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 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 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 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 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