision. Jeyasingham summarized that the committee appeared to support the idea of having both bodies be able to make this decision, rather than just students at-large. Bauman suggested making it clear in a subsequent draft that, even if the SRA can make this decision, students will always have the right to make this decision through referendum or through the General Assembly. 3. Discussion: General Assembly Bylaw Jeyasingham stated that he would explain the General Assembly (GA) bylaw section-by-section and stop at points that generate discussion. Jeyasingham first explained Section 1 Purpose. The purpose of this bylaw is to lay out the procedures for GA and also outline the roles of different individuals or groups in planning, organizing and executing GA meetings. Jeyasingham explained that Section 2 The General Assembly was mostly taken from the Constitution. The definition clause, The GA shall be a governing body of the MSU with no specific mandate was phrased that way to ensure that the SRA does not force a particular mandate upon GA, which is supposed to be for the students. Jeyasingham explained that Section 3 The General Assembly Planning Committee was there to ensure some students are involved in the organization and planning of GA, and to ensure that GA would not simply become a function of the executive. The committee discussed Section 3 The General Assembly Planning Committee. Jeyasingham clarified that, according to the Duties sub-section of Section 3, this committee would oversee the planning of GA and set the vision for that year. The actual execution of the meeting would be the responsibility of those involved (e.g. The Speaker for running the meeting; the CRO for helping ensure voting is conducted appropriately; the PR Department for helping with advertisement; etc.). 3

4 MSU SRA Bylaws & Procedures Committee Meeting Minutes (27 September 2013) Gillis asked why the Communications Officer is not on the list of committee members. o Jeyasingham explained that the committee was small to ensure efficiency. The SLDC is already on the committee, and the Communications Officer reports to the SLDC. o Bauman advised to have it read, The Student Life Development Coordinator, or designate to ensure flexibility in case in the future the Communications Officer or another member of the PR Department is more appropriate for the role. Gillis argued that the President should be on the committee. He stated that, historically, the President has only promoted and organized GA effectively if they took the initiative to do so. He stated that the GA should be above the President and its organization and promotion shouldn t depend on the degree to which the President took initiative. o Pullen stated that the President would simply organize GA and not influence the content of a GA meeting. She stated that the purpose of this GA Planning Committee would be to ensure that the President puts effort into organizing and promoting GA. Jeyasingham stated that this committee has two purposes: firstly, it ensures that the MSU puts the effort necessary to achieve a basal level of organization and promotion of GA meetings; secondly, it ensures that a structure exists in case quorum for the GA meeting is a goal for that year. He stated that this committee would address the issue of GA promotion being entirely dependent on the President s initiative. Gillis argued that the President is under the GA, and that a politicized position under the GA should not be planning it. He stated that the President could have the motive to put little effort into advertising and organizing GA if the President doesn t agree with motions or issues that are brought forward to GA meetings. o Pullen stated that she understood the concern that the President or the committee may catch wind of a motion they disagree with and may then decide to put little work in advertising GA. She stated that the GA Planning Committee would normally not allow this to happen because they are accountable to the SRA and because they would be going against this bylaw. o Daniel advised that there was a difference between planning or organizing and influencing the content of a GA meeting. She stated that the job of the President would be to ensure that an avenue like GA is present for members of the MSU. Dicenzo asked whether or not the GA Planning Committee could bring a list of motions to the SRA for approval in order to address this issue. Daniel clarified that students atlarge have control over what motions are brought to the GA meetings, and that this proposed committee or the SRA would not have control over that. Bauman argued that the President represents the entire MSU membership and should be the one leading the planning and organization of GA meetings. o Gillis said that the President being chair of the committee is appropriate, but was opposed to the President having voting rights. He stated that he would not change his opinion on the issue. 4

5 MSU SRA Bylaws & Procedures Committee Meeting Minutes (27 September 2013) Jeyasingham explained that Section 4 GA Meeting Preparation was there to formalize the procedures for calling GA meetings, organizing meeting agendas, and similar tasks. The committee discussed Section 4 GA Meeting Preparation. Bauman suggested changing the deadline for holding the annual meeting from by March 15 to by March 31. She said that having the deadline in the middle of the month may pose problems if the venue cannot be scheduled by the deadline. Gillis suggested having a window of time within which the GA meeting must be held, such as between March 1 and March 31. o Bauman advised that the bylaw should allow for flexibility and that the GA meeting should not be restricted to a particular month, particularly since March may not be the opportune time for GA. Jeyasingham said the committee could look into adding a clause that allows for exceptions in case it is impossible for the GA meeting to be scheduled by the deadline mandated in the bylaw. Jeyasingham explained that the purpose of Section 5 GA Meeting Procedure was similar to procedures for the SRA, but with some alterations to suit GA meetings. The committee discussed Section 5 GA Meeting Procedure. Jeyasingham explained the main and alternative voting procedures outlined in Section 5 of the proposed bylaw. Gillis proposed having meetings live-streamed and allowing for voting online. o Jeyasingham asked how that would make GA different from a referendum. Gillis said that it would not be much different from a referendum, since GA has always been like a small referendum. o Pullen said that it was an interesting idea, but that GA was supposed to provide an open forum for debate. She stated that even just live-streaming would be a great idea. o Daniel mentioned the concern of only allowing MSU members to vote online. Jeyasingham explained that he would use this feedback to revise the GA bylaw draft and then the committee, Board of Directors, and full-time staff for more feedback. He stated he would then revise the draft again, and bring it back to the committee for further discussion. TIME OF NEXT MEETING Friday, October 11, 11:30 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:22 p.m. /gj 5

6 AGENDA B&P SRA STANDING COMMITTEE ON BYLAWS & PROCEDURES Friday, September 27, 11:30 am MSU Committee Room (GH 201fa) PROCEDURE Call of the Roll, Announcements & Reports, Business, New Business, Time of Next Meeting, Adjournment ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS 1. Committee Member Involvement 2. Meeting Cancellation 3. Constitutional Amendments ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Approve Minutes from B&P (17 September 2013) 2. Discussion: Lobbying Organization Bylaws (Prospective Bylaws 13, 13/A, 13/B) 3. Discussion: General Assembly Bylaw McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly MUSC 201F 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton srabylaws@msu.mcmaster.ca x27240

7 Draft 2.0 BYLAW X GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this bylaw is to define the General Assembly (GA) and consolidate the procedures for all its meetings. As well, this bylaw outlines the roles of those individuals responsible for the promotion and organization of GA meetings, including those of the GA Planning Committee. 2. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Definition 2.1 The General Assembly (GA) shall be a governing body of the MSU with no specific mandate; Authority 2.2 Any resolution made by a quorate GA shall be binding on the SRA and shall not lose its authority upon dissolution of that SRA; Membership 2.3 All MSU members and honorary MSU members shall be the voting members of the GA. 3. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLANNING COMMITTEE Voting Members Non-Voting Members 3.1 The GA Planning Committee shall consist of the following voting members: The President, who shall chair its meetings (non-voting?); One (1) SRA member; One (1) MSU member at-large. 3.2 The committee shall also consist of the following non-voting members: The Speaker; The Chief Returning Officer; The Administrative Assistant(s); The Student Life Development Coordinator, or designate. Appointment 3.3 The SRA shall appoint the GA Planning Committee by April 30 of each calendar year, and the committee shall dissolve at the end of March in the calendar year that follows; Quorum 3.4 Quorum for the GA Planning Committee shall be fifty percent (50%) of the voting members plus two (2) non-voting members; Commented [GJ1]: If we have the committee, should we continue having the President be in charge? Speaker? What happens if the SRA member or the MSU member, or both, doesn t put in their share of the work? A flaw in this model is that if people slack, the workload is shifted completely onto the President, which is unfair to the President. *Should people on the committee only consist of hired individuals? *Should the committee only consist of non-bod members? Should we even have a committee? If no committee, who should be in charge? - President? Speaker? A new hired part-time position? Also, remember that quorum isn t the be-all and end-all of GA. In my opinion, a successful GA = there are at least 36 engaged MSU members present who use GA as an opportunity to voice their opinions and contribute ideas to the MSU. This committee exists to not only ensure a bareminimum effort with GA, but to also provide a solid structure for the President to work with in case quorum is a goal for the year Commented [GJ2]: Are these members fine? This committee should not be too large for the sake of efficiency - Campus Events Director? Commented [GJ3]: The purpose of making quorum require at least 2 non-voting members is to ensure that consultation with full-time staff, etc. will always take place when making decisions about GA

8 Draft 2.0 Duties 3.5 The GA Planning Committee shall: Oversee all promotional and organizational efforts regarding meetings of the GA; Oversee the execution of GA meetings; Determine and cause to be scheduled the starting time, ending time, date, and location of all GA meetings; Determine the extent to which resources will be allocated to the promotion of a GA meeting, subject to the approval of the Executive Board; Report to the SRA regarding GA at least once before any GA meeting, and at least twice in the winter semester. Commented [GJ4]: The way I envisioned this, the committee would be responsible for hashing out the details and overseeing GA organization, etc. The committee would direct the execution, but the execution itself would be up to the people involved in running the meeting (Speaker, CRO, etc.) 3.6 Should the GA Planning Committee be unable to meet, the Executive Board shall carry out the GA Planning Committee s duties. 4. GA MEETING PREPARATION Calling Meetings Annual Meeting Other Meetings 4.1 All meetings of the GA shall be called by the Secretary, and shall be called for the times, dates, and locations specified by the GA Planning Committee; 4.2 The Secretary must annually call for one (1) GA meeting, to be held during business hours by March 15 of each academic year; the GA Planning Committee must determine the meeting time, date, and location by December 31 of the same academic year; 4.3 The Secretary must also call a GA meeting on resolution of the SRA; or at the call of the President; or in receipt of a petition of two percent (2%) of the MSU membership; The GA Planning Committee must determine the meeting time, date, and location within ten (10) business days of any of these occurrences; Any meeting time, date, or location specified by the SRA s resolution, the President s call, or the petition shall be binding on the GA Planning Committee and may only be altered if proven to be unfeasible or unreasonable; Unless otherwise specified by the SRA s resolution, the President s call, or the petition, the GA meeting must be held within forty-five (45) days of any of those occurrences and must be held during business hours within the academic year. Commented [GJ5]: What if we could only schedule it on March 16? *there needs to be a deadline, but what should it be? Commented [GJ6]: This is here to ensure that there is some forethought involved with GA. Is this too early of a deadline?

9 Draft 2.0 Public Notice 4.4 Public notice of any GA meeting must be given at least ten (10) school days in advance of the meeting to prevent quorum requirements from changing as per the Constitution; Agenda 4.5 Any member of the GA may submit a motion for the GA meeting agenda; 4.6 All motions for the GA meeting agenda and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Administrative Assistant(s) no later than noon (12:00 pm), four (4) business days prior to the meeting; copies of the agenda, motion sheet and supporting documentation shall be made public by the end of the next day; Commented [GJ7]: Is this enough time? Should it be longer? Meeting Cancellation 4.7 The SRA may cancel the annual GA meeting by majority affirmative vote if another GA meeting is held within the same academic year, and if public notice of the annual meeting has not yet been given. 5. GA MEETING PROCEDURE General Procedure 5.1 The Speaker shall preside over all GA meetings; 5.2 Except as otherwise defined in this bylaw, meetings of the GA shall be conducted according to procedures outlined in the current edition of Robert s Rules of Order Newly Revised; At least twenty-four (24) hours before each GA meeting, the Speaker shall make public to the MSU membership a brief explanation of these procedures. Quorum 5.3 Quorum for a GA meeting shall be three percent (3%) of the MSU membership or two hundred fifty (250) members, whichever is higher. 5.4 If public notice is not given at least ten (10) school days in advance of the meeting, quorum shall increase to ten percent (10%) of the MSU membership; Commented [GJ8]: Should we put an actual # of students that is required for quorum? Speaking Restrictions Starting/ Ending Times 5.5 No member may speak to a given motion more than three (3) times, and no member may speak for longer than five (5) minutes per speech; 5.6 A meeting of the GA shall start at its scheduled time despite an absence of quorum, and shall continue despite lapses in quorum; the official public minutes of the meeting shall indicate the specific timeframes during which quorum was achieved; 5.7 A meeting of the GA shall end when it is scheduled to end; however, the meeting may be extended by a majority vote of the GA;

10 Draft 2.0 Voting (Main) Voting (Alternative) 5.8 All voting shall be done electronically using the Poll Everywhere SMS application, as administered by the Elections Committee; 5.9 In the absence of electronic voting, voting shall be done by raising cards, and the result of a vote shall be recorded in the minutes as a clea r majority for or against the motion; If a vote does not result in a clear majority for or against the motion, as discernible by the Speaker and the recording secretary, the vote shall be redone by ballot; Ballots shall be counted by the Elections Committee within three (3) business days of the vote; Commented [GJ9]: Are there other voting systems that could work? Should we make this more broad (e.g. electronic voting system ) to allow flexibility? Other voting ideas: - iclickers Commented [GJ10]: why not have meetings livestreamed and have people who can t attend also be able to vote? Commented [GJ11]: Is this an appropriate alternate voting system? Results 5.10 The results of all business conducted during a GA meeting, including whether a given motion passed, failed, or went unresolved, shall be publicly announced within five (5) business days of the meeting; Unresolved Motions 5.11 Any motions on the agenda that are not considered by the GA due to time constraints, or are subject to affirmative vote by a non-quorate GA, shall be placed on the agenda in their exact wording for the next meeting of the SRA; Any such motion that, as worded, cannot be considered by the SRA, including any motion involving a change in student fees, shall be reworded such that it is approvable by the SRA and that the spirit of the motion is preserved. Commented [GJ12]: This gives a purpose to a nonquorate GA. If a student brings up a motion at a nonquorate GA, it will be put on the agenda for the SRA to consider. Minutes 5.12 The official minutes of a GA meeting shall be prepared and kept by the Secretary and shall be made public on the MSU website within fifteen (15) business days of the meeting; 5.13 Reports or other documents provided to the GA shall be annexed to the minutes of the meeting at which they were received.