February 2013 Board Package

University of Toronto

Students’ Union

Local 98, Canadian Federation of

Students

Board of Directors

Package #11

Wednesday, February 13,

2013

6:00pm

OISE 4414

NCA Credo for Ethical Communication Approved by the NCA Legislative Council in 1999 Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following principles of ethical communication: • We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication. • We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society. • We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages. • We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society. • We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators. • We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred. • We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice. • We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality. • We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences for our own communication and expect the same of others. This portion of www.natcom.org is managed by Jennifer Peltak. If you have suggestions or additions, please contact her directly. NCA: 1765 N Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036; 202- 464-4622; 202-464-4600 (fax) Source: http://www.natcom.org/policies/External/EthicalComm.htm (1/19/2005 8:24:42 PM)

!!

NB: Vacant seats and non-voting members are not listed. Last updated: 2012-11-15 !

Board of Directors, University of Toronto Students’ Union LAST NAME FIRST NAME CONSTITUENCY or POSITION

! Ackbarali ! Arif ! Baig ! Bello ! Bollo-Kamara ! Brown ! Buttrey ! Chester ! Choksi ! Cudjoe ! Delwar ! Ding ! Easterbrook ! Emadi ! Farah ! Gallipoli ! Gamponia ! Gobert ! Guo ! Hassan ! Havili ! He ! Henry ! Jadidzadeh ! Khan ! Kurusamy ! Levy ! Lomax ! Lunianga ! Mathur ! Mitchell ! Pardhan ! Pecoskie-Schweir ! Phan ! Qu ! Saafan ! Sajjad ! Scott ! Seto ! Shepherd ! So ! Staibano ! Ulaganathan ! Unnithan ! Zhang

Fazia Nabil Noor Ali Mustafa Yolen Cullen Michael Laurel Madiha Abigail Mo Jonathan Gregory Yasmeen Farhia Alessia Stephanie Shak Grace Dania Hassan Chen Ella Eric Khalid Gowthaman Mark Virginia Kevin Sanchit Calvin Fatema Kassandra Helen Kathleen Ro’a Munib Corey Seann Shaun Agnes (Wing Yan) Anthony Nimalan Vijay Will (Wenhao)

Woodsworth College University of Toronto Mississauga Vice-President Equity New College Vice-President Campus Life St. Michael’s College Toronto School of Theology New College St. Michael’s College Vice-President External Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Medicine Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education Woodsworth College University College Faculty of Nursing Faculty of Music Victoria College UTMSU Representative University of Toronto Mississauga University of Toronto Mississauga University of Toronto Mississauga Faculty of Law Transitional Year Program New College Victoria College University of Toronto Mississauga University College Arts & Science At-Large Faculty of Engineering Trinity College Woodsworth College University of Toronto Mississauga Professional Faculty At-Large St. Michael’s College University of Toronto Mississauga Vice-President University Affairs Vice-President Internal & Services Faculty of Pharmacy President Innis College Faculty of Dentistry Arts & Science At-Large Professional Faculty At-Large Faculty of Engineering

AGENDA Meeting of the Board of Directors of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Wednesday, February 13, 2013 | 4:00pm | OISE 4414 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded:

Be it resolved that the agenda for the February 13, 2013 UTSU Board of Directors meeting be approved as presented.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded:

Be it resolved that the February 13, 2013 minutes package including the following documents be approved by the UTSU Board of Directors:

Board of Directors January 14 (pg. 7) Bursary & Grants Committee February 1 (pg. 18) Clubs Committee February 1, February 2 (pg. 24, 32) Elections and Referenda Committee February 7, February 9 (pg. 39, 46)

Organizational and Services Development Committee February 4 (pg. 73) Sustainability Commission January 11, January 18 (pg. 78, 82)

4. UTIHP PRESENTATION

5. EXECUTIVE REPORT (pg. 80)

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded:

Be it resolved that the UTSU Board of Directors approve the Executive Report as presented at the February 2013 meeting.

6. COUNCIL ON STUDENT SERVICES DIRECTIVE

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Be it resolved that the Board of Directors approve the following directive: voting members of COSS will not vote in favour of increases without a motion from the Board of Directors authorizing them to do so.

7. COUNCIL ON STUDENT SERVICES REPORT-BACK (pg. 98)

8. COUNCIL ON STUDENT SERVICES (COSS) FEE INCREASE MOTIONS

(a) Faculty of Physical Education & Health, Co-Curricular Programs – NOTICE OF MOTION 2013-2014 Fee: Full-time (St.George) – $154.83 Part-time (St. George) – $30.97 Full-time (UTM/UTSC) – $17.96 Part-time (UTM/UTSC) – $3.59


AGENDA Meeting of the Board of Directors of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Wednesday, February 13, 2013 | 4:00pm | OISE 4414

Be it resolved that the Board of Directors ______________ (supports, objects to, calls for a referendum on) the 2013-2014 operating plans and budget for Faculty of Physical Education & Health, Co-Curricular Programs as well as the increase in sessional fees for a full-time student on the St. George campus to $154.83 ($30.97 for a part-time student); and that the sessional fees for a full-time student at UTM or UTSC of $17.96 ($3.59 for a part-time student), as provided to CoSS by Ira Jacobs, Dean.

(b) Hart House – NOTICE OF MOTION 2013-2014 Fee: Full-time (St.George) – $79.39 Part-time (St. George) – $15.89 Full-time (UTM/UTSC) – $2.44 Part-time (UTM/UTSC) – $0.49

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Be it resolved that the Board of Directors ______________ (i.e.: supports, objects to, calls for a referendum on) the 2013-14 operating plans and budget for Hart House as well as the increase in sessional fees for a full-time student on the St. George campus to $79.39 ($15.89 for a part-time student); and that the sessional fees for a full-time student at UTM or UTSC of $2.44 ($0.49 for a part-time student), as provided to CoSS by Bruce Kidd, Warden. (c) Student Life Programs and Services – NOTICE OF MOTION 2013-2014 Fee: Full-time (St.George) – $133.14 Part-time (St. George) – $26.63 Full-time (UTM/UTSC) – $0.00 Part-time (UTM/UTSC) – $0.00


Be it resolved that the Board of Directors ______________ (supports, objects to, calls for a referendum on) the 2013-2014 operating plans and budget for Student Services as well as the increase in sessional fees for a full-time student on the St. George campus to $133.14 ($26.63 for a part-time student); and that the sessional fees for full-time and part-time students at UTM/UTSC have zero dollar increase, as provided to CoSS by Lucy Fromowitz, Assistant Vice President Student Life.

9. FYI – NEXT BOARD MEETING

10. OTHER BUSINESS

11. ADJOURNMENT

Minutes of the

Board of Directors

January 14, 2013

6:00pm

AB 114

MINUTES Meeting of the Board of Directors of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Monday, January 14, 2013 | 6:00pm | Astronomy & Astrophysics Building, Rm. 114 IN ATTENDANCE Fazia Ackbarali, Woodsworth College Nabil Arif, University of Toronto Mississauga Noor Baig, Vice-President Equity Ali Mustafa Bello, New College Yolen Bollo-Kamara, Vice-President Campus Life Cullen Brown, St. Michael’s College Laurel Chester, New College Madiha Choksi, St. Michael’s College Abigail Cudjoe, Vice-President External Mo Delwar, Faculty of Engineering Jonathan Ding, Faculty of Medicine Gregory Easterbrook, Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education Yasmeen Emadi, Woodsworth College Farhia Farah, University College Allessia Gallipoli, Faculty of Nursing Shak Gobert, Victoria College Hassan Havili, University of Toronto Mississauga Chen He, University of Toronto Mississauga Ella Henry, Faculty of Law Eric Jadidzadeh, Transitional Year Program Khalid Khan, New College Gowthaman Kurusamy, Victoria College Virginia Lomax, University College Kevin Lunianga, Arts & Science At-Large Sanchit Mathur, Faculty of Engineering Calvin Mitchell, Trinity College Kathleen Qu, St. Michael’s College Munib Sajjad, Vice-President University Affairs Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal & Services Shaun Shepherd, President Agnes So, Innis College Nimalan Ulaganathan, Arts & Science At-Large Will Zhang, Faculty of Engineering

BY PROXY Michael Buttrey, Toronto School of Theology to Corey Scott

Stephanie Gamponia, Faculty of Music to Corey Scott Grace Guo, UTMSU Representative to Andrew Ursel Dania Hasan, University of Toronto Mississauga to Munib Sajjad Mark Levy, University of Toronto Mississauga to Chen He Fatema Pardhan, Woodsworth College to Yasmeen Emadi Kassandra Pecoskie-Schweir, University of Toronto Mississauga to Munib Sajjad Helen Phan, Professional Faculty At-Large to Jonathan Ding Ro’a Saafan, University of Toronto Mississauga to Hassan Havili Seann Seto, Faculty of Pharmacy to Munib Sajjad Anthony Staibano, Faculty of Dentistry to Corey Scott Vijay Unnithan, Professional Faculty At-Large to Corey Scott

EX-OFFICIO Billy Noiles, Student Teachers’ Union Gabriella Pinedon-Aguirre, Students for Barrier-free Access Paulina Bogdanova, Trinity College Meeting Rishi Maharaj, Engineering Society Sam Greene, Trinity College Meeting

GUESTS Jake Brockman Ben Crase, Trinity College Zane Schwartz Christopher Ballette Ben Coleman Lou Doyon Isaac Thornley Samantha Siewdass Mia Bhuiyan

1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting is called to order at 6:13pm.

MINUTES Meeting of the Board of Directors of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Monday, January 14, 2013 | 6:00pm | Astronomy & Astrophysics Building, Rm. 114

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION Moved: Baig Seconded: Henry

Be it resolved that the agenda for the January 14, 2013 UTSU Board of Directors meeting be approved as presented.

DISCUSSION Brown enters the meeting at 6:17pm.

Henry and Khan enter the meeting at 6:19pm. CARRIED

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION Moved: Lomax Seconded: Scott

Be it resolved that the December 17, 2012 minutes package including the following documents be approved by the UTSU Board of Directors:

Board of Directors November 15, December 17 (pg. 6, 22) Elections & Referenda Committee January 8 (pg. 29) Executive Committee January 7 (pg. 33)

Policy & Procedures Committee January 9 (pg. 37) DISCUSSION

Phan enters the meeting at 6:22pm. CARRIED

4. APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS FOR 2012-2013

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Sajjad

Be it resolved that Yale and Partners be appointed as the external auditors for the University of Toronto Students’ Union for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2013.

DISCUSSION

The Chair states that this motion is being brought to the Board because it’s approval is time sensitive and the motion could not be approved at the Annual General Meeting in November.

Scott states that the Executive Committee is recommending that we hire Yale and Partners for the 2012-13 fiscal year. He states that Yale & Partners is our current auditing firm, and that they are familiar with the UTSU’s finances. He states that it is regular practice to hire auditors for seven years.


Lomax asks how may years we have been hiring Yale & Partners as the UTSU’s auditors.

Hudson states that they have been the UTSU’s auditors for the last five years.

Moore enters the meeting at 6:27pm.

CARRIED

5. MOTIONS REFERRED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MOTION TO AMEND BYLAW III Moved: Ding Seconded: Scott BE IT RESOLVED that Bylaw III, Article 4 be amended to read:

a. “Proxies are not permitted”

DISCUSSION

The Chair provides an outline of Bylaw III, Article 4.

Scott encourages Directors to read the policy minutes. He speaks against the motion. He states that proxies are important, especially for those who cannot attend meetings for personal or professional reasons, and for professional faculty or commuter students. He states that allowing proxies allows those people to be representatives of the union. He states that it is not always feasible to attend meetings due to other commitments, and that proxying allows for those who are not able to attend meetings and their constituents the opportunity to still be represented at the Board. He states that this amendment would affect the Board of Directors, not any other meeting, and that proxying is an important function of the Board.

Mitchell speaks in favour of the motion. He states that it is important that participation outside of the Board is not affected by proxying. He states that proxying is a system that can potentially be overused. He states that he has not met some Directors because of the proxying system. He states that it is not appropriate to have Directors proxy to most meetings. He states that he believes that proxying disallows Directors the opportunity to voice their own opinions.

Ursel states that UTM representatives commit to work and meetings on two campuses. He states that the constitution and bylaws have remedies for misuse and or abuse of proxies. He states that Directors can submit proxies with conditions.

Greene introduces himself, and states that he submitted the motion. He states that Directors are in a position of fiduciary responsibility, and that Directors must be present to exercise their responsibilities. He states that the practice of proxying is being phased out and that he is suggesting that we implement this practice now. He states that representation is about more than being a vote. He states that proxy voting offers a potential for conflicts of interest. He states that eliminating proxy voting will ensure that individuals are participating in discussions. He states that missing meetings is inevitable, but that having a less than 100 per cent quorum covers this occurrence. He states that


this will soon be a legal necessity. He states that missing meetings, or the persistent practice of proxying is irresponsible.

Maharaj introduces himself and speaks in favour of the motion. He states that eliminating the practice of vote proxying will make the Board seem more legitimate in the eyes of its membership. He states that it is a challenge to be a Director, and that it is difficult for Directors who proxy their votes to keep abreast of everything that is happening. He states that this can lead to disconnect between members and the Board. He states that the bylaw provisions for absenteeism are not working. He states that it is rare for a proxy holder to provide a different opinion than those whose proxy they are holding. He states that proxying is an option for people to retain their membership without being present. He states that if executive members did not meet their time commitments, he would not be permissible, and asks why the practice is allowed for Directors. He states that many proxies and a lack of diversity of opinions lead to a lack of representation on the Board, which is less productive, and can lead to people being angry at General Meetings. He states that in the past bylaws regarding absenteeism have not been enforced. He states that part of this effort is recognizing that the proxy system is broken, and that directors need to look at what steps to take to address absenteeism.

Henry states that this change isn’t structured to deal with those who proxy for the whole year. She states that proxying allows for her constituency to still be represented at Board meetings when and if she is unable to attend. She states that eliminating the ability to proxy would serve to disenfranchise students. She states that if the Board wants a legal recommendation regarding these changes, that they should get a legal opinion. She states that it is the Board’s legal responsibility to not take a legal opinion from someone who is not a lawyer.

Lomax states that it is a problem that some directors do not attend meetings, but that this motion doesn’t negate the problem, and instead creates a new problem. She states that if directors do not have a vote in the room, they do not have representation on the board. She states that we should rely on our existing bylaws to deal with this issue, including the bylaw dedicated to remaining accessible.

Baig states that the point of accessibility is important. She states that she does not think that those who have personal emergencies should lose their opportunity to engage. She states that the reason for sending the package out is to allow directors who are proxying to share concerns, insight or input, and to get feedback from their constituencies prior to the Board meeting. She states that the limitations that exist in our bylaws are sufficient, and that we shouldn’t be going to one extreme or the other.

Farah, Choksi, Zhang, and Havili enter the meeting at 6:53pm.

Bogdanova introduces herself and speaks in favour of the motion. She states that proxy votes don’t always necessarily represent an individuals actual opinion, and that they serve to add weight to another directors’ vote. She states that in order to deal with accessibility issues, we should hold meetings on other parts of the campus.

Delwar states that we are taking this from one extreme to another. He states that banning proxies altogether may not be a good approach. He suggests putting limits on proxies, such as on how many times directors can proxy each year, and the number of proxies each director can hold. He suggests making the motion palatable to both sides.

Chester speaks in favour of the motion. She states that there are fundamental problems with proxy votes. She states that proxying incentivizes irresponsible directors, and


disallows for informed decisions on votes. She states that our impeachment policies have not been used, and that the policies are inaccessible to allow for impeachment. She states that meeting absenteeism doesn’t preclude our roles as directors.

Scott states that the amendment looks at removing proxies from our bylaws. He states that the bylaws outline the process for impeaching executives and board members. He states that we are living in a different time than when some of our bylaws were written, and many directors, including many Division II directors, can’t attend all meetings due to educational and work commitments. He states that there have been restrictions on proxies, and that we should respect that a lot of these ideas are coming from first entry programs, and this move penalizes those in second entry and professional programs.

Chester states that the Bylaws state that impeachment requires 15 percent.

Brown states that the motion is too heavy-handed. He states that modifications should be made. He states that it eliminates the ability to collaborate with other directors. He states that he likes the motion, and would like to see it in another incarnation.

Arif states that he is against removing proxies altogether. He states that people have extenuating circumstances. He states that passing this motion doesn’t tackle the core issues. He states that we should make policies to limit the amount of times that directors can proxy in one year. He states that they should have a good reason for proxying. He states from a UTM perspective, it is sometimes difficult to be here.

Bollo-Kamara states that there is a limit to how many proxies a director can hold. She states that the move is heavy-handed. She states that it is problematic that are insisting that those who want to have a voice should attend the meeting. She states that we should be looking at ways to encourage director’s participation should be examined, and that banning proxies will not increase participation.

Sajjad states that members we proxy, the proxying party should take it upon themselves to talk to the person that we are proxying to. He states that it is not fair to insinuate that directors are doing something wrong by proxying their vote. He states that the board should hold themselves accountable.

Shepherd states that proxying is a necessity at this level. He states that there are procedures, which state that if directors miss meetings they can be removed from the Board. He states that the issue is with attendance and participation. He states that Roberts Rules allows participation in absentsia.

Mathur states that there is more than one director per constituency. He states that the motion allows for better collaboration. He states that directors can be absent and still represented by the other directors in their constituency, eliminating the need for proxy votes.

Zhang states that elected members have a responsibility to attend Board meetings. He suggests regulating the proxy policy. He states that Engineers have very busy schedules that sometimes conflict with Board meetings. He states that he is against the motion. He states that this motion is extreme, and that we have terms that deal with absenteeism. He states that proxies allow for directors to adequately arrange their priorities. He states that directors must trust other board members, as we are all here in the best interest of our members.

MOTION TO CALL TO QUESTION Moved: Emadi Seconded: Khan

MINUTES Meeting of the Board of Directors of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Monday, January 14, 2013 | 6:00pm | Astronomy & Astrophysics Building, Rm. 114 CARRIED MAIN MOTION

VOTE

DEFEATED MOTION TO AMEND BYLAW VI Moved: Ding Seconded: Scott

BE IT RESOLVED that Bylaw VI, Article 3 b. be amended to read:

b. “Candidates in an election for an executive position shall be nominated by no less than one-hundred (100) members and submitted to the Elections and Referenda Committee”

DISCUSSION

The Chair reads the amendment and the existing bylaw.

Scott encourages directors to read the minutes. He states that the committee was divided on this motion. He states that he is opposed, though not strongly. He states that 200 nominations show that students are serious about running for an executive position. He states that the financial stakes would be made more difficult. He states that he doesn’t think that it will make a big difference, especially because members can nominate more than one person.

Greene states that this is an accessibility issue. He states that getting 200 signatures is difficult without the support of special interest groups. He states that the federal government nominations have a lower signature quota than UTSU nominations. He states that decreasing the quantity of signatures will decrease the likelihood of electoral disputes.

Lomax states that this motion doesn’t address the issue of people not getting valid signatures. She states that for the sake of accessibility, this motion should be considered. She states that nominations are during reading week, and this motion would help.

Sajjad states that it addresses accessibility issues, and allows more students the opportunity to run in elections.

Ursel states that the rationale for this motion is confusing. He states that reducing the quantity of nominations reduces the risk. He states that asking nominators whether or not they are full-time students could avert the risk. He states that the size of space is different than parliament. He states that it is easier to get nominations at UofT than it is in parliament because of the location.

Mitchell states that it is important to remember that just because motions are passed today, they aren’t implemented until they are passed at the AGM.

Ulaganathan states that people should acquire more than the minimum number of nominations required.

Bollo-Kamara states that 200 signatures are not difficult to get, but that the number is arbitrary. She states that we should put it to the membership.


Maharaj states that the purpose of a nomination process is to ensure that we have candidates who are serious, so removing barriers would have a positive impact. He states that it is a difficult process, and asks how disqualification benefits the UTSU. He states that he would put the limit down to 25 signatures. He states that more candidates is a good thing.

Emadi states that the nomination process allows for us to remind members that elections are coming up.

MOTION TO CALL TO QUESTION Moved: Lomax Seconded: Mitchell CARRIED MAIN MOTION

VOTE

CARRIED Scott in noted abstention.

MOTION TO AMEND BYLAW II Moved: Ding Seconded: Scott

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Bylaw II, Article 1 d. be amended to read:

d. "Members of the Executive Committee may be members of the Union as per Bylaw II.1.a-c"

DISCUSSION

The Chair reads the bylaw and explains the changes.

Hudson provides clarification on the change. She states that the member wants it to be the executive member’s choice whether or not they are a full-time student.

Brown asks what the consequences of an executive members being a full-time student are.

The Chair states that the motion should change to “BIRT that the following be added to Bylaw II, Article 1. He states that the amendment would make it mandatory for Executive Committee members to be full time students.

Scott encourages directors to read the minutes. He states that the motion raised concerns of the feasibility of carrying a full-time workload both in school and the union. He states that the current commitment is to be a part-time student for a year, and that it would remove this commitment. He states that personally he believes that being a full-time student and a member of the Executive Committee it is not feasible. He states that the Board should say how much commitment they want from their Executives. He states that he could not carry a full course load and do the work that he does. He states that in students unions where it is mandatory to be a full-time student, the quality of work is poor and there is less representation on governing bodies. He states that the job of an Executive is very demanding, and that we can’t allow people to go into the elections thinking that it is feasible to be both a full-time student and a full-time Executive.


Bollo-Kamara states that a full time course load demands 40 hours a week. She states that a full time course load would also result in that Executive member’s work falling to to other Executives and staff. She states that Executives are elected to represent, and can’t do so that if they are taking a full-time course load. She states that it’s not fair to allow Executives to take more than a part-time course load.

Mathur asks if any Executives have ever been full-time students.

The Chair states that it precedes the board, and that it has been a long time.

Brown states that Execs should be allowed to choose.

Ulaganathan asks if the bylaws specify the number of hours that an Executive must commit to their work each week.

The Chair states that it is 40 hours per week.

Henry states that at her last student union, Executives with a much smaller membership still worked 40 hours a week. She states that other universities have the same policy. She states that if its not in the bylaws, it’s common practice. She states that Executives take on a lot of operational responsibilities, and that those who can’t commit enough time to these responsibilities can potentially squander a lot of work that can be done with the union.

Lomax states that she understands the argument that it should be up to the person, but directors have a responsibility to ensure that we create an Executive Committee that will best serve the needs of our constituents. She states that we might need to limit the choice for the good of the union and members of the Executive.

Bello states that it is unrealistic to do the work of the union and take a full-time course load.

Baig states that no executive should attempt to take a full-time course load. She states that it is even difficult to take a part-time course load. She states that the work takes well over 40 hours a week. She states that course load also includes labs, assignments, exams, and readings that take a lot of time. She states that passing this motion creates the illusion that it can be done by those going into the elections.

Ursel states that at UTM full-time undergraduate representatives have a larger burden when it comes to exam time. He states that part-time students often have fewer obligations.

Ulaganathan states that Executives have to uphold their campaign promises, and they are getting paid to fulfill their roles, not to go to school.

MOTION TO CALL TO QUESTION Moved: Lomax Seconded: Mitchell CARRIED

MAIN MOTION

VOTE

DEFEATED


6. FYI – SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING UPDATE

Scott states that the meeting will be on February 5, from 6-9pm. He states that there has been difficulty booking space. Looking for space that accommodates the noise associated with the last meeting. He states that the agenda will be released soon. He reminds directors that it is a general meeting and that Board members must attend.

Sajjad asks if it is mandatory for directors to attend.

The Chair states that it is.

Mitchell commends the executive for their work in meeting the critique of members and putting together and advertising this meeting.

Ursel states that harassing a speaker doesn’t embody the collegiality of UofT and reminds directors to be examples of how we should operate. He states that UTSU wasn’t well represented at the AGM, and asks directors to encourage civil discourse at the SGM.

Scott states that directive-based motions were submitted, that we are looking for student numbers to confirm that members submitted them, and that these motions will be included in the SGM agenda.

Moore asks if quorum will be based on AGM quorum.

The Chair states that the quorum requirement is higher for a general meeting. He states that 150 members must be present in person, with 350 members in total including proxies.

Maharaj asks if there are any changes to make the registration process more efficient.

Scott states that the process is slow due to restrictions from University. He states that the Union is doing everything it can to improve the registration process, and that T-card scanners are being used by the SCSU for their elections, so we will not have access to the scanner system here.

Hudson states that the Union is seeking to have more staff granted access to the membership lists to help improve registration efficiency.

Sajjad encourages directors to remind their constituents to only invite full-time undergraduate students. He states that at the AGM a part-time student and alumni shoved him, and that volunteers had a difficult time with crowd control.

7. FYI – NEXT BOARD MEETING

Scott states that we are working with UTM to find a date that works for everyone. He states that he will try to let Directors know the schedule by the end of the week.


8. OTHER BUSINESS

Lomax asks if Hudson or the Executive can provide the Board with a set definition and explanation of the legal process that we are going through, as there has been some confusion and misinformation.

Mitchell leaves at 8:24pm.

Lunianga enters at 8:24pm.

Hudson states that there is a legal review of our elections to determine if they are fair. She states that lawyers are evaluating recommendations that were made. She states that the last Elections and Referenda Committee stated that the cost of the review shouldn’t exceed $17,000, and that we are being billed less than that.

Brown states that he would like to form a Board of Directors reform committee. He states that interested directors should get in contact with him.

Scott states that interested directors should contact both himself and Brown. He asks directors to respond to emails. He states that questions about the executive report are welcome in other business.

Sajjad provides an overview of EcoFest and asks directors to attend.

Coleman states that there are other ways of doing business besides having meetings. He states that the Board can have signed resolutions, and suggests that this would increase accessibility. He states that he believes that that being on a Facebook chat could be considered as representation.

Bollo-Kamara states that we need volunteers for the Winter Week of Welcome. She states that we need as many people as possible on Thursday for the Clubs Fair and concert. She asks directors to invite their constituencies to the events.

Farah states that submissions for the Pedestrianize St. George campaign are open and asks directors to pass this on to constituents.

Jadidzadeh provides an update on the TYP. He states that members of TYP and the UTSU Executive are looking into a study on the merits of programs like the TYP. He states that there will be a town hall.

9. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION Moved: Arif Seconded: Brown

CARRIED

The meeting adjourns at 8:34pm.

Minutes of the

Bursary & Grants

Committee

February 1, 2013

5:30pm

UTSU

MINUTES Bursary and Grants Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union February 1, 2013 | 5:30pm | UTSU Tower

!!IN ATTENDANCE: VOTING MEMBERS: Farhia Farah, University College Director Fatema Pardhan, Woodsworth College Director Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal & Services Shaun Shepherd, President Anthony Staibano, Faculty of Dentistry Director 1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting is called to order at 5:32pm. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOTION Moved: Shepherd Seconded: Scott

Be it resolved that the February 1, 2013 Bursary and Grants Committee agenda be approved as presented.

CARRIED !

3. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT – ANTON

KLUNKO MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Farah

Be it resolved that Anton Klunko be allocated $100.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants.

DISCUSSION

Scott states that this application was tabled due to lack of personal statement. He states that we have now received a statement that was also submitted to the Engineering Society.

Farah states that the statement is sufficient to allocate funding.

CARRIED ! 4. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT – SHARON

VADAKEPEEDIKA MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Farah


!!

Be it resolved that Sharon Vadakepeedika be allocated $100.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants.

DISCUSSION

Scott states that this application was tabled due to lack of personal statement. He states that the application has received a statement that was also submitted to the Engineering Society.


CARRIED ! 5. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT –

ALESSANDRO ZAVATTI MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Farah

Be it resolved that Alessandro Zavatti be allocated $100.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants.

DISCUSSION

Scott states that this application was tabled due to lack of personal statement. He states that the application has received a statement that was also submitted to the Engineering Society.


CARRIED ! 6. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT – TAKUMA

NAKAMURA MOTION Moved: Farah Seconded: Staibano

Be it resolved that Takuma Nakamura be allocated $35.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants.

DISCUSSION

Scott states that the application is requesting funds for a conference being held at the University of Toronto in Hart House.


!!

Pardhan states that the application is requesting funds for travel and food. She states that these are daily living costs. She further states that because the student is a student at the St. George campus, the expenses should not be viewed as related to the endeavor.

Farah states that the applicant can still receive funds to support attending the conference.

Staibano states that he supports funding the cost of the conference fees. CARRIED !

7. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT – JARRAR

AHMED MOTION Moved: Pardhan Seconded: Farah

Be it resolved that Jarrar Ahmed be allocated $100.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants pending an individual endeavor statement.

DISCUSSION

Scott states that the student is applying for funding to attend the Actuarial Students National Association Conference in Winnipeg. He states that the student has received funding from University College and has included receipts for the event, which indicate the actual costs. Scott states that the student has not included an individual statement.

Pardhan asks if an allocation can be made pending an individualized statement. She states that the costs are very clear and that the student should not have to wait until the next Board of Directors meeting to receive funding.

Scott states that funding can be allocated pending a statement. He states that the statement can be sent via email and approved by members of the committee over email.

CARRIED !

8. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT – SYLVIA

PLAIN MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Farah

Be it resolved that Sylvia Plain be allocated $100.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants pending an individual endeavor grant and receipts.


!!DISCUSSION

Scott states that the application is requesting funds for attending the Idle No More summit in Ottawa. He states that the student is applying with two other students and has received funding from the Native Students Association and First Nations House. He states that the students have not included individualized statements as the application was received on the day of the rally.

Farah states that the costs are shared between three students. She states that she would like to apply the same rule as the previous applicant. She recommends allocating funding pending receipts and individual endeavor statements.

CARRIED !

9. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT – ITOAH

SCOTT-ENNS MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Farah

Be it resolved that Itoah Scott-Enns be allocated $100.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants pending an individual endeavor grant and receipts.

DISCUSSION

Scott states that the application follows the same guidelines as the previous applicant.

CARRIED !

10. INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANT – BRIAN

PARISEE MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Farah

Be it resolved that Brian Parisee be allocated $100.00 in Individual Academic Endeavour Grants pending an individual endeavor grant and receipts.

DISCUSSION

Scott states that the application follows the same guidelines as the previous applicant.

CARRIED !


!!

11. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved: Shepherd Seconded: Scott CARRIED


!

Minutes of the

Clubs Committee

February 1, 2013

3:30pm

UTSU

MINUTES Clubs Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Friday, February 1, 2013 | 3:30pm | UTSU Tower

!IN ATTENDANCE: VOTING MEMBERS: Yolen Bollo-Kamara, Vice-President Campus Life Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal & Services Shaun Shepherd, President Yasmeen Emadi, Woodsworth College Director Nikki Yorgiadis, Clubs Community Member 1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting is called to order at 3:08PM. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOTION Moved: Bollo-Kamara Seconded: Scott

Be it resolved that the February 1, 2013 Clubs Committee agenda be approved as presented.

CARRIED !

3. LONG-TERM - DREAM CORPS MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: So

Be it resolved that Dream Corps receive $250.00 in UTSU long-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club and the reason the application was tabled in the last semester. She states that the club has submitted the appropriate documents and is now eligible for funding. She states that the club is fundraising focused and donates to a parent organization. Scott states that the organization is asking for a large sum of funding and has not received funding in the past. So states that the club should not receive a large sum if it has not been able to prove it has responsible financial practices. CARRIED ! 4. LONG-TERM – STUDENTS IN FREE ENTERPRISE


!

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: So

Be it resolved that Students for Free Enterprise receive $400.00 in UTSU long-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the clubs application was tabled due to not listing their expenses and over-listing their revenue sources.

So states that the club should not be given more funding than the previous year.

Shepherd states that the club has collaborated on water initiatives with the UTSU and can save some funds through promotions and leaflets.

Bollo-Kamara states that the club has a very high expense in prizing. She states that the club still has large expenses outside of prizes.

CARRIED ! 7. LONG-TERM – ONLY HUMAN DANCE COLLECTIVE

MOTION Moved: Bollo-Kamara Seconded: Yorgaidis

Be it resolved that Only Human Dance Collective receive $1,200.00 in UTSU long-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the clubs application was tabled to issues with recognition. She states that the club has resolved the situation and has a very detailed application.

Shepherd states that the application is well put together, and demonstrates knowledge of past funding history.

So states that the club has a good mandate and is a very accessible dance group.

CARRIED !

Emadi enters at 3:47pm.


!8. LONG-TERM – UofT ENGINEERING KOMPETITIONS

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Emadi

Be it resolved that the UofT Engineering Kompetition application be tabled until more information is received.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club has a large membership and a detailed funding application.

So states that the revenue sources are detailed and precise.

Bollo-Kamara states that the application was previously tabled due to revenue exceeding expenses. She states that more information on expenses and revenue items have been received but still show a surplus.

CARRIED ! 9. LONG-TERM – GIRLS IN GOVERNMENT AND LEADERSHIP

MOTION Moved: So Seconded: Scott

Be it resolved that Girls in Government and Leadership receive $250.00 in UTSU long-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that large portions of the costs are associated with speaker fees.

So states that the club has not received funds in the past. She states that the application does not present details clearly.

Emadi states that the club has been active on campus but has a weak application.

CARRIED ! 10. SHORT-TERM – MALAYSIAN STUDENTS ASSOCIATION

MOTION Moved: Bollo-Kamara Seconded: Emadi


!Be it resolved that the Malaysian Students Association receive $400.00 in UTSU short-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club and the event in question. She states that the club has not applied for funding in the past. She states that the club is hosting a bazaar in William Doo Auditorium.

Scott states that the event was heavily publicized and well known.

Emadi states that the event caters to a large population and shows initiative in reaching outside of its traditional base.

So states that the event shows realistic expenses and can be supported.

CARRIED ! 11. LONG-TERM – SOLAR HOUSE DESIGN TEAM

MOTION Moved: So Seconded: Emadi

Be it resolved that the Solar House Design Club receive $400.00 in UTSU long-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the organization hosts a number of small and large events throughout the year.

Emadi states that the club has included a contingency fund.

So states that the application is detailed and shows realistic expenses and revenue sources.

CARRIED ! 12. START-UP – DOCTOR WHO CLUB

MOTION Moved: Bollo-Kamara Seconded: Yorgiadis

Be it resolved that the Doctor Who Club receive $125.00 in UTSU start-up clubs funding.


!DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club.

Shepherd states that the club has asked for funding to cover projector rentals. He states that audio visual equipment is now covered under the Office of Student Life.

Yorgiadis states that the main cost other than audio-visual is pizza for six events.

CARRIED ! 13. SHORT-TERM – NORTH AMERICAN MODEL UNITED

NATIONS

MOTION Moved: Bollo-Kamara Seconded: So

Be it resolved that North American Model United Nations receive $500.00 in UTSU short-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club is applying for funding for one particular event. She states that the application is well written and contains all the required information.

Emadi states that the application includes all the details and information required to make a maximum allocation. She states that the club has a large turnout for events.

CARRIED 14. START-UP – PRE-LAW SOCIETY


Be it resolved that the Pre-Law Society receive $350.00 in UTSU start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club has a number of small costs throughout the year.


!

So states that the club has applied for start-up funding and that the club would have received more funding if it had applied earlier.

Yorgiadis states that the events hosted have a large turnout. CARRIED 15. START-UP – WOMEN IN COMPUTER SCIENCE

MOTION Moved: Bollo-Kamara Seconded: Shepherd

Be it resolved that Women in Computer Science receive $300.00 in UTSU start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club and some of the proposed events by the club. She states that the club has had a large influx of members and hosts numerous small events over the year.

Scott states that the mandate of the club is important in a male-dominated program. He states that he has seen the club branching outside of computer science this year.

CARRIED 16. SHORT-TERM – NSPIRE INNOVATION NETWORK


Be it resolved that Nspire Innovation Network receive $250.00 in UTSU short-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club and indicates the event details of the application. She states that the club claims it has not received funding in the past.

Scott states that the club has received funding in the past. He states that the club has not picked up its second installment of funding in the past year.

So states that large portions of the costs include prizes. She states that the event is well attended but receives sufficient sponsorship to offset costs.


!CARRIED

21. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved: Shepherd Seconded: Scott

The meeting adjourns at 4:39pm

CARRIED !

Minutes of the

Clubs Committee

February 2, 2013

2:00pm

UTSU

MINUTES Clubs Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Saturday, February 2, 2013 | 2:00pm | UTSU Tower

!IN ATTENDANCE: VOTING MEMBERS: Yolen Bollo-Kamara, Vice-President Campus Life Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal and Services Agnes So, Innis College Director PROXIES: Nikki Yorgiadis to Yolen Bollo-Kamara Shaun Shepherd to Agnes So 1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 2:13PM. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA


Be it resolved that the February 2, 2012 Clubs Committee agenda be approved as presented.

CARRIED !

3. LONG-TERM – FOUNDATION FOR INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL

RELIEF OF CHILDREN MOTION Moved: So Seconded: Bollo-Kamara

Be it resolved that the Foundation for International Medical Relief of Children receive $300.00 in UTSU long-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION


So states that the club donates all of their revenue and relies on UTSU as their only source of operating revenue. She states that all campus clubs are held to the same rules and have to find a way to cover 50 percent of their of expenses.

Bollo-Kamara states that the club received $250.00 in funding last year.

CARRIED


!4. LONG-TERM – POLISH STUDENTS’ ASOCIATION MOTION Moved: So Seconded: Bollo-Kamara

Be it resolved that the Polish Students’ Association receive $450.00 in UTSU long-term clubs funding.

DISCUSSION


So states that the clubs expenses are realistic and that the club has sufficient revenue sources. She states that the club can receive a small increase in funding.

Bollo-Kamara states that the application is detailed and deserving of funding.

!CARRIED

5. START-UP – INDIAN ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION


Be it resolved that Indian Engineering Students’ Association application be tabled until more information is received.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the application only includes a proposed budget.

CARRIED !6. START-UP – CHRISTIAN STUDENTS AT UOFT

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Bollo-Kamara

Be it resolved that Christian Students at UofT application be tabled until more information is received.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club is


!applying for funding for nine students to attend a conference. She states that the club should reformat its application or apply for an individual academic endeavour grant.

So states that the endeavor grants may be preferable as four students are unable to contribute any funds to attending the conference.

CARRIED !7. START-UP – CONNECT TO A CAUSE

MOTION Moved: Bollo-Kamara Seconded: So

Be it resolved that Connect to a Cause receive $200.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club’s membership list is lacking information and the application has vague budget line items.

So states that the club uses fundraising revenue to offset the operation costs.

Scott states that the application could use some improvements but should be allocated a small amount of funding to get started.

CARRIED !8. START-UP – ZEITGEIST


Be it resolved that Zeitgeist receive $100.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club has no revenue sources and is hosting only two events.

So states that the club has attached receipts with its application.

Scott states that the club should have applied for funding before the deadline. He states that the clubs receipts should not force the same amount of funding.

CARRIED !


!9. START-UP – SIMULATION INVESTING CLUB

MOTION Moved: So Seconded: Bollo-Kamara

Be it resolved that Simulation Investing Club receive $80.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club has small expenses but indicates no revenue sources.

Scott states that the application is detailed for the size of the request.

CARRIED !10. START-UP – MA’AT SOCIETY


Be it resolved that Ma’at Society receive $250.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club uses fundraising to help offset the operations costs.

So states that the club has some unique events and indicates a strong possibility to grow in future years. She states that the application is detailed and indicates a need for funding.

CARRIED !11. START-UP – APPLIED ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE AND

DESIGN


Be it resolved that Applied Architecture, Landscape and Design receive $350.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its


!main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club intends to host up to four workshops that are open to all students.

So states that the membership list is detailed. She states that the application is detailed.

Scott states that the faculty is newly separated from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He states that this club is one of the few clubs located within the faculty.

CARRIED !12. START-UP – VISUAL ANTHROPOLOGY CLUB

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: So Be it resolved that Visual Anthropology Club receive $400.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club is hosting a few events with very detailed costs per event.

Scott states that the membership list is detailed.

So states that the application is very specific. She states that the club has obviously put a lot of work into the application.

CARRIED !13. START-UP – NEW SILK ROAD: CHINA GLOBAL CULTURAL

EXCHANGE

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Bollo-Kamara

Be it resolved that New Silk Road: China Global Cultural Exchange receive $280.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the club has had a large influx of members in a short timeframe. She states that the event descriptions are detailed and thorough.

CARRIED !


!14. START-UP – UOFT SECURITY AFFAIRS FORUM


Be it resolved that UofT Security Affairs Forum receive $200.00 in start-up clubs funding.

DISCUSSION

Bollo-Kamara states the purpose of the club, some of its major events and programs, its main revenue and expense sources and the size of the club. She states that the expenses listed are reasonable.

So states that the membership list is lacking. She states that the club does use fundraising and membership fees to offset a majority of the expenses.

CARRIED

15. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved: So Seconded: Scott CARRIED


!

Minutes of the

Elections and Referenda

Committee

Thursday, February 7, 2013

3:30pm

UTSU

AGENDA Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Thursday, February 7, 2013 ● 5pm ● University of Toronto Students’ Union Office IN ATTENDANCE: Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal and Services Ella Henry, Faculty of Law Director Michael Buttrey, Faculty of Theology Director

PROXIES: Virginia Lomax, University College Director, to Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal and Services

NON-VOTING: Sandra Hudson, Executive Director Eric Luong, Chief Returning Officer Sam Greene, Guest (enters 5:15pm, leaves 5:52pm)

1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting is called to order at 5:14pm.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Henry

Be it resolved that the Thursday, February 7, 2013 Elections and Referenda agenda be approved as presented.

3. GUEST PRESENTATION: SAMUEL GREENE

Scott states that he has received a request for a presentation by Samuel Greene, the author of the electoral reform package received by the Elections and Referendum Committee in October. Scott states that the speaker can come in with unanimous consent by the committee. He states that the Varsity has also requested to attend the meeting. He states that the Varsity is not attending as a member of the Union and it is not in the function of the committee structure to be open meetings as it deals with the operations of the Union. Henry states that it would be inappropriate to have the Varsity at the meeting. She states that she would be happy to talk with the campus media after the meeting. Scott states that the minutes of the meeting are available and will be approved at the next Board of Directors meeting. Greene enters 5:15pm Greene begins to discuss online voting. He hands out a sheet of municipalities that have implemented online voting. He also provides a document by Kevin Siu. Greene states that he thinks there is confusion around the ask of online voting. He states that adopting the voting.utoronto.ca model is the best and simplest way to implement online voting. He states that in terms of security of online elections, incidents are very minimal. He states that the hacking of the Western website was a cosmetic hacking. He states that the process itself was maintained. He states that online voting is no more insecure than paper balloting. He states that there are many instances of when voting has been tampered with in paper balloting. He states that Queen’s students

AGENDA Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Thursday, February 7, 2013 ● 5pm ● University of Toronto Students’ Union Office have tripled outcome by implementing online voting. He states that students with disabilities and commuter students would be able to access the system in a better way. He states that he is happy to answer questions. Henry asks about whether Greene has heard of how scrutineers work for online voting. She states that the average person couldn’t necessarily monitor the integrity of the vote count in the same way. Greene states that scrutineering refers to a long-standing process that has to do with the individual integrity of the votes. He states that scrutineering would have to involve how the system is set up. He states that the scrutineers would have to work with the CRO or website administrators. He states that scruitneering would have to be modernized. He states there would need to be accountability at the front end, not the back end. Buttery asks about voting in front of someone else or proving one’s ballot. Greene states that there are documented cases of proving ballots in the American paper ballot system. He states that harsh penalties should be placed on students who break the secrecy of their ballot. Henry asks whether the key reasons for the push for online voting are voter turnout and accessibility issues. She states that she would like to address his concerns specifically. Greene states that there is substantive fairness with online voting: accessibility, voter turnout, etc. He states that the perception of fairness is of the utmost concern. He states that participation would increase if students believed that the voting system was fair. He states that the constant fights of elections problems undermine the ability of the UTSU and its potential partners to reach common cause. Henry asks whether or not there are concerns with the current system. She asks about what specifically in the current system is flawed. She states that the part of the EPC that talks about paper ballot voting is two lines. She further states that there is far more within it, and “transparency and accountability” is not simply about the slogan of online voting. Greene states that Australia has an excellent voting system. He states that the CRO rules some complaints frivolous. He states that such rulings are controversial, because no one knows what it means to be frivolous. He states that “undermining the authority of the CRO” does not allow a student to be critical. He states that the students’ union should hold dissent above all. He states that debates should be better advertised, and access should be improved. Greene states that a first-past-the-post system is an antiquated system. Henry states that there have been referenda in several provinces to change the first-past-the-post system that have failed. She asks that if a province electorate cannot approve of it, does he not believe that a referendum should be required here. Greene states that the procedure for changing the EPC is prescribed. He states that he is in support of referenda. Henry states that as it has not passed in several jurisdictions, it cannot be assumed that it is a natural step toward democracy when it has failed to be implemented in a democratic system. Greene states that instant run-off is very common among students’ unions. He states that he does not want to use government as an example. He states that a students’ union should seek to be better than government. Buttrey states that there is a limited amount of time. He asks what the bottom line is.

AGENDA Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Thursday, February 7, 2013 ● 5pm ● University of Toronto Students’ Union Office Greene states online voting. He states that all of these issues were raised in the fall. He states that students were forced to end the AGM in order to have this discussion. He states that students have been talking about this since October and there has been no steps taken. Henry states that she believes it would be difficult to implement online voting in time for the elections. She states that she hopes that if the election moves forward without implementing online voting, he would not take that as neglect of the concerns raised. Hudson asks if there have been complaints raised by students with disabilities. Greene states yes. He states that polling locations are often in places on campus that are not physically accessible. Hudson states that it has been longstanding policy to ensure that all polling locations are physically accessible. She asks which polls were in question. Greene states that he will point those students towards us. Greene exits 5:52pm. Henry states that it was a shame that Greene did not mention the online elections issues at UBC, VUSAC, WCSA and other students’ unions. She states that we would not be able to control coercion, campaigning to closely to a polling station, etc. Buttrey states that if online voting is passed at the AGM, and it is not implemented, there will be uproar, whether it is the right decision or not. Henry asks if the voter turnout for the elections of Governing Council are available online. Hudson states that they are. MOTION Moved: Buttrey Seconded: Henry

Be it resolved that the meeting move in camera

CARRIED

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Henry Be it resolved that the meeting move out of camera

CARRIED

4. UPDATE: POLL CLERKS Luong states that the UTSU hires poll clerks to monitor and administer the polling stations and conduct the ballot count. He states that the poll clerk job posting will go up on Monday, February 11, 2013. He states that there will be two poll clerks per station. He states that he will need to hire 45-50 poll clerks. 5. UPDATE: DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICER

AGENDA Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Thursday, February 7, 2013 ● 5pm ● University of Toronto Students’ Union Office Luong states that he has hired two Deputy Returning Officers. He gives an overview of the hiring processes and qualities of the DROs. He states that the DROs have been assisting in analyzing polling station locations, creating timelines and calendars and verifying referendum signatures. Luong states that a third DRO is being hired for the Mississauga campus. 6. UPDATE: POLLING LOCATIONS Luong states that he has visited past polling locations with the Deputy Returning Officers. He states that many of the locations have been requested and confirmations are pending. He states that the Union will be attempting to acquire OISE as opposed to the Faculty of Social Work. Scott states that the Elections and Referenda Committee may wish to address the issue of campaigning in and near libraries. He states that the Gerstein polling location is within a library. He states that the location had a large turnout of voters in 2010 but reduced substantially when campaigning rules were interpreted different. He states that the Elections and Referenda Committee should make a decision on the interpretation before the campaign period. Scott clarifies that the difference in interpretation was whether the library was the building or the entrance to the library within the building. He states that the committee can choose to interpret the required distance from the polling station or the library building. Buttrey states that the committee should work on developing a voting map that determines walkability between locations and makes voting locations more obvious. Scott states that the committee can request the Office of Student Life to put the polling stations on the Campus Wayfinder. 7. UPDATE: POLLING PERIODS Luong states that polls are typically open from 9am to 6pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Henry suggests keeping polls open until 7pm. She asks what the latest time that polls can be open till. Buttrey suggests having polls open later on Tuesday and Wednesday but reducing voting hours on Thursday. He states that this will ensure that costs do not go up and that the vote count is not impeded. Hudson states that she will look into the feasibility of the suggestion. She states that it is a good idea and will likely be doable. 8. UPDATE: NOMINATION PERIOD ADVERTISEMENTS Scott states that the notice of nominations is on the Union website and posted in the Newspaper and the Varsity. Buttrey states that a poster advertising nominations should also be created. Luong states that he can have the Deputy returning Officers work on a poster. 9. UPDATE: ALL CANDIDATES MEETING Scott states that the All Candidates Meeting has been scheduled for Sunday, March 3, 2013. He states that all Elections and Referenda Committee members are expected to be in attendance.

AGENDA Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Thursday, February 7, 2013 ● 5pm ● University of Toronto Students’ Union Office 10. UPDATE: ALL CANDIDATES DEBATE Scott states that the All Candidates Debate has been scheduled for Thursday, March 7, 2013. Luong states that the DRO will be creating advertisements. 11. ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA COMMITTEE MEETING DATES

Scott states that the Election and Referenda Committee will be meeting weekly until campaigning period begins. He states that the committee should expect to meet daily during the campaign and voting period. He states he will send out a doodle poll to better survey the committee’s availability.

12. ACCEPTANCE OF REFERENDUM

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Buttrey

Be it resolved that the Bikechain fee referendum be accepted pending verification of membership quorum.

DISCUSSION Scott states that a petition to hold a referendum has been submitted from Bikechain. He states that the CRO and DROs are verifying the signatures, names and student numbers. He states that the group has submitted a valid question that can be voted on in this general election. 13. ELECTIONS CONCERN: ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS Scott states that there has been a degree change in the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design from a Bachelor of Arts to a Bachelor of Architecture. He states that this has resulted in some students being included in the new faculty and some being included in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He states that some students are waiting to be enrolled into the new program. Scott states that several students have inquired if they could run for the Architecture Director seat if they are not yet in the program. Scott states that the committee should ultimately have a conversation with the Arts and Sciences Students’ Union and the Architecture Academic Students’ Union to determine the best way forward. He states that the union can pursue two options. He states the first is to use the list provided and allow students who are currently in the program to be the only valid candidates to vote for the program and run for the program. He states the second option is to use a double envelope system to sort of the students who have fallen in the cracks of the faculty switch. He states that regardless of the decision, an information session should be held for students in the faculty. Henry states that the double envelope system is more cumbersome but will ensure the elections are more representative. Scott states that an additional polling station could be set up in Architecture to make the process simpler. He states that the decision should indicate that it will not set precendence. 14. ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA APPEALS COMMITTEE

Scott states that invitations to the Arts and Science Students’ Union, Graduate Students’ Union and GTA-wide students’ unions to solicit names to sit on the third level of appeals. He states that the individuals that will be chosen should focus on experience dealing with elections logistics and interpretation.

AGENDA Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Thursday, February 7, 2013 ● 5pm ● University of Toronto Students’ Union Office

15. UPDATE: REFERENDUM PROCEDURE Scott states that if the referendum is valid notice must be posted regarding the terms of the referendum. 16. UPDATE: LEGAL OPINION REVIEW

Hudson states that the legal opinion review will be received on Friday, February 8, 2013. She states that the committee should set a time to review the recommendations and implement changes before the Board Package is sent out. Henry suggests that the committee post the report online but add a cover sheet explaining the process of the review and the concerns of the Elections and Referenda Committee. Buttrey suggests releasing the report prior to the Special General Meeting.

17. OTHER BUSINESS

No other business.

18. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting is adjourned at 7:08pm.

Minutes of the

Elections and Referenda

Committee

Saturday, February 9, 2013

12pm

UTSU

MINUTES Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Saturday, February 9, 2013 ● 12pm ● UTSU Office IN ATTENDANCE: Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal and Services Ella Henry, Faculty of Law Director Michael Buttrey, Faculty of Theology Director PROXIES: Virginia Lomax to Corey Scott

NON-VOTING: Sandra Hudson, Executive Director

1. CALL TO ORDER Call to order at 11:54am.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Henry

Be it resolved that the Saturday, February 9, 2013 Elections and Referenda Committee agenda be approved as presented.

CARRIED

3. POLLING TIMES

Hudson states that she has reviewed the operations budget for the elections and referenda. She states that the funds exist to keep polls open till 7pm each day. Buttrey states that he is in favour of having the polls open late on Tuesday and Wednesday and closing early on Thursday. He states that this will help offset the additional costs of having polls open. Henry states that it might be confusing for students to have different times each day. Scott states that instead of having polls open till 7pm it may be easier to have polls open till 6:30pm. He states this addresses the concern of students coming to classes at 6pm and students who have classes until 6pm. He states that it also allows the costs of human resources for an additional full hour is relieved slightly.

4. ARCHITECTURE POLLING STATION

Hudson states that she has looked into an additional polling station in Architecture. She states that having an additional station poses a number of issues in terms of advertising the site, ordering additional materials, hiring additional poll clerks and securing the space. She states that funding constraints are a major concern. Henry states that there are two polling stations in Bahen. She states that the polling stations are close to the Architecture Building and could be the station to process double ballots for Architecture students who wish to vote for the faculty director.

MINUTES Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Saturday, February 9, 2013 ● 12pm ● UTSU Office

Buttrey asks if a polling station can be moved from Bahen to Architecture. Hudson states that Bahen has very high traffic. She states that the poll often has lineups. Buttrey states that directions for Architecture students can be posted in the Architecture Building to indicate Bahen as a place to vote.

5. ARCHITECTURE CONCERN

Scott states that he gave an update on the situation at the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design at the last meeting. He states that he is seeking a directive from the committee on how to address the registration issue. Henry states that she recommends a double ballot system for students to choose which faculty to register in. She recommends training poll clerks at Bahen Centre to specifically coordinate this system. She further states that an info session in the Faculty will assist in the coordination and dissemination of information to members in the Faculty. Buttrey states that he is in favour of the double balloting and self-identification system.

6. LEGAL OPINION REVIEW

Scott recommends reviewing the various documents received by the committee regarding election reform. He states that there have been several public and private documents to review including the Non-Partisan Declaration on UTSU Electoral Reform, a document on municipalities that have used online voting, a document by Kevin Siu (both provided by Sam Greene), and a document posted by Hardy Weinberg. He further states that the legal opinion review audit has been received. Henry states that the document from Siu contains useful information, however many concerns are not fully addressed. She states that the document addresses online voting security as secure “as you need it to be”. She states that there are significant security concerns with online voting. She further states that more research is required to determine if online voting consistently increases voter turnout. She states that there are numerous elections that increase voter turnout without online voting. She states that election relevance and campaign issues can often increase voter turnout in paper ballot system. Hudson states that the Mississauga campus does not use online voting and has seen 50 per cent and 30 per cent voter turnouts for referendums. She states that Governing Council shows a lower voter turnout than UTSU elections despite including graduate, part-time and Scarborough students. She states that Siu’s arguments do not address University privacy concerns in providing membership lists to third-party online voting administrators. Scott states that the University would be in a conflict of interest in having anything to do with the UTSU elections as the winning candidates would have to negotiate a contract for the Student Commons and other memorandums of agreement with the University. The outcome of elections could have material consequences in millions of dollars for the University. Henry states that the University’s control over the elections procedure would not indicate malicious intent, but there is still an apparent conflict of interest that would harm the perception of fairness and confidence in the elections.


Henry states that Siu indicates that online voting has its problems but that paper balloting has issues as well. She states that both systems have problems, but that problems with online voting are more difficult to detect, and more likely to take longer periods of time to rectify. She states that the University of British Columbia spent tens of thousands of dollars and took six weeks to determine that an online election had been hacked. She states that the paper ballot system has been tried and tested and is easier to track inaccuracies. Buttrey states that it takes numerous people to tamper with a paper ballot voting system. He states that online voting only requires one non-affiliated person to access and modify an election system. Henry states that the possibilities and abilities to interfere with online voting are constantly shifting and require numerous resources to counter-balance. Hudson states that there have been instances where students have attempted to vote twice through double ballot. She states that these instances are consistently caught during the vote count. Henry states that scrutineering is not the same with online voting. She states that scrutineers would need to have some specialized understanding of how online voting works on the backend. She states that paper balloting systems are easier to understand, more accountable and transparent. Buttrey states that paper balloting is more intelligible. He states that the perception of the election process and security becomes a lot harder to understand through a more complicated online process. He states that students’ unions do not have the resources to be the early adopters of online voting. Scott states that submissions have indicated that government elections are comparable to the UTSU elections. He states that Siu indicates that governments should not necessarily be compared but that other government transactions are done online, like taxes. Henry states that online taxes and tuition are not the same as online voting. She states that it is unlikely that someone would log payments into her account to pay for her tuition fees. Hudson states that the purpose of online voting and ROSI are also different. She states that the programs are focused on tracking individual’s submissions. She states voting should not be tracked to an individual as this violates the purpose of secret ballots. Henry states that Siu states that online voting already exists and that it is like tuning on a switch. She states that an online election that involved simply turning on a switch would not meet the UTSU’s existing standard for fairness and transparency in elections. She states that security, transparency and autonomy should be of utmost concern. Scott states that these arguments should be made clear to the public. Henry states that several municipalities listed only have online and phone voting as advanced voting. She states that some of the municipalities listed have less residents than the UTSU. Scott states that municipalities and students’ unions have different geographies. Students come to the institution on a weekly basis whereas residents do not necessarily visit public schools, grocery stores or community centers where polls may be located on a regular basis.


Scott states that Hardy Weinberg’s document indicates some issues with online elections. He states that some of the big issues include commuters and voter turnout. Scott states that Weinberg indicates that commuters do come to campus and have the opportunity to vote during reasonable voting hours. Scott states that the primary concern is how to reach students who are not passing by voting stations or do not have a reasonable opportunity to access polling stations. He states that extending polling station hours for working and commuter students that may take classes from 4pm-6pm and 6pm onwards classes would address some concerns around accessibility. Henry states that Weinberg also addresses whether online voting will address voter turnout. She states that if online voting were to be put in place then it needs to be sustainable in increasing voter turnout. She states that Weinberg indicates that voter turnout may stagnate if students ignore online campaigns and emails. Hudson states that polling stations and hours are set up on the busiest days on campus. Scott states that the committee has received the legal opinion audit from the law firm. He states that the document is comprehensive in comparing elections procedures with other students’ unions, elections systems and university governance systems. He states that the audit indicates that the UTSU has several strong elections procedures in comparison to other systems but could use improvement in some areas. Scott states that the audit was done with the information provided in the Non-Partisan Declaration for Electoral Reform. Hudson states that the audit goes through a number of recommendations and findings with the Elections Procedures Code, elections practices, and the roles of the Elections and Referenda Committee, Chief Returning Officer and Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee. She states that the audit also provides guidance on the development of better poll clerk training, all-candidates meetings, new media, communication to candidates and post-election reviews and submissions. Henry states that it will be difficult to implement all the recommendations before the beginning of nominations. She states that many of the concerns raised in the previous documents are addressed in this document. She states that the audit addresses systemic and reoccurring issues and provides best practices. She states that there are very clear recommendations and with more broad recommendations as well. Buttrey states that the audit does not recommend online voting and preferential voting systems due to numerous concerns with the current elections system and their implementation. Scott suggests that as many of the recommendations be incorporated into the Elections Procedures Code as possible.

7. ELECTIONS PROCEDURE CODE AMENDMENTS MOTION Moved: Henry Seconded: Buttrey

Be it resolved that the Elections Procedure Code be amended as presented.

DISCUSSION Scott thanks the committee for going through and proposing the recommendations. He states that the committee has put in several hours reviewing the recommendations, researching and word-smithing a huge overhaul of the EPC.

MINUTES Elections and Referenda Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Saturday, February 9, 2013 ● 12pm ● UTSU Office Henry states that a lot of the changes clarify and simplify language to be clear in intent and interpretation. She states that a lot of redundancies have been removed which will be less confusing. She states that the responsibilities of the CRO and the ERC are straightforward. Scott states that provisions for access to funding have been proposed to ensure that financial accessibility is of utmost concern. He states that the Fair Play clause has also been remodeled to be clear and to the point so that candidates are educated on the matter. He states that the redefinition of “Library” will help clarify polling stations such as Gerstein Library. Henry states that the process of appeals has more definitive timelines so that the complainant, CRO and ERC can adhere to timelines reasonably.

CARRIED

8. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Henry

Meeting adjourns at 4:58pm.

1

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION Elections Procedure Code – Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

I. Interpretation 2

II. Powers of the Elections Codes 4 1. Jurisdiction 2. Administration of Election Procedures 3. Amendments to Elections Procedure Code

III. Candidate Eligibility 5

1. The Constituency 2. Candidate Eligibility 3. Nominations 4. Required Nominators

IV. Administration of Elections 6 1. The Elections and Referenda Committee 2. The Chief Returning Officer 3. The Deputy Returning Officer(s)

V. All-Candidates Meeting 8

VI. Rules for Elections 9 1. Campaigning 2. Campaign Expenses 3. Violation of Campaign Rules

VII. Voting Process 17

1. The Voting Process 2. Election of Candidates

VIII. Election Results 18

1. Equality of Votes 2. Ratification 3. Unofficial Results

IX. Appeals Process 19

1. Election and Referenda Appeals Committee 2. Appeals of the Election and Referenda Committee 3. Appeals of Election Results

X. Recounts 21 1. Automatic 2. Requested

2

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article I – Interpretation INTERPRETATION The Chief Returning Officer, the Elections and Referenda Committee and the Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee make all interpretations to this Code. For the purpose of this Code: Arm’s-Length Party refers to any individual or group who is not a “non-arm’s-length party”. At-Large Directors refers to the Faculty of Arts and Science and Professional Faculties Directors as defined in the UTSU Bylaws. Building on Campus refers to buildings owned or operated by the University of Toronto or any of the federated colleges or universities. Campaign Material refers to any item, design, sound, symbol or mark that is created or copied in any form in order to influence at least one voter to cast a ballot or not to cast a ballot, in favour or in opposition to a Candidate. Campaigning refers to any attempt by an individual or organization to encourage a student to cast a ballot or not to cast a ballot in favour or in opposition of a Candidate. This may occur with or without campaign material. Candidate refers to any individual who has met the requirements of Article III and Article V of this Code. Constituency refers to the population of voters that are eligible to cast a vote for a particular position. Code refers to the Election Procedure Code. CRO refers to the Chief Returning Officer. Cross Campaigning refers to the sharing of campaign materials, slogans, tactics, identifying marks or names, or joint campaigning with the intent of associating two or more Candidates in the mind of a voter. Director/Division Candidate refers to any Candidate that is not an Executive Candidate. Arm’s-Length Party, to an individual or group. Endorsement refers to supporting a Candidate, through either verbal or non-verbal communication, through the provision of materials, advertisements or non-financial donations. ERAC refers to the Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee.

3

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article I – Interpretation ERC refers to the Elections and Referenda Committee. Executive Candidates refers to Candidates for the position of President, Vice-President Internal and Services, Vice-President Uniersity Affairs, Vice-President Equity and Vice-President External. Fall Election refers to the election held between 20 September and 30 October for the purpose of electing members from the Board of Directors to fill a constituency having an academic program of one year or a Director seat that has become vacant prior to September 1. Full-Time Undergraduate Student refers to the definition set out in the Union Bylaws. Harassment means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Library refers to the space beyond a theft detection device in a University of Toronto Library. Member refers to any individual who is a current member of the Union as defined in the Union Bylaws. Non-Arm’s-Length Party means an individual or group that a Candidate knew, or reasonably ought to have known, would assist that candidate in their campaign. Polling Station means any Union-sanctioned ballot box during the election period. Poster shall refer to print media to be affixed to a surface, or displayed for viewing. Public Domain means any place to which Members have a right of access. Spoiled Vote means any ballot cast where only one or no poll clerk initialed the ballot, where no voter intent was indicated, or where too many Candidates were selected on the ballot. Sponsorship means a financial contribution made for the purpose of supporting a Candidate’s campaign. Student Society shall refer to any student groups on campus that collect a compulsory student fee. Union shall refer to the University of Toronto Students’ Union. Valid Identification shall mean a valid University of Toronto Student Identification card. Valid Vote shall mean any ballot cast that is not a spoiled vote. Votes Cast shall refer to the total number of valid votes and the total number of spoiled votes.

4

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article II – Powers of the Elections Procedure Code POWERS OF THE ELECTIONS PROCEDURE CODE

1. Jurisdiction

a. The provisions of this Code shall apply to those elections conducted by the Union and the Candidates within those elections.

b. Where this Code is in contradiction of the Union Bylaws, the Bylaws will prevail.

2. Administration of Elections Procedure Code

a. It will be the duty of the Chief Returning Officer, the Deputy Returning Officer(s), the Elections and Referenda Committee and the Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee to administer this Code and to uphold its spirit and principles.

b. All Union elections must run according to the Union Accessibility Policy, and Union Environmental Protection Policy and any other applicable policy of the Union.

c. The Union’s Elections and Referenda Committee may amend the Code and recommend changes to the Board of Directors. The Board must ratify any amendments and is unable to propose any amendments to the Code.

3. Amendments to Elections Procedure Code

The Bylaws and the Policy Booklet of the Union shall govern written notice of any amendments to this code. The Board cannot adopt amendments to the Code between the commencement of the nomination period(s) and the announcement of results.

5

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article III – Candidate Eligibility CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY

1. The Constituency The constituencies and constituency representative(s) are determined by the Union Bylaws and enrolment figures provided by the University of Toronto Registrar.

2. Candidate Eligibility

The requirements for the eligibility of a candidate are as follows:

a. All election Candidates must be Members of the Union during the nomination period.

b. All Candidates must have submitted a valid nomination form. c. All Candidates must satisfy the requirements under Article V of this Code.

3. Nominations

To be valid every nomination form must:

i. Accurately list the name, student number and constituency of the nominee and the position sought on each page.

ii. List the e-mail address and phone number of each candidate. iii. Be submitted prior to the close of the nomination period. iv. Be signed by the required number of nominees.

b. The completeness, accuracy and delivery of the nomination form is the

responsibility of the Member seeking candidacy. c. Any person who fails to submit a valid nomination before the close of the

nomination is treated as if they submitted no nomination form. d. The validity of any nomination may be disputed by submitting a “request to review”

to the Elections and Referenda Committee no later than twenty-four (24) hours following the release of names of eligible candidates. The ERC shall render a decision before the beginning of the campaign period.

4. Required Nominators a. Director Candidate

A Director Candidate nomination form must be signed by at least twenty-five (25) Members in the relevant constituency to be valid.

b. Executive Candidate An Executive Candidate nomination form must be signed by at least one-hundred (100) Members from any constituency to be valid.

6

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENT’S UNION EPC – Article IV – Administration of Elections ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS

1. The Elections and Referenda Committee a. The Elections and Referenda Committee, as stated in the Union Bylaws, oversees

the Elections and Referenda of the Union. b. The ERC reserves the right to modify the following sections of the Code:

i. Article V: All-Candidates Meeting, subsection (4). ii. Article VI: Rules of Elections, subsection (1)(o).

c. The ERC reserves the right to overrule decisions made by the CRO. d. All ERC members shall act impartially during the Election period. Failure to act

impartially may result in removal or censure from the ERC. e. The ERC Chair issues the official election and referenda results to candidates, the

membership and the media, as appropriate. f. The ERC shall reserve the right to censure or remove any ERC members with:

i. Two-thirds (2/3) vote by the ERC, and, ii. Two-thirds (2/3) vote by the Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee.

g. If an ERC member resigns before the close of the nomination period, the Board may elect another Director to fill the vacancy.

h. The ERC sets the Election and Referenda schedule for the Fall and Spring Election periods.

i. Whenever possible, the Elections and Referenda Committee shall set the dates of the spring elections in consideration of the dates of the elections for the student positions on Governing Council and the executive positions of the University of Toronto at Mississauga Students’ Union.

j. On voting days, no less than eight (8) polling stations on the St. George Campus and no less than three (3) polling stations on the Mississauga Campus, with no more than two (2) stations at the same location, shall be set up by the Chief Returning Officer. To ensure a fair and equal distribution of polling stations, locations shall be ratified by the Elections and Referenda Committee on recommendation of the CRO in consultation with the ERC Chair. In allocating polling stations, the ERC will consider factors including, but not limited to, cost, logistics, proximity to other polling stations, accessibility, traffic, and poll locations in previous elections.

k. Polling locations shall be publicized at the start of the campaign period.

2. The Chief Returning Officer The Chief Returning Officer (CRO) shall:

a. Report to the ERC and ERC Chair. b. Report to the ERC on all matters falling within this section and additionally, on any

other matters of concern that are directed to them by a resolution of the ERC. c. Ensure that the Elections Procedure Code and the Charter for Referenda are

enforced. d. Authorize all election notices, publicity and campaign materials regulated by the

Code. e. Organize and conduct the All-Candidates Meeting.

7

f. Organize and establish guidelines for “Candidates’ forums”. g. Provide a final report to the Board of Directors under the direction of the Chair of

the ERC. h. Ensure impartiality in the conduct of the election.

3. The Deputy Returning Officer(s)

The Deputy Returning Officer(s) shall: a. Report to the CRO. b. Aid the CRO with promoting the Election. c. Act impartially in the election. d. Assume the responsibilities of the CRO in their absence. e. Assume other duties delegated by the ERC Chair, the CRO and the ERC.

8

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article V – All-Candidates Meeting ALL-CANDIDATES MEETING

1. All nominees, or an authorized representative of each nominee, must attend an All-Candidates Meeting in its entirety. If this is not possible, the nominee must contact the CRO within twenty-four (24) hours to arrange a meeting.

a. A nominee will not be considered a Candidate unless they have attended an All-Candidate’s Meeting or met with the CRO.

2. A prospective Candidate, or their authorized representative, whose nomination form is pending a “request to review,” as per Article III.3(d) shall be permitted to attend an All-Candidates Meeting.

3. An authorized representative must posses a signed statement from the nominee that the representative has the authority to act on their behalf for the duration of the meeting.

4. Any Candidate who fails to attend or send an authorized representative to an All-Candidates Meeting, or fails to meet with the CRO, as per Article V.1 shall be deemed ineligible to run in the election.

5. The topics at All-Candidates meeting shall include, but are not limited to: a. The Code; b. University of Toronto policy; c. The Election schedule; d. The structure and function of the Union; and e. The duties and functions of the Election officials.

6. Each Candidate or authorized representative must sign a statement before leaving the meeting that indicates that they understands the rules and regulations governing the Election, including the Code.

7. It is the responsibility of each candidate to understand the information provided at the All-Candidates Meeting.

9

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article VI – Rules for Elections Rules for Elections

1. Campaigning a. Pre-campaigning

No Campaigning shall take place before the campaign period. This includes, but is not limited to, posting or distributing campaign materials, online campaigning, classroom campaign talks and campaigning at social events.

b. Conflict of Interest Any current member of the Board or staff, volunteers and committee members of the Union seek election must remove themselves from all involvement relating to the Elections at the start of the nomination period.

c. Responsibility of Candidates Candidates have the responsibility of the actions and violations stemming from such actions, of any Non-Arm’s-Length Party, however occurring.

d. Fair Play Candidates shall campaign in accordance with the rules of Fair Play. Breaking the rules of fair play include, but are not limited to:

i. breaching generally accepted community standards; ii. libel; iii. slander; iv. Harassment; v. general sabotage of the campaigns of other Candidates; vi. malicious or intentional breach of elections policy; vii. persistent attempts to undermine the ability of the CRO or the ERC to

carry out their responsibilities; and viii. any attempt to undermine the electoral process including:

1. interference with the polling station materials; 2. interference with poll clerks; and 3. misrepresentation of facts.

e. Adherence to Existing Policy

It is the responsibility of the Candidates to ensure that all campaign tactics, materials and advertisements conform to all policies and regulations of the Union and University, and with all municipal, provincial and federal laws. Campaign displays and distribution of literature on campus are also subject to the rules and regulation of the University publication Procedure on Distribution of Publications, Posters and Banners at the University of Toronto, as well as individual campuses and residences.

. .� 13-2-9 7:12 PMComment [1]: The ERC has flagged this section for detailed review with the intent to revise at a later date.

. .� 13-2-9 7:18 PMComment [2]: The ERC has flagged this section for detailed review at a later date with the intent to revise.

10

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article VI – Rules for Elections

f. Approval of Campaign Methods All campaign tactics, material and advertisements need approval by the CRO in advance of posting or distribution.

g. Environmental Protection and Recycling All campaign materials, where feasible, are to contain the following phrase somewhere in plain sight on the material: “please pass this on to a friend and recycle after the election”.

h. Poster Quantity Limits

Candidates are not permitted to post more than the number of posters indicated below: Positions Poster Limit Executive Candidates 1000 At-Large Director Candidates 500 All Other Director Candidates 200

i. Candidate Posters and Campaign Materials The following restrictions regulating Campaigning must be followed. It is the responsibility of the Candidates to familiarize themselves with the different rules that govern each of the following entities:

i. Poster size shall not exceed 11” x 17” (29.7cm x 42 cm). ii. No more than three banners are allowed. Banners must not exceed 9’ x 3’

(2.75m x 0.92m). iii. High-gloss posters are not permitted. iv. Laminated posters are not permitted. v. Any form of non-recyclable poster material is not permitted. vi. All text in other languages on campaign materials must have an accurate

English translation that appears in equal stature and size. vii. No Candidate’s poster may overlap another Candidate’s poster. viii. No Candidate may post one of their posters within one (1) foot (30.5 cm)

of another one of their own posters. ix. All print campaign materials must be removed within forty-eight (48) hours

after the close of the voting period. x. All web and social media pages must be removed within forty-eight (48)

hours after the close of the voting period. xi. Campaign materials may not:

1. Overlap or be attached to Campaign materials already affixed to other objects or surfaces.

2. Be affixed to surfaces in classrooms or seminar rooms. 3. Be removed from any posted location without the authorization of

the CRO. This does not apply to candidates removing their own material.

11


j. Distribution of Goods

Candidates may not campaign by distributing goods.

k. Prohibition of Animals The use of animals for Campaigning is forbidden.

l. Restricted Areas Areas designated for campaigning will be subject to the following restrictions:

i. No Campaigning of any form is permitted in the Union offices or using Union resources.

ii. To campaign in a classroom, a Candidate must obtain permission from the ecturer before the start of class. Candidates are required to inform the CRO within a reasonable time about such activities.

iii. No campaigning where alcohol is served.

m. Specific Restrictions on Campus Additional restrictions regulating campaigning, that are unique to the following, must be followed. It is the responsibility of the candidates to familiarize themselves with the different rules that govern each of the following:

i. St. George and Mississauga campuses; ii. buildings on campus; and iii. student residences

n. Campaign Restrictions on Polling Stations

Restrictions Concerning Union Polling Stations include: i. Candidates are not allowed within six (6) metres of a designated polling

station, except to vote. ii. No campaign materials shall be placed within six (6) metres of a polling

station during voting days. iii. No campaign materials may be clearly visible from the polling station.

o. Websites and Online Networks

A candidate using a website or online network as a campaign tool is responsible for the moderation of all materials so that they are in accordance with the rules of Fair Play. Violations of campaigning rules on websites or online networks by candidates or Arm’s-Length parties are also subject to the penalties detailed in Article VI.3.

p. Benefits Acquired by Virtue of Office

Candidates cannot use services or funds that they acquired through holding a position in a campus organization unless the same services are available to all other Candidates. This includes the use of office supplies, equipment, advertising space and staff.

. .� 13-2-9 7:45 PMComment [3]: The ERC has flagged this section for further review with the intent to clarify the language used.

12


q. Designation of Campaign Materials

A Candidate’s total expenditure includes all campaign materials that endorse or support them. This may include situations where a Non-Arms-Length Party supports a Candidate or group of Candidates and produces materials without the consent of the Candidate.

r. Cross Campaigning i. Cross Campaigning is allowed between Candidates in the Elections

governed by this Code. ii. Cross Campaigning is allowed between candidates being elected through

other organizations and Candidates in the Election governed by this Code. This includes candidates for Governing Council.

iii. Cross Campaigning is not allowed with candidates from University Student Society elections.

s. Campaigning During Voting Period During the specified voting period, and subject to Article VI.1(n), Campaigning is allowed with the following restrictions:

i. Campaigning is not allowed within six (6) metres of a student residence. ii. Campaigning and campaign materials are not allowed within six (6)

metres of a Library. iii. Campaigning and campaign materials are not allowed within six (6)

metres of a computer lab.

2. Campaign Expenses

a. Proof of Campaign Expenses i. All candidates must submit original receipts of all campaign expenditures

to the CRO within seventy-two (72) hours of the close of voting. The CRO may at any time request from any of the Candidates original receipts for expenditures prior to the close of voting.

b. Campaign Donations i. Sources and amounts of any campaign donations must be disclosed to

the CRO and ERC Chair. Candidates will not be reimbursed for this amount.

c. Calculation of Campaign Expenditures The calculation of Candidates’ expenses where there is no receipt shall be made according to the Fair Market Value of all purchases, services, donations and items, which are deemed by the ERC to be used for the purposes of the campaign.

13


A non-negotiable fee of $50.00 (fifty dollars) shall be charged to any candidate who does not submit their campaign receipts.

i. Fair Market Value of a product or service is the lowest price, without special concessions or discounts that is available in Toronto.

ii. The ERC must contact three (3) major suppliers in the Toronto area and shall adopt the lowest price as the Fair Market Value. The candidate may dispute the Fair Market Value if the candidate is able to submit receipts from Toronto area merchants that give evidence of a lower Fair Market Value than that determined by the ERC.

d. Reimbursements of Campaign Expenditures – Executive Candidates

The Union shall reimburse Executive Candidates for campaign expenses if they submit proof of expenses. Reimbursements shall be based on the following schedules: Candidates for President, Vice-President Internal and Services, Vice-President University Affairs, Vice-President Equity and Vice-President External: % of Total Vote Maximum Reimbursement 25% to 100% $1200.00 10% to 24.9% $900.00 5% to 9.9% $500.00 0% to 4.9% $0 All reimbursement payments made to candidates shall include deductions for any fines that have been levied against the candidate.

e. Reimbursement of Campaign Expenditures – Director Candidates

The Union shall not reimburse a Director Candidate for campaign expenses incurred. The CRO reimburse candidates from time to time if that candidate can demonstrate financial need.

f. If Candidate’s can demonstrate financial need, the CRO may make funds available

during the campaign period to ensure access to seeking Election.

g. Expense Limits Expense limits for all Candidates shall be assessed as follows: Positions Expense Limit Executive Candidates $1200.00 CAD At-Large Director Candidates $300.00 CAD All other Director Candidates $100.00 CAD

14


3. Violation of Campaign Rules a. Elections and Referenda Authority

i. The CRO has the sole authority to enforce the provisions of this Code. The ERC may enforce this Code where no ruling is given by the CRO.

ii. The ERC and ERAC reserve the right to modify any ruling of the CRO. iii. The CRO and the ERC both have the power to make decisions about

issues and events not otherwise covered by this Code.

b. Allegations of Violations Any allegations of violations of this Code must be submitted to the CRO. Allegations must be made within forty-eight (48) hours of the violation, and within forty-eight (48) hours of the close of the voting period.

c. Committee Initiative Where the CRO or a member of the ERC finds evidence of a violation, the ERC or CRO may charge a candidate with a violation of campaign rules.

d. CRO Rulings The CRO shall make a ruling on a violation, within forty-eight (48) hours of receiving the complaint, in writing.

e. Appeals of CRO’s Ruling i. All CRO rulings may be appealed to the ERC. Appeals must be made in

writing and submitted to the CRO. ii. Any appeal of a CRO ruling decision must be submitted in writing within

forty-eight (48) hours of the Candidate being informed of the CRO ruling. iii. Individuals may attend the ERC meeting at which their appeal will be

considered. The Candidate may make oral statements and/or deliver a written statement to present their case.

iv. An individual is deemed to be informed of an ERC decision six (6) hours after the decision is posted on the designated elections space in the Union office(s). Any decisions shall indicate the time posted.

f. Candidate’s Responsibility of Knowledge of Decisions

It is the responsibility of each Candidate to be aware of every decision made by the CRO, ERC and ERAC, especially decisions regarding violations committed by that Candidate.

g. Publication of Violation

Where the CRO or ERC finds there has been a violation of the Code, the CRO or ERC Chair must publish the details of the violation in a designated elections space in the Union office.

. .� 13-2-9 8:08 PMComment [4]: The ERC has flagged this section for detailed review with the intent to revise.

15


h. Penalties for Violations Where the CRO or ERC finds there has been a violation of the Election Procedure Code by a Candidate or a Non-Arm’s-Length Party of the Candidate, the CRO or ERC may:

i. Assign a demerit point penalty resulting in a fine against a Candidate. ii. Declare that an election in a particular constituency be ruled void. iii. Assign no demerit points, but attach a financial penalty of no greater than

$45.00 (forty-five dollars) per offence.

i. Multiple Penalties A violation may result in multiple penalties where the violation encompasses more than one offence.

j. Demerit Points The values listed below are the maximum that may be issued for a given violation.

i. Campaign Materials Violation Demerit Point Unintentional misrepresentation of facts 3 Multiple violations in the same location / building 4 Unapproved material 15 Displayed in an unauthorized area 5 Pre-campaign materials 15 Post-campaign materials 3 Multiple violations within ten (10) metres 8 Intentional misrepresentation of facts 10

ii. Campaigning

Violation Demerit Point Unintentional misrepresentation of facts 3 Failure to submit campaign receipts and / or signed statement of having no expenses

4

Distribution of campaign material within six (6) metres of a polling station 15 Unsolicited campaigning (including e-mail and phone calls) 8 Improper distribution of campaign materials 8 Multiple violations within ten (10) metres 8 Intentional misrepresentation of facts 10 Campaigning in an unauthorized area 10 Pre-campaigning 20 Post-campaigning 3 Breaking University, municipal, provincial, and / or federal law / regulation while campaigning

35

16

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article VI – Rules for Elections iii. Fair Play Violation Demerit Point Candidates enforcing Elections Procedure Code 5 Unsanctioned use of Union resources 15 Gross misrepresentation of facts 20 Malicious or intentional violation of Elections Procedure Code or Policy 20 Abuse of position or status 15 Failure to comply with the spirit and purpose of the elections 35 Repeated frivolous complaints and/or appeals 3

k. Demerit Point Fines In addition to demerit points, Candidates will be levied a monetary fine per demerit point, except on the first 10 points, as follows:

Position Fine per point President $15.00 Vice-Presidents $15.00 At-Large Directors $8.00 All other Directors $5.00

l. Disqualification Violations of the following nature will result in an automatic disqualification of a candidate:

i. Being ineligible as per Article III. ii. Spending over the maximum spending limit as per Article VI.2(f). iii. Intentional misrepresentation of campaign expenditures. iv. Accruing greater than 100 per cent of their allowable demerit point limit, as

follows: Candidate Points Executive Candidates 35 At-Large Director Candidates 30 All other Director Candidates 20

m. Disqualification of Winning Candidate

i. In the event a winning candidate in any election is disqualified, the runner-up will become the winner.

. .� 13-2-9 8:13 PMComment [5]: The ERC has flagged this item for further detailed review with the intent to revise.

17

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article VII – Voting Process Voting Process 1. The Voting Process Voting shall take place by paper ballot. Valid University of Toronto identification is required for Voting. 2. Election of Candidates

a. Winners shall be elected by a plurality of the votes cast. b. If there is only one Candidate for any Executive position, there will be a confirmation vote

put to the membership. The ballot will contain the Candidate’s name and an option of “Yes” or “No” for the Candidate. In the event that there are more “No” votes than “Yes” votes, the position is declared vacant.

18

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article VIII – Election Results Election Results 1. Equality of Votes In the event of a tie, the winner(s) are decided in a run-off election commencing within two weeks of the release of unofficial results. 2. Ratification As per the Bylaws of the Union, Candidates will not be deemed officially elected until they have:

a. Paid all outstanding Election fines. b. Been ratified by the Union’s Board at the subsequent meeting following the election results

with the condition that there is no outstanding appeal involving the candidate. c. Attained the age of majority of eighteen (18) years of age.

3. Unofficial Results Unofficial results shall be announced within 24-48 hours of the end of the count.

19

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article IX – Appeal Process Appeal Process 1. Election and Referenda Appeals Committee

The Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee will hear appeals made by candidates regarding the decisions of the Elections and Referenda Committee. The ERAC may not hear appeals of the CRO rulings not yet ruled upon by the ERC.

a. The composition of the Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee shall be as follows:

i. One (1) staff or executive member from the Graduate Students’ Union of the University of Toronto.

ii. One (1) staff or executive member from the Arts and Science Students’ Union of the University of Toronto.

iii. One (1) staff or executive member of a university Student Union in the Greater Toronto Area.

iv. The Chair of the ERC serves as a non-voting member.

b. The Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee membership must be appointed by the Elections and Referenda Committee before the opening of the nomination period. In any given year, the outgoing ERC may appoint members of the ERAC for the following year.

2. Appeals of the Election and Referenda Committee Candidates who wish to appeal any decision of the Elections and Referenda Committee must do the following:

a. File a notice of appeal to the Chair of the Elections and Referenda Committee for the Appeals Committee within forty-eight (48) hours of the ERC decision, accompanied with a $50.00 (fifty dollar) deposit. The ERC reserves the right to waive the requirement of the deposit with a two-third (2/3) vote.

b. The deposit will not count towards campaign expense calculations or reimbursements. c. The deposit will be refunded only in the case that the decision of the ERAC differs from what

the ERC ruled. d. The ruling of the ERAC is final. Candidates and all involved parties shall be deemed

informed of a decision six (6) hours after the decision is posted on the designated space in the Union office. All decisions shall indicate the time posted. The ERAC shall notify the ERC of all decisions made.

. .� 13-2-9 8:34 PMComment [6]: The ERC has flagged this item for further detailed review with the intent to revise.

20

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article IX – Appeal Process 3. Appeals of Election Results

a. Any candidate may challenge the validity of their election result in a written submission containing their reasons to the CRO within forty-eight (48) hours of the close of the voting period.

b. The CRO, on behalf of the ERC, shall investigate any appeal and make a recommendation to the Board on the appropriate action.

c. Upon the recommendation of the ERC, the Board may refuse to ratify any single Director election. The Board may not amend rulings of the CRO, ERC or ERAC.

21

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION EPC – Article X – Recounts Recounts 1. Automatic An automatic recount will take place if the vote margin is within the following schedule: Position Vote Margin Executive Candidate 50 votes At-Large Candidate 25 votes Division I Candidate 10 votes Division II Candidate 5 votes 2. Requested A Candidate may request a recount of the votes by submitting a written request to the CRO within forty eight (48) hours of the announcement of unofficial results. In the event that a recount is requested by a Candidate, the ballots shall only be recounted once. The CRO, ERC, and ERAC may request additional recounts at their discretion.

Minutes of the

Organizational

Development and Services

Committee

February 4, 2013

4:30pm

UTSU

MINUTES Organizational Development and Services Committee of the University of Toronto Students’ Union Monday, February 4, 2013 | 4:30pm | UTSU Tower

!IN ATTENDANCE: VOTING MEMBERS: Cullen Brown, St. Michael’s College Director Kathleen Qu, St. Michael’s College Director Corey Scott, Vice-President Internal and Services PROXIES: Shaun Shepherd, President to Corey Scott NON-VOTING: Dan Gillespie, Health and Dental Plan Coordinator Terri Nikolaevsky, Member Services Coordinator 1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting is called to order at 4:34pm. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOTION Moved: Qu Seconded: Brown

Be it resolved that the February 2, 2012 Organizational Development and Services Committee agenda be approved as presented.

CARRIED !

3. SERVICES REPORT-BACK

Scott states that the agenda will address the majority of services covered by the Union. He states that the printing service continues to be a popular service that takes a toll on staff and resources. He states that the committee has previously reduced printing hours to four hours a day.

Nikolaevsky states that the printing service has become concentrated during the four hours and is consistently busy during the period.

Brown asks if the Union can pursue joining the program with the University and the T-Card program to save funds. He asks if the Union can provide a $5 base coverage on T-Cards as opposed to running the program through the UTSU office.

Scott states that the program is intended to run cost-neutral. He states that the T-Card system is not as compatible with the Union’s services. He states that the Union does not have the resources to put a base fund on each T-Card.

Brown asks if this committee is the appropriate place to discuss levy fees and opt-outs.

Scott states that a memorandum of agreement between the UTSU, the levy group and the university governs the levy groups. He states that the relationship is primarily financial so that levy groups may remain autonomous from the university.

Scott states that the Union has set a procedure in place for banner printing. He states that the


!program will likely grow in the new school year as the program was previously coordinated through individual correspondence.

Nikolaevsky states that the Union is implementing year-round bulk purchasing for campus clubs through the Canadian Federation of Students Ethical Bulk Purchasing Network.

4. MOBILE KIOSK DEVELOPMENT

Scott states that the mobile kiosk is an opportunity to expand services outside of the Union office. He states that he has done research into possible kiosks and costing. He further states that the university has been inquiring about details before agreeing to provide space for the kiosk. He states that he has provided a mobile kiosk proposal to the Office of Student Life which indicates the need for storage space and the endorsement of providing space to conduct business in.

Nikolaevsky states that the kiosk will not be in one space but that it should not be in every space. She suggests keeping a regular schedule for the kiosk and starting off small.

Qu asks if the Union has considered staffing of the kiosk.

Scott states that the proposal drafted deals with information pertinent to the university. He states that staffing will need to be discussed with members of the bargaining unit and the budget committee. He states that staffing will also require an understanding of which services will be offered in the kiosk.

Gillespie states that liability will increase with the more locations the kiosk operates in.

Brown asks what services will be included in the kiosk.

Scott states that he will set up another committee meeting to specifically look at the logistics behind the mobile kiosk.

5. TTC STUDENT METROPASS PROGRAM

Scott states that the Union has had an online survey inquiring about members’ preferences between the post-secondary student metropass or the volume incentive metropass. Scott states that the majority of respondents desired the choice between the two passes.

Nikolaevsky gives an overview of the history of the volume incentive program and the post-secondary student metropass. She indicates that the volume incentive program used to involve more than 10,000 metropasses being sold from the UTSU office or satellite offices each month. She states that the switch to a more accessible post-secondary pass has decentralized the program from the UTSU office, as post-secondary passes are available at TTC stations.

Gillespie states that the major issue with the volume incentive program is that it puts the administrative, financial and liability costs into the hands of the service provider. He states that the service does not provide any revenue to the UTSU to offset extra staffing costs and transaction fees. He suggests that the Union inquire with the Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students Union and university offices to pursue a joint or centrally run program.

Qu states that the Union is ultimately going to be the only organization paying for the volume incentive program pass whereas members will save money and the TTC is secured pass sales.


!Nikolaevsky states that any possibility of implementing the service should include a cutoff amount to ensure the program does not grow to be unsustainable.

Scott states that the committee does not need to make a decision on implementing another program today. He states that this discussion warrants a larger discussion with better research and financial numbers.

Brown states that it is important to ensure that the TTC knows that the Union does not want to dismantle the post-secondary student metropass.

Gillespie states that both Ryerson and York offer both passes due to the structure of the campuses and student centres.

Qu asks if it is possible to coordinate with colleges and faculties to sell the products at their offices.

Scott states that there are too many partners that would be involved in the project and that it would be difficult to determine if every group was financially accountable and responsible to handle to inventory.

Nikolaevsky states that past arrangements had the Victoria University Students Administrative Council lend the Union space and allow the Union to have employees work in the space during metropass sales.

!6. BOOK EXCHANGE PROGRAM

Nikolaevsky provides an overview of the history and the context behind the creation and changes with the Book Exchange Program. She states that the loss of space and the increase in competition moved the program online. She states that the program does not run as optimally as was initially expected. She states that the program does not garner attention during hectic sales months.

Scott states that two options seem to be available. He states that the program should request more staff resources to promote the service during the weeks leading to Orientation and beyond. He states that the second option would be to shelve the program until a physical space is received in the Student Commons, and a hybrid online/real-time Book Exchange service delivery plan could be created and implemented.

Qu asks is the Union can work with the Bookstore’s programs or TUSBE. She states that it would be difficult to provide the resources to make the book exchange as big of a success as it could be.

Scott states that there would be issues of corporate investments and liability in supporting either partner. He states that the discussion does not require a decision immediately as the program will not typically operate between semesters.

7. GOOD FOOD BOX PROGRAM

Nikolaevsky provides an overview of the history of the program and its development over the last few years. She states that the program has reached its capacity in the current space. She states that the Transitional Year Program and Faculty of Nursing have both shown interest in becoming secondary locations for the delivery and pick up of boxes. She states that it is difficult to get the final commitment to purchase boxes.


!

Scott states that class talks could be a great way to get the commitment from the programs.

Qu states that faculties and colleges on the northern side of campus may be a good space for additional drop off points.

Scott states that the program will only be expanded when the Union finds residence dons that are extremely passionate about the program.

!8. OTHER BUSINESS

Nikolaevsky states that the UTSU is working with Hart House and the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education to host the Food Bank Fundraiser. She states that the fundraiser needs heavy promotion to ensure that it actually fundraises for the Food and Clothing Bank.

9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved: Scott Seconded: Brown CARRIED


!

Minutes of the

Sustainability Commission

January 11, 2013

4:00pm

UC 148

MINUTES Sustainability Commission of the University of Toronto Students’ Union January 11, 2013 | 4:00pm | University College 148 IN ATTENDANCE: VOTING MEMBERS: Ben Coleman Tegan Hansen-Hoedeman Corey Scott Will Warnica

NON-VOTING MEMBERS: Khadya Bharmal Estelle Chettiar Sarah Ireland Jacob Kearey-Moreland Sarah Khan Kaylah Krajnc Ruth Midgley Anda Petro Jen Roberton

Zainab Yunusa Andrew Ursel

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting is called to order at 4:06 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION Moved: Warnica Seconded: Hansen-Hoedeman

Be it resolved that the agenda for the January 11, 2013 Sustainability Commission be approved as presented.

CARRIED

3. INTRODUCTIONS

Attendees introduce themselves in turn.

4. RATIFICATION OF NEW MEMBERS MOTION Moved: Warnica Seconded: Hansen-Hoedeman

Be it resolved that the following members be ratified as voting members of the Sustainability Commission for the 2012-2013 year: Estelle Chettiar Kaylah Krajnc Ruth Midgley Jen Roberton Zainab Yunusa

CARRIED

5. DISCUSSION: ECOFEST Warnica asks for updates from groups involved in EcoFest.

MINUTES Sustainability Commission of the University of Toronto Students’ Union January 11, 2013 | 4:00pm | University College 148

Ireland states that she and the Sustainability Office booked a date for a Green Scavenger Hunt, where students will work in teams and go around St. George campus to find green features. She further states they are looking for participants. Kearey-Moreland states that Dig In! is planning a mini-film festival based on food awareness, and that it will be held on Tuesday, January 29 from 7-10pm. Khan states the Food Services is promoting discounted veggie food in food outlets on campus, and will be launching a pledge program for students.

Warnica asks members to post more details for the events on the Google doc that was sent out previously in order to produce promotional materials. He asks about the possibility of holding a weekend event during EcoFest, possibly a trip to Evergreen Brickworks.

Ursel states that UTMSU planned something like this, but it was not too successful and they are not sure if they would repeat it. He further states that UTM is holding an Environment Week from January 21-25, with events such as a debate and a hemp product sale.

Khan states that the events coordinator at Brickworks used to work for Dig In!, and suggests contacting them.

Warnica states that UTSU is looking into holding a panel of professors on January 31 instead of a keynote speaker. He asks for ideas.

Hansen-Hoedeman states that aboriginal issues are relevant right now and might draw people. She suggests Professor Deborah McGregor.

Ursel suggests something to do with mining in Northern Ontario, and perhaps inviting MPs and MPPs. Ireland suggests Professor Jennifer Sumner at OISE.

Chettiar suggests Professor Charles Levkoe, who specializes in environment, food, and people.

Warnica states that he would like to organize a mix and mingle event for EcoFest on Friday, January 25. He further states that UTERN organizes mix and mingle events called Green Drinks, but they do not want to hold one during EcoFest.

Ireland asks if they might hold it immediately before EcoFest so that it leads into it.

Warnica states that they want it to be completely separate.

Midgley states that she thinks it would be great to hold a mix and mingle of our own.

Coleman states that we could hold the event at Harvest Noon, and order drinks from the GSU Pub downstairs.

Ursel suggests a green trivia event, with both formal and informal discussion. Kearey-Moreland suggests that we could make the event a potluck.

MINUTES Sustainability Commission of the University of Toronto Students’ Union January 11, 2013 | 4:00pm | University College 148

Warnica states that we need to start outreach next week and suggests that all groups involved help out by tabling and talking to people in busy areas on campus. Roberton suggests holding class visits, choosing classes that are big and talking about EcoFest at the beginning of the lecture.

Warnica states that we will hopefully have posters and handouts ready starting early next week, and encourages groups to send out emails to their listservs.

Ursel suggests promoting the week with videos.

Warnica states that there may not be enough time to create a video with the week coming up so quickly. He further states that he will plan another meeting for next Friday to finalize details and see how the outreach is progressing.

Petro states that Public Water Initiative is now advocating for water testing on campus, as the university has not been doing much water testing on campus. She asks anyone who is interested in collaborating to contact the People’s Water Initiative for more information.

Krajnc states that Students for Meatless Mondays want to know if UTSU could help with funding for food and booking the room.

Warnica states that they may be able to help with funding and will most likely book the room.

6. OTHER BUSINESS Scott enters the meeting at 4:32pm. Ursel asks if anyone has heard about a group that is trying to phase out the use of Styrofoam containers on campus.

Scott states that UTSU received a motion to eliminate Styrofoam containers from food services on campus.

Warnica states that the Winter Clubs Festival is next week and asks anyone who is interested in helping with the Sustainability Commission station to contact him.

7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved: Warnica Seconded: Scott CARRIED


Minutes of the

Sustainability Commission

January 18, 2013

4:30pm

UC 148

MINUTES Sustainability Commission of the University of Toronto Students’ Union January 18, 2013 | 4:30PM | University College 148 IN ATTENDANCE: VOTING MEMBERS: Ben Coleman Brett Lessard Jen Roberton Will Warnica

NON-VOTING MEMBERS: Sarah Ireland

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting is called to order at 4:35 pm.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION Moved: Warnica Seconded: Lessard

Be it resolved that the agenda for the January 18, 2013 Sustainability Commission be approved as presented.

CARRIED

3. INTRODUCTIONS

Attendees introduce themselves in turn.

4. DISCUSSION: ECOFEST Warnica asks what promotional efforts have been undertaken by various groups so far. Roberton states that BikeChain has been handing out flyers. Ireland states that the Sustainability Office has been promoting the events on social media. Warnica states that he and Coleman promoted the events at the UTSU clubs fair. He states that posters have been designed and should be out soon. He asks Lessard if he would be able to do some promoting for EcoFest.

Lessard states that he should be able to, however, as he has recently become the new External Events Coordinator for the Sustainable Engineers Association (SEA), and that his current priority is orienting himself on what has happened so far in the year.

Warnica asks if Lessard has more information on the Conference event for the Facebook page. Lessard states that he will find out, and asks if he can advertise another event that SEA is holding on the page. Warnica states that posting the additional event on the EcoFest page would be the most effective way to do this. Lessard states that he will do this.

MINUTES Sustainability Commission of the University of Toronto Students’ Union January 18, 2013 | 4:30PM | University College 148

Ireland asks if there will be an email with blurbs of all the events for promotion. Warnica states that it is best to get current information from the Facebook page for promotion. Ireland asks if there is anything else that needs to be done before the event. Warnica states that there needs to be more promotion and outreach, including emailing listservs and talking to people in person. He states that Harvest Noon has been booked for the meet and greet event, and the UTSU Sustainability Commission will be partnering with the GSU. He states that the event will be a potluck, with some additional food and free drinks provided by the Commission. He further states that he will be creating individual Facebook event pages for the larger EcoFest events, that the speaker event by FIN was cancelled, and that the two speaker panels will be combined into one. He states that he has contacted professors that were suggested at the previous meeting, and that four of them have confirmed for the speaker panel.

Ireland asks if community groups, such as the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) have been contacted. Warnica states that he has contacted TEA and the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario (CFS-ON), but has not yet received any confirmations from either group. He explains that he is looking into catering from Sammy’s for the speaker panel event.

Patang enters the meeting at 4:46pm. Lessard asks if there will be vegetarian food at the meet and greet. Warnica states that vegetarian food will be served at the meet and greet. He asks what folks think about having board games at the meet and greet, and states that Harvest Noon has board games that can be borrowed.

Coleman states that ASSU also has board games, and that he will inquire if they can be borrowed for the event.

5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved: Patang Seconded: Roberton CARRIED


EXECUTIVE REPORTUNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNIONLOCAL 98, CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTSWEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 | 4PM | OISE 4414

WELCOME - EXECUTIVE REPORT

January and February have proven to be busy months at the University of Toronto Students’ Union. Coming out of January, we had fantastic events with the Second Annual Winter Week of Welcome such as the Winter Street Fair and Winter Clubs Festival. The UTSU has also been busy with campaigns such as the Drop Credit Policy and the Taskforce on Food Services. The UTSU services continue to grow as students continue to access discounted TTC Metropasses and discounted tickets while we are looking at expanding office services into a mobile kiosk.

It has been a busy semester and it is up to all of us to ensure that each of our undertakings going forward are successful. Whether its large events like the eXpression Against Oppression Speaker Series featuring Indigenous environmentalist Winona LaDuke and anti-racism leader Rubin Carter, or the behind-the-scenes work at the Council on Student Services, its up to every Board Member to ensure constituents are aware of these events, campaigns and services and can actively engage with them.

January and February have also been busy in the development of the UTSU as an organization. Through our Special General Meeting we have seen a growth of interest in our students’ union, as well as a growth in a mandate or progressive values and progressive actions. Whether it is supporting the national Idle No More movement or the call for international student representation on Governing Council, students have given us a mandate. It is up to every member of the Executive, Board of Directors and the general membership to effectively carry out these mandates.

In this Executive Report: ADVOCACY & MEETINGS CLUBS & EVENTS SERVICES & OFFICE MANAGEMENT CFS-ONTARIO SEMI-ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REPORT COUNCIL ON STUDENT SERVICES REPORT

In solidarity,(from left to right)Munib Sajjad, Vice-President University Affairs, [email protected] Bollo-Kamara, Vice-President Campus Life, [email protected] Cudjoe, Vice-President External, [email protected] Shepherd, President, [email protected] Baig, Vice-President Equity, [email protected] Scott, Vice-President Internal & Services, [email protected]

LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE

ADVOCACY & MEETINGS - EXECUTIVE REPORT

COUNCIL ON STUDENT SERVICESThe UTSU has continued to participate in the Council on Student Services meetings throughout the fall and winter sessions. The Council on Student Services (CoSS) is legislated by the Ontario government to ensure students have substantive voice when it comes to fee increases. At the University of Toronto, the Office of Student Life, Hart House and the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education co-curricular department are covered by this legislation. CoSS exists due to a influx of ancillary fees implemented in the nineties to cover increased bureaucratization of student life services.

The UTSU has been given operating budgets and presentations on current and proposed services in each of these offices. The UTSU holds four seats on the committee and is seeking direction from the Board of Directors on whether or not to allow an increase in student fees for these services. Please see the attached document and report. If you have any questions about the CoSS process please contact [email protected] or Virginia Lomax, CoSS Chair, [email protected].

COUNCIL ON ATHLETICS AND RECREATIONThe UTSU continues to participate in the Council on Athletics and Recreation to ensure that co-curricular programs in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education are accessible to members. The faculty currently receives very little from the central university and has made several sacrifices in leadership training programming this year. The faculty has been denied a 200 million dollar grant previously received by the Ontario government. The Union remains steadfast that an increase in student fees is not appropriate when very little is contributed from the central university. If you have any questions about the Council on Athletics and Recreation, contact [email protected].

HART HOUSE BOARD OF STEWARDSThe UTSU continues to participate in Hart House Board of Stewards Meetings to ensure that Hart House continues to be accessible to members. Hart House does not receive any funding from the central university and has a long-standing structural deficit. The Union will remain steadfast in opposing the increase of student fees while the university contributes no financial support to Hart House. If you have any questions about the Hart House Board of Stewards, [email protected].

STUDENT INITIATIVE FUNDSThe UTSU has continued participation in the Student Initiative Fund committee. The committee is nearing the end of its available funds and will soon begin reviewing terms of reference. The UTSU will continue to push for stronger terms of reference to ensure student fees are used responsibly. If you have any questions about the Student initiative Fund, contact [email protected].


FACULTY OF MUSIC INCIDENTAL FEE REFERENDA TOWNHALLThe Faculty of Music Undergraduate Association hosted a townhall to respond to questions regarding an upcoming referenda hosted by the students’ society to add a private lesson ancillary fee for music students. The fee comes with much controversy: students feel the lessons are an academic necessity, and as such should be included in their overall tuition fees. At the meeting, students were largely critical of the implementation of a new fee. The FMUA will host a referenda sometime this year to determine whether or not the fee will be established.

WIFI COMMITTEEWe struck an ad-hoc committee late last semester to begin an investigation on Wifi issues across the campus. We have begun on setting an action plan of how to begin our investigation. On February 7th, we will be meeting with Technical Services representative to discuss the prominent issues students have been coming to us with.

COMMUNITY LIASION COMMITTEEThe committee met on Thursday January 24 to discuss upcoming developments at UofT. There were presentations on the proposed expansions of the Faculty of Law, Faculty of Architecture and the Institute for Child Study, as well as an update on the state of the Emerald Ash Borer trees in the UofT and surrounding neighborhoods.

245 COLLEGE STREETWith potential development changes the proposal from Scion (the company contracted to build the residence) has still not passed the Ontario Municipal Board. The next hearing is said to take place sometime in March. Issues that have been identified by the City of Toronto and the Residence Association include: how to deal with students, whom are no lingered registered as students, the provision of dons and their training and duties, provision of kitchens and representation from UofT and community members to the residence board.

STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT The UTSU joined students’ union representatives from SCSU, UTMSU, the GSU and APUS to discuss concerns with the Code of Student Conduct and a ‘Companion Document’ the administration created to clarify concerns with the Code. Representatives continued to voice concerns in regards to the Code of Conduct that remain in spite of the companion document. Students also took issue with the administration’s selective history they published in the companion document. The administration asked the students’ unions to provide feedback in writing, and the UTSU did so. We have yet to hear a response from the administration.


MEETING WITH LUCY FROMOWITZThe UTSU meet with the Assistant Vice-President at the Office of Student Life on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 to look at the Office of Student Life operating budget and program implementation plans. The meeting was a productive opportunity to look at providing feedback and growth opportunities or student services while not relying on a fee structure conversation. The UTSU has remain steadfast in encouraging the Office of Student Life to seek further funding from the central university budget as opposed to student fee increases. If you have any questions about the Office of Student Life operating budget, contact [email protected].

ANCILLARY FEE CONSULTATIONThe administration was called upon to undertake an ancillary fee review across the board by the Graduate Students Union. The UTSU joined all students’ union in participating in the review. We submitted several queries about questionable fees. The university found that some of our concerns were justified and has eliminated a few of the fees. This is a major victory for students! However, there are still numerous fees that students’ unions find dubious that the administration has yet to take any action on. While the university claimed that some fees are optional, there is no clarity on how students can be reimbursed. Also, while some fees may follow the university’s ancillary fee policy, it remains to be seen if some of these fees are in contravention of government legislation. The students’ union will continue to scrutinize these fees on behalf of students.

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEEThe UTSU continues to participate in the Library Advisory Committee to facilitate programs and campaigns against copyright with campus librarians. The committee has been an organizing space to discuss copyright legislation and the decision to sign the Access Copyright agreement by the University of Toronto. Despite requests to include the renewal of the agreement at the last committee meeting, the committee chose to table the discussion until the next meeting. The Union will continue to work with the Graduate Students’ Union to put the discussion on the table and ensure the agreement has undergrad, graduate and faculty feedback. Members of the committee were impressed with the Union’s Library Guide and expressed support of the project. If you have any questions about the Library Advisory Committee, contact [email protected].

FACULTY OF NURSING WELLNESS FAIRThe UTSU participated in the Faculty of Nursing Wellness Fair on Tuesday, February 5, 2013. The Union focused on promoting cost-saving services and engaging in students in campaigns such as Education is a Right, Challenge Homophobia and Transphobia and the Taskforce on Food Services.

ADVOCACY & MEETINGS - EXECUTIVE REPORTADVOCACY & MEETINGS - EXECUTIVE REPORT

UNPAID INTERNSHIP WORKING GROUPThe UTSU has been working with students on a campaign to address the growth unpaid internships and their damaging effects on both the student experience and the economy at large. It was discussed how there are relatively few articling positions available when compared to graduates of law. In an attempt to resolve this issue, industry and government have been discussing the promotion of unpaid internships as s means to address this deficit. With students graduating with $37,000 to $100,000 in debt, promoting unpaid internships exacerbates the financial hardships faced by students.

A motion was submitted to the General Meeting that addressed the basic issues with unpaid internships and has laid the foundation for a campaign to oppose them. Thank you to Faculty of Law Director Ella Henry for being an influencing member in developing the campaign. If you have any questions about the campaign, contact [email protected] and [email protected].

RACIALIZED/INDIGENOUS STUDENT COLLECTIVEA working group for the Racialized Students’ Collective has met for the second time on January 25th. Members of various communities on campus were invited in order to include various perspectives. Discussion centred on how to create the formal structures required to uphold the anti-oppressive framework that the collective is to be built on. The question of sustainability and longevity of the collective also continues to be a focus. Coming meetings will work towards finalizing an interim structure as the first step of the collective. No representatives of the Native Students’ Association or other native students & groups on campus were able to attend this meeting, so the conversation on potentially not just calling it but making it a ‘racialized and indigenous students’ collective’ have yet to be had in consultation with the community. If you want to get involve or have any questions about the Racialized and Indigenous Students Collective, contact [email protected].

ANTI-RACISM AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY OFFICE ADVISORY COMMITTEEThe Anti-Racism and Cultural Diversity Office has been working in collaboration with the advisory committee which includes tri-campus student collaboration to prepare for the International Day of Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Nominations were opened to recognize students who had made an outstanding contribution to anti-racism work on campus. The selected students will be recognized as part of IDERD programming in March.


RALLY FOR RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACYThe University of Toronto Students’ Union participated in the January 26, 2013 Rally for Rights and Democracy hosted by the Ontario Federation of Labour. The rally was in response to continual efforts to impose austerity measures on workers, and specifically Bill 115, which sought to strip public teachers, and education workers of their right to strike and collectively bargain with their employers. The rally ended at the Ontario Leader Party Convention at Maple Leaf Gardens.

OHIP LETTERThe UTSU continues to work with the Office of the President in drafting a letter of support for OHIP for International Students. The letter is to be sent to all relevant ministries including the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the Premiers Office. If you have any questions about the OHIP for International Students campaign, contact [email protected].

MULTIFAITH SPACE ON CAMPUSRobarts library is in the final phases of preparing and furnishing a space on the 8th floor that will be available for quiet meditation and prayer at any time that the library is open. Students and the university community at large will be alerted once the space is available for use.

PEDESTRAINIZE ST. GEORGE STREET CAMPAIGNThe Willcocks Commons project has received a 5-year extension for being a pedestrianized street in the heart of the University of Toronto. The UTSU participated in a consultation regarding the future developments of the project. The consultation included a look at other pedestrianized streets in urban and university settings and the other developments at the St. George campus, which may interfere with the Willcocks Commons development. The University of Toronto reaffirmed that there are currently no funds to develop the project.

The UTSU recommended opening up the space to more campus group bookings and securing agreements with community resident groups and classes to facilitate larger events with amplification – which is currently not allowed. The UTSU has continued to solicit feedback and build relationships with campus partners in developing a lobby document for the Pedestrianize St. George Street campaign. A townhall for the campaign is scheduled for Thursday, February 28. If you have any questions about the Pedestrianize St. George Street campaign, contact [email protected] or [email protected].


CO-CURRICULAR RECORDThe UTSU has been involved in the creation of a co-curricular record over the past few years. This year, the Office of Student Life has committed to implementing the program by the Fall of 2013. The co-curricular transcript would list all verified UofT extra-curricular activities to supplement a resume. The Office of Student life has recently announced that a fee of one dollar per year will be implemented for St. George students to staff and enhance the program. Students at Mississauga and Scarborough will not be charged the additional fee for the same program. The UTSU has communicated opposition to increased student fees to implement new student life programs when the central university continues to decrease financial contributions into the departmental office. If there are any questions about the co-curricular record, please contact [email protected].

UTMSU STUDENT CENTRE REFERENDUMOver the past five years, the UTSU has been working with the University of Toronto Mississauga Students Union in developing a strategy for Student Centre expansion while ensuring the cost for students stay as low as possible. The University was pressured from an initial contribution of $0 to a contribution of $2,000,000 or 50% of the costs. From January 29-31, 2013 University of Toronto Mississauga students were able to vote in a referendum to increase student fees to cover 50% of the costs of the expansion. The UTSU is happy to see that students have voted 1368 to 881 to increase the student centre levy. The UTSU will continue to work with the UTMSU in seeking ethical and responsible sponsorship to help further offset the costs for UTM students.

COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSIONThe next Community Action Committee Meeting is set for Wednesday, February 13, 2013. We will meet in to U.T.S.U basement meeting room.

EVENTS & PROGRAMMES - EXECUTIVE REPORT

WINTER WEEK OF WELCOMEThe UTSU hosted the Second Annual Winter Week of Welcome from January 15 to 20, 2013. Each event was a huge success with very positive feedback. Thank you to all the volunteers that made the week possible.

The Winter Week of Welcome began with a PANCAKE BRUNCH in Wilson Lounge in conjunction with the Black Students Association, West Indian Students Association and African Students Association. The event saw a huge turnout and lots of excitement for the remainder of the week. A second pancake brunch is being planned for late February in a different student lounge space. If you have a recommendation for a location, email [email protected].

The second event of the week was the WINTER STREET FAIR on Willcocks Commons. The fair consisted of free hot chocolate, Tiny Tom’s Donuts and Smoke’s Poutinerie. The first 200 visitors to the food trucks were treated to free meals. Over 27 containers of hot chocolate were distributed and students were asked to fill out the Taskforce on Food Services surveys. Thank you to the volunteers that dedicated their time to hand out hot chocolate, food vouchers and UTSU materials in the cold weather.

The third and fourth events of the week were the BASKETBALL COURT-TIME and TORONTO RAPTORS game in the Air Canada Centre. During the day, students were able to play in three-on-three basketball tournament with Toronto Raptors swag as prizes. A total of nine teams participated with numerous individuals coming out to witness the tournament. The Raptors versus Bulls game was also a huge success with all the tickets being sold out the week before the event.

The fifth event of the Winter Week of Welcome was the WINTER CLUBS FESTIVAL held in collaboration with the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education. In the past, the Winter Clubs Fair has shifted from a few tables at Sidney Smith, to fifty tables at Medical Sciences and Bahen atriums. This year, the clubs festival was expanded to the Varsity Dome with over 100 tables and numerous tents. The event also featured a performance stage, golf field, soccer field and free skating. The event saw a large turnout over the course of the day, although the space was difficult to access and difficult to fill. A survey is being drafted to solicit feedback on how to improve the event in the future.

The sixth event of the week was the WINTER CONCERT featuring Shad and Unbuttoned, co-hosted with Hart House. The event saw a massive turnout and a very positive response. In addition to music, students were able to make personalized buttons, get henna tattoos and eat some free food. Thank you to all the volunteers that made coat check as smooth of a process as possible.

The final event of the Winter Week of Welcome was the HOCKEY SHOWDOWN that saw the Varsity Blues take down the Ryerson Rams in women’s hockey with a score of 4-3.


ECOFEST 2013The UTSU teamed up with several campus groups to put on the first-ever EcoFest. The events lasted more than one week with numerous events targeting numerous topics. Thank you to Will Warnica, Sustainability Commissioner, and the Sustainability Commission for coordinating the entire week. Thank you to all the participating groups including, but not limited to, the University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union, BikeChain, Sustainable Engineers Association, VUSAC Sustainability Commission, UofT Environmental Action, Enactus, Hot Yam!, Dig In! Campus Agriculture, the UofT Sustainability Office, Students for Meatless Mondays and the UTSC Sustainability Office.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013UTSC WELLNESS FAIRBIKECHAIN WINTER RIDING SEMINARMEATLESS MONDAY MOVIE SCREENING: A RIVER OF WASTE - the hazardous truth about factory farms

FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2013ECOFEST POTLUCK & MIX ‘N MINGLE

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2013MEATLESS MONDAY LUNCH & LEARN: GREEN SCAVENGER HUNT

TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2013FOOD JUSTICE FILM FESTIVAL

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2013HOT YAM! VEGAN LUNCHECOFEST SPEAKER PANELDistinguished speakers included:Charles LevkoeProf. Deborah McGregor Simon Appolloni Prof. Tat Smith Dr. Franz Hartmann, Executive Director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance

THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2013MEATLESS MONDAY TALK: ANIMALS, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE - WITH GREEN SMOOTHIES!

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2013RALLY FOR CLIMATE JUSTICEENVIRONMENTAL FASHION SHOW & AUCTION

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE (SEAC) 2013

OISE LUNCH AND LEARNThe UTSU has been working with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Director Yasir Youssif on hosting a Lunch and Learn for Wednesday, February 13, 2013.


XAO SPEAKER SERIESThe UTSU has secured two high profile speakers for the eXpression Against Oppression speaker series. On Monday, February 11, 2013 Indigenous environmentalist Winonia LaDuke will be at Hart House Theatre. On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 Rubin “the Hurricane” Carter will be at OISE Auditorium. The UTSU has teamed up with the Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students to put on the event and have a minimal cost. Tickets are available in the UTSU and APUS offices and online at UofTtix.ca.

UTD FOOD FAIRThe UTSU will be hosting the Unity Through Diversity Food Fair on Thursday, February 14, 2013 at a location to be determined. The Food Fair will feature numerous clubs and an assortment of free food. The event will also be an opportunity for students to fill out the Taskforce on Food Services surveys and attend the townhall later that evening.

FOOD TOWNHALLA Food Townhall for the Taskforce on Campus Food Services has been planned for Thursday, February 14 at a location to be determined. The townhall will focus on issues facing students both on and off campus and to solicit feedback on campus food options. If you have any questions about the Food Townhall, contact [email protected].

UNITY BALLThe fourth annual Unity Ball will be held at the Chestnut Residence Ballroom on March 1, 2013. The Unity Ball is a semi-formal aimed at celebrating the diversity of our campus clubs community and recognizing some of the outstanding work by campus clubs. The UTSU has posted club nomination forms for a variety of awards on the UTSU website. If you would like to get involved or have any questions about the Unity Ball, please contact [email protected] or [email protected].

FITNESS FOR FOODThe UTSU is working with Hart House on the second Food Bank Fundraiser on Sunday, March 3, 2013. The fundraiser will feature classes on bellydance, zumba, socacize and yoga with prizes, snacks, light refreshments and free shiatsu massage. Registration begins at 9:15 and runs until 3pm. Tickets are $20 for students ($25 at the door) and $25 for non-students ($30 at the door). If you have any questions about the Food Bank Fundraiser, contact [email protected].

TYP TOWNHALLA townhall is being held with the Transitional Year Program Students Association on Wednesday, February 13 at 6:30pm. The townhall will focus on the continued threats of funding and space facing the program and community-organized responses and solutions to the threats. Over the past few months, TYP Director Eric Jadidzadeh has worked with the Union to bring community partners together in defense of the program. If you have any questions about the Transitional Year Program Townhall, contact [email protected] and [email protected].

Sick of crappy cafeteria food?Tell us about it. Visit CFSOntario.ca/Food

Canadian Federation of Students–Ontario

Join students from across the province and share your complaints and wish list with the Task Force on Campus Food Services. University of Toronto Students’ Union

Townhall on Food Services Thurs Feb 14Wilson Hall 1017 3:00-5:00pm


MONTREAL READING WEEKThe UTSU is collaborating with the Scarborough Campus Students’ Union, the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU) and the York Federation of Students (YFS) in hosting a Montreal Reading Week Trip from Wednesday, February 20 to Saturday, February 23, 2013. The itinerary includes access to shuttle bus services to various sites and attractions such as the Montreal Casino and each of the three club nights. Other itinerary includes the Montreal High Lights Festival, shopping in the Underground City, sightseeing and outdoor skating.

Registration is now open. The UTSU has been collaborating with residence councils and campus clubs to encourage members to participate in the Reading Week programming. For more information, please contact Yolen Bollo-Kamara, Vice-President Campus Life at [email protected].

UofT Student Rates (Tax Included): Quad Accommodation: $190 per person Triple Accommodation: $215 per person Double Accommodation: $265 per personNon-UofT student Rates (Tax Included): Quad Accommodation: $210 per person Triple Accommodation: $235 per person Double Accommodation: $260.00

Optional Additional Itinerary: Ski/Snowboarding Add-on (Lift-Ticket and Rentals): $70 per person Quebec City Tour: $40 per person.

TOWNHALL ON SEXISMThe UTSU has been given a mandate by the General Assembly to host a Townhall on Sexism. The Townhall has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 19 with a location to be determined. If you have any questions about Townhall on Sexism, contact [email protected].

I HEART THE BLUESThe UTSU concluded the 2012-13 I Heart the Blues campaign with the January 20 Women’s Hockey game versus the Ryerson Rams. This was the first year that the students’ union has had an ongoing athletics campaign. The campaign consisted of four heavily promoted ticketed games advertised with Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education:

Men’s Football: Saturday, September 13, 2012: Varsity Blues vs. Windsor Lancers

Women’s/Men’s Valleyball: Friday, October 26, 2012: Varsity Blues vs. Western Mustangs

Women’s/Men’s Basketball: Friday, November 9, 2012: Varsity Blues vs. Guelph Gryphons

Women’s Hockey: Sunday, January 20, 2013: Varsity Blues vs. Ryerson Rams

Thank you to everyone that volunteered and helped pull students to the Varsity games.


CLUBS FUNDINGThe UTSU is entering its final round of clubs funding. The majority of long-term funding applications have been allocated and picked up by campus clubs. The Clubs Committee continues to review start-up funding applications (due January 18, 2013) and short-term funding applications (due March 1, 2013). The Union will continue to follow up with club applications that have been tabled, as well as contact campus clubs to ensure receipts are collected for second and third installments. If there are any questions regarding clubs funding, please contact [email protected].

CLUBS SERVICESThe UTSU continues to look at expanding services to campus groups and ensure that current services are maintained at a capacity to ensure full access. For this reason, the UTSU has purchased additional coffee urns and new thermal hot beverage containers. The UTSU has also begun looking at establishing a clubs box office, button making service and other requested services. The Policy and Procedures Committee has also begun working on a clubs services policy, which indicate basic responsibilities of the union and its clubs.

The UTSU has been coordinating with the Office of Student Life to address some concerns raised out of the Clubs Townhall on November 12, 2012. The UTSU has confirmed that a memo was sent to the Office of Space Management indicating new policies in campus room bookings including free audio-visual and advanced booking. The UTSU has also followed up with the Office of Student life to ensure that the Arts and Science course union list was received by Hart House administrators to ensure full access to campus group services in the facility. If there are any questions regarding clubs services or campus groups governance, please contact [email protected].

CLUBS TRAININGThe last Clubs Executive Training was held on Saturday, January 12, 2013. Over 30 clubs were in attendance. A club must attend a Clubs Executive Training session in order to be eligible for any type of UTSU clubs funding. The majority of campus groups have attended one of the summer or fall sessions in order to be eligible for long-term clubs funding.

SERVICES & OFFICE MANAGEMENT - EXECUTIVE REPORT

SPECIAL GENERAL MEETINGThe UTSU hosted a second General Meeting on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 from 6pm-9pm in Medical Sciences 2158. The agenda had twenty motions including business from the last General Meeting. A fuller report will be available at the next Board of Directors meeting.

ISIC DISTRIBUTIONThe UTSU has worked with the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario to host three weeks of ISIC tabling to reach the most students possible. The Union will be hosting ISIC blitzes on February 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 26, 27, and 28 and March 5, 6 and 7. The Union is still solidifying locations, but will have tables at Robarts, Gerstein, Medical Sciences, Sidney Smith, Athletic Centre, Bahen Centre and other high traffic areas. If you have any recommended locations or questions about ISIC Blitzes, contact [email protected].

SERVICE GUIDESThe UTSU continues to work on a series of membership services guides to help students orient themselves to campus spaces, services and governance. The UTSU currently has a governance guide and library guide, and is in mid-production of a campus space booking guide and arts & culture guide. If you have any suggestions for new guides or general questions, please contact vpinternal@utsu and [email protected].

MOBILE KIOSKThe ODS Committee has submitted a proposal to the university to access space and secure a location to set up a mobile kiosk on the St. George campus. The proposal indicates the basic principles behind establishing a mobile kiosk for members to access UTSU services across campus while creating a distinct brand for the students’ union. Once storage space is confirmed, the UTSU will be purchasing a mobile kiosk to be implemented in late February or early March.

RAPTORS DISCOUNTED TICKETSThe UTSU sold out of discounted Raptors tickets for the Wednesday, January 16, 2013 game against the Chicago Bulls. The Union has secured a second set of tickets for the Sunday, March 17, 2013 game against the Miami Heat. Members are also reminded that they can input the “CFS98” discount code on online ticket to get discounts for various games. Over the winter break, members accessed 42 ticket discounts through this promo code.

HEALTH AND DENTAL PLANSStudents who enrolled to start in the winter session were able to opt-out of the pro-rated Health and Dental plans levy between January 7 and February 1, 2013. The union is continuing to work with the university to remit all opt-out cheques. Opt-out cheques will be delivered in the mail by mid or late March. Please remind your constituents to update their current address. If there are any questions about the Health and Dental Plans, please contact [email protected].


INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC ENDEAVOUR GRANTSThe UTSU has begun allocating Individual Academic Endeavour grants through the BGC. The deadline to apply for the grant is March 1, 2013. Applicants are reminded that applications require an individualized statement stating the goals and purpose of the endeavor. If you have any questions about the grant, please contact [email protected].

BOOK BURSARYThe UTSU has allocated all book bursaries for the 2012-13 year. Recipients have picked up the majority of grants.

PRINTING SERVICEThe UTSU printing service continues to be a growing service for members. Last Fall, the ODS Committee made the recommendation to limit printing hours from noon to 4pm Monday to Friday to alleviate the commitments of the full-time and part-time staff. The service has continued to prosper and see high volume. During the month of January, the printer faced severe maintenance needs and was closed for more than a week. The printing service is once again up-and-running.

GOOD FOOD BOXThe UTSU currently offers the good food box program out of the central UTSU office. As the program continues to grow, the capacity and space to host the program shrinks. The UTSU is currently looking at possible partnerships with student residences and campus offices to expand the good food box delivery and pickup to more than one location. If you have any suggestions or questions regarding the good food box program, please email [email protected].

SALES AND SERVICES UPDATE Good Food Box............................................................... 16 Tokens......................................................................... 352 TTC Metropasses...................................................... 507 Copy........................................................................ 25925 Cineplex...................................................................... 578

ORIENTATION COORDINATORSThe UTSU has hired an Orientation Coordinator to begin the planning process for Orientation 2013 and UTSUfest 2013. Igor Samardzic has been hired for the position until two full-time Orientation Coordinators are hired in April. Mr. Samardzic can be reached at [email protected].

AUDITThe UTSU 2011-12 audit was ratified by the general membership at the Special General Meeting on Tuesday, February 5, 2013. The 2012-13 auditors were appointed by the Board of Directors at the January 2013 Board Meeting.


ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA COMMITTEEThe ERC continues to meet to plan logistics of the 2013 Elections and Referenda. The committee has also had the opportunity to review and make recommendations to the Elections Procedures Code. Please see the attached minutes for more details. If there are any questions regarding the Elections and Referenda Committee, please contact Corey Scott at [email protected].

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES COMMITTEEThe ODSC continues to meet to review the services of the Union including the development of the mobile kiosk, good food box program and the TTC metropass program. If there are any questions regarding the Organizational Development and Services Committee, please contact Corey Scott at [email protected].

CLUBS COMMITTEEThe Clubs Committee has been meeting consistently to review tabled long-terms funding applications and recently received short-term and start-up funding applications. If there are any questions regarding the Clubs Committee, please contact Yolen Bollo-Kamara at [email protected].

BURSARY AND GRANTS COMMITTEEThe BGC continues to meet to review applications for Individual Academic Endeavours. If there are any questions regarding the Bursary and Grants Committee, please contact Corey Scott at [email protected].

BUDGET COMMITTEEThe Budget Committee will be meeting in the next few weeks to work on the revised budget. The committee is currently collecting actual expenditures and receivables to calculate the final budget. If there are any questions regarding the Budget Committee, please contact Corey Scott at [email protected].

POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEEThe PPC continues to meet to review and modify operational and issues-based policy to further solidify the practices and principles of the students’ union. If there are any questions regarding the Policy and Procedures Committee, please contact Corey Scott at [email protected].

CFS-ONTARIO SAGM REPORT - EXECUTIVE REPORT

CFS-ONTARIO SEMI-ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGFrom Thursday, January 17 to Sunday, January 20, 2013 delegates of the University of Toronto Students’ Union were at the Semi-Annual General Meeting. Throughout the meeting, delegates were able to discuss motions, develop campaigns and services and oversee the Federations operating budget. Delegates also had the opportunity to participate in several workshops and lobby sessions. The general meeting concluded with the election of the CFS-Ontario Executive: Alastair Woods, Chairperson; Anna Goldfinch, National Executive Representative; and Guled Arale, Treasurer. Thank you to the outgoing executive Sarah Jayne-King, Toby Whitfield and Désiree Lamoureux for their dedication, passion and principled work for the students’ movement over the past year.

LOCAL 98 MOTIONSThe University of Toronto Students’ Union submitted several motions to the Semi-Annual General Meeting including supporting public transit coalitions, condemning men’s rights groups and condemning prorogation of governments mid-session. Each motion passed at the closing plenary.

In addition to motions served by the University of Toronto Students’ Union, other motions that passed included but were not limited to the creation of an anti-ableist campaign “Reclaiming Our Bodies and Minds,” supporting indigenous environmental movements and supporting the January 26 “Rally for Rights and Democracy” rally.

LOBBY SESSIONSMarie-Lison Fougére, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Programs Division, Ministry of Training, Colleges and UniversitiesDelegates had the opportunity to question and provide feedback for Ms. Fougére during the first lobby session of the Federation meeting. Delegates questioned the priorities of the current government and the implementation of the 30% off tuition rebate. Delegates also provided feedback on the MTCU’s leaked and official discussion paper released earlier in the year. Ms. Fougére indicated that the government’s policy could drastically shift based on the election of a new Premier.

Noah Morris, Director if Ontario’s Student Financial Assistance Branch of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and UniversitiesDelegates had the opportunity to question and provide feedback for Mr. Morris regarding financial assistance programs in Ontario. Delegates were largely critical for the number of problems and issues with the 30% off tuition rebate grant and the elimination of numerous grants.

CFS-ONTARIO SAGM REPORT - EXECUTIVE REPORT

CFS-ONTARIO SEMI-ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING WORKSHOPSCURRENT ISSUES IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONSarah Jayne-King, CFS-Ontario Chairperson, and Mike Yam, CFS-Ontario Researcher, presented the history of the students movement and current and future issues in post-secondary education in Ontario and abroad.

DEFENDING WORKERS’ RIGHTS UNDER AUSTERITYGary Fenn, Communication/Political Action Officer at the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, Trish Hennessy, Founding Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-Ontario, and Sid Ryan, President of the Ontario Federation of Labour, presented on issues facing workers under austerity measures.

PRESERVING ACADEMIC FREEDOMRobert Ramsey, Professional Officer at the Canadian Association of University Teachers, reports on the chronic underfunding at universities across the country and the increased reliance on corporate and private sponsorships. Mr. Ramsey presented a report from CAUT on University-Donor Collaborations.

DROP FEES, NOT BOMBSSid Lacombe, Coordinator at the Canadian Peace Alliance, presented on the history of the students’ movement and the anti-war/peace movement in Canada. Mr. Lacombe focused on the links between military funding and the underfunding of public services and post-secondary education.

CONFRONTING SEXISM AND GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE ON CAMPUSAnne-Marie Grondin, staff at the Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen’s Society, Sandy Hudson, Executive Director at the University of Toronto Students’ Union, and Vanessa Hunt, President of the York Federation of Students, presented on issues arising on their campuses in relation to sexism and sexual violence.

COUNCIL ON STUDENTSERVICES REPORT

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNIONLOCAL 98 CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS

FEBRUARY 2013

OVERVIEWThe Council on Student Services (CoSS) is a body made up of representatives from the University of Toronto Students’ Union, Association of Part-time Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students’ Union, University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union, Scarborough Campus Students’ Union, Hart House, the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education and the Office of Student Life. Unlike most governing bodies of the University of Toronto, CoSS is made up of a majority of student voting members. The committee was struck to address the growing trend of universities to invoke ancillary fees to fund an increasing bureaucracy and a lack of government funding. The committee was established after the creation of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities policy on Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines. The policy allows students to vote for, against or call for referenda on any increase or introduction of compulsory non-tuition related fees.

The University of Toronto Students’ Union holds four seats on CoSS, consisting of Vice-President University Affairs, Munib Sajjad, Vice-President Campus Life, Yolen Bollo-Kamara, Vice-President Internal and Services, Corey Scott, and Noor Baig, Vice-President Equity. This year, the Council on Student Services began the year with a retreat that encouraged proactive involvement in the University student services budgeting and priority setting mechanisms. CoSS has continued throughout the year with a presentation from the students’ unions on goals and objectives of CoSS, a presentation from the University’s Vice-President Operations, Scott Mabury, and subsequent presentations from the Office of Student Life, Hart House and Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education.

This report aims to summarize the presentations and findings by the UTSU’s CoSS representatives. The UTSU representatives would like to seek a mandate from the Board of Directors on whether to vote in favour, against or call for a referenda on any fee increase or introduction by the three central student services.

In solidarity,Munib Sajjad, Vice-President University AffairsYolen Bollo-Kamara, Vice-President Campus LifeNoor Baig, Vice-President EquityCorey Scott, Vice-President Internal and Services

HART HOUSE

2013-2014 PROPOSED FEEFull-time (St. George) - $73.39Part-time (St. George) - $15.89Full-time (UTSC/UTM) - $2.44Part-time (UTSC/UTM) - $0.49

PROPOSED INCREASE: 5.2%

OFFICE OF STUDENT LIFE



FACULTY OF KPE



SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

HART HOUSEMANDATE:“Hart House is a living laboratory of social, artistic, cultural and recreational experiences where all voices, rhythms and traditions converge. As the vibrant home for the education of mind, body and spirit envisioned by its founders, Hart House encourages and supports activities that provide spaces for awakening the capacity for self-knowledge and self-expression.”

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES:Hart House has indicated that they intend to increase participation with the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses. They have initiated an Ambassador program which has enhanced the ability to outreach to the three campuses, different faculties and departments. Hart House has specifically invested in developing social media tools to better engage the UofT community.

Hart House employs more than 250 students that accounts for roughly $1.5 in wages and benefits. This also transcends into providing development and experiential learning for current students.

COLLABORATION:The UTSU has collaborated with Hart House on several initiatives to share resources and create larger and better events. The UTSU will continue to work with Hart House to expand the capacity of Hart House clubs and programs and to host more programs in the facility to draw students into the co-curricular college. The UTSU has partnered with Hart House on a number of Food Bank fundraisers, the Blue and White Party for UTSUfest and the Winter Concert for the Winter Week of Welcome. The UTSU has also worked to ensure Hart House is a prominent part of the UTSU Arts and Culture Service Guide.

BUDGET PROCESS:Vice-President University Affairs, Munib Sajjad, has sat on the Hart House Board of Stewards over the past year to participate in all aspects of Hart House governance, including the budget process. Hart House currently faces a structural deficit where there are increasingly high maintenance and repair costs, and human resources expenses continue to grow in relation to cost-of-living. Hart House reports that 82% of operating costs are fixed costs. The University provides zero financial support to the operating costs of Hart House, whereas student fees currently cover 54% of the operating costs,

Hart House will also be moving to charge user fees for non-students in the summer. They have also created efficiencies through synchronizing financial systems with the university and pursuing grants and fundraising.

HART HOUSE



KEY FACTORS- Students are the largest contributers to Hart House

- 82% of Hart House’s costs are fixed.

- Hart House is increasing major maintenance spending by $2 million a year.

- Hart House has cut Clubs and Committee funding

- The University provides $0 to Hart House

��

��

��

HART HOUSE OPERATING EXPENSES

Salaries, Wages Benefits

Utilities, Equipment, Maintenance and Capital Renewal Cost of Goods Sold

Clubs and Committees

General Office, Software, UofT Overhead, Publicity, Theatre Production, Laundry, Other

��

��

��

HART HOUSE OPERATING REVENUE

Student Fees

Institutional User Fees

Faculty, Staff, Alumni Membership

Registered Classes, Ticket Sales

Other

RECOMMENDATION:The Council on Student Services student representatives agree that Hart House is an important part of the UofT community and identity. The UTSU CoSS representatives recognize that Hart House is a hub of campus life and facilitates very unique programming that is essential to the campus. However, members of the committee also indicated hesitance in recognizing the substantive importance on a tri-campus level. Regardless, CoSS members continue to realize that Hart House is facing difficult fiscal challenges with an aging space and a growing mandate. However, the responsibility of these costs have continually fallen upon students who already cover a substantial part of the operating budget, whereas the central university contributes zero dollars while benefiting from the publicity of Hart House’s successes. The UTSU recommends defeat of any fee increase on the principled reasoning that the University of Toronto needs to invest in maintaining student services such as Hart House.

OFFICE OF STUDENT LIFE (OSL)MANDATE:“The Division of Student Life brings coherence to complexity and creates opportunities for students to build skills, experience diverse communities, and integrate learning. They connect life to learning.”

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES:The Office of Student Life coordinates eleven offices, with three partly funded student services offices and a central office of support staff. OSL coordinates a multitude of programs and services for students that focus on a wide-range of issues.- Academic Success Centre- Accessibility Services- Career Centre- Centre for Community Partnerships- Counselling & Psychological Services- Centre for International Experience- Crisis & Academic Progress- First Nations House- Health Services- Multifaith Centre- Student Housing Services- Central – Communications, Information Technology, Student Organizations, Leadership and MentorshipSub-Offices- Early Learning Centre- Family Care Office- Sexual & Gender Diversity Office

COLLABORATION:The UTSU has collaborated with the Office of Student Life on numerous events and programs throughout the year, while also ensuring to lobby on behalf of students for new and improved services. Below are some of the acheivements:- Lobbied and was consulted on the creation of a co-curricular record (ongoing)- Lobbied for free A/V, room bookings and advanced bookings for campus groups- Lobbied for an additional executive to book rooms through OSM- Lobbied and was consulted on the campus room-finder website, which included indepth accessibility review, room features, federated and student life operated spaces, etc (ongoing)- Lobbied and was consulted on the interactive campus wayfinder, which included single stalled washrooms, bike racks, emergency services, etc (ongoing)- Continual participation in the development of terms of reference for the Student Initiative Fund (ongoing)- Lobbied and was consulted on the development of new Housing Services registry (ongoing)- Collaboration on a multitude of events including Queer Orientation with the SGDO, Multifaith Centre programming, National Aboriginal Day with First Nations House, Centre for International Experience Orientation, and more- Included the OSL in implementation of Orientation, UTSUfest and Winter Week of Welcome

LOBBYING SUCCESSES- Co-curricular record

- Coordinated a 2nd room booker for campus groups

- Coordinated free A/V, space booking and advanced bookings for campus groups

- Online comprehensive room booking database

OFFICE OF STUDENT LIFE



� �

�

� �

� � � ��

OSL OPERATING EXPENSES Compensation

Space, Maintenance

Sign Language, transcribers Other

Operating Expenses, Government Grants Medical Expenses

Advertising, Printing, Photocopying Operating Expenses, University Operating

��

��

��

��

OSL OPERATING REVENUE Student Fees

OHIP/UHIP/Prescription Sales

University Operating Budget Support

Government Grants

Other

ONGOING LOBBYING- Sustainable terms of reference for the Student initiative Fund

- Checks and balances for Housing Services registry

- Expand OSL programs to professional faculties such as Dentistry and Medicine

OFFICE OF STUDENT LIFE CONTINUEDBUDGETING PROCESS:The Office of Student Life does not have a budgeting process similar to Hart House or the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education. No member of the students’ unions sit on a budgetting committee for the OSL. However, Assistant Vice-President Student life Lucy Fromowitz meet with members of the students’ unions to review the Office of Student Life Budget on Tuesday, February 5, 2013. The budget shows changes in the names of line items and the creation of several new line items.

The OSL is requesting an increase in funding to cover the costs of increase compensation as cost-of-living and the UofT index goes up. The OSL is requesting additional funds for a full-time staff member to operate the co-curricular transcript. The OSL is also requesting additional funds to increase staffing resources in the Academic Success from 2.6 full-time employees (FTE) to 3.0 full-time employees (FTE).

RECOMMENDATION:The UTSU recognizes that the Office of Student Life is a vital department at the University of Toronto. The UTSU recognizes that many offices exist under the OSL and do amazing work with students and for students. The UTSU further recognizes that the OSL has continued to expand programs, rebrand and improve services in collaboration with the UTSU over the past few years. However, the students’ union CoSS representatives also recognizes that Ontario students continue to pay the highest tuition fees in the country. Students have been faced with ancillary fee increases every year while the university continues to expand its bureaucracy without investing adequate funds.

The UTSU recommends defeat of any fee increase on the principled reasoning that students are continually paying too much for their university experience. Students cannot continue paying increasingly high ancillary fees while the university fails to invest in student life programs.

FEE ALLOCATIONThe Office of Student Life is requesting $6.32 per semester for each semester.FIXED COSTS - $5.64STUDENT LIFE 1.0 FTE - $0.50 ACADEMIC SUCCESS 0.4 FTE - $0.18

KEY FACTORS- Students are the main funding body for the OSL

- This year, the OSL allocated $100,000 for the Student Initiative Fund - with weak terms of reference

- The OSL has made huge strides to update IT Department

- 93% of costs are fixed

- The OSL does not collect fees from UTM/UTSC

FACULTY OF KINESIOLOGY AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION (FKPE)MANDATE:The Faculty’s mission is to “develop, advance and disseminate knowledge about physical activity, health and their interactions through education, research, leadership and the provision of opportunity.”

PROGRAMS:The Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education offers a wide range of programs inside and outside of its facilities. The faculty has continued to grow programs in equity and diversity while seeing growth in participation for intramurals and sport. The faculty has invested significantly in social media, which has shown greater participation in Varsity Blues games.

FKPE employs more than 950 casual staff members and 195 work-study students. The faculty provides more than $2.6 million in earnings to UofT students. The faculty has developed a MoveU team to better advocate for health and wellness across the campus.

COLLABORATION:The UTSU has collaborated with FKPE on numerous programs and services throughout the year. The UTSU has worked closely with the faculty to develop and advertise athletics space to campus groups in various athletics facilities, and most recently securing regular space for campus dance groups to rehearse. The UTSU has also collaborated with the faculty in the Great Barrier Hunt, Fitness for Food: Food Bank Fundraiser, and the Winter Clubs Fair during the Winter Week of Welcome. The UTSU has developed a school spirit program with the faculty in developing Blue and White spirit games for the I Heart the Blues campaign. Pressure on the faculty has also led to programs which encourage women to engage in athletics such as “She’s Got Game.” The UTSU will continue to work with the faculty to enhance health and well-being programs on campus and make athletics more prevalent and relevant on campus.

BUDGET PROCESS:Vice-President Internal and Services, Corey Scott, has sat on the Council of Athletics and Recreation this year. The council has overseen priorities of the co-curricular portfolio of the faculty including redefining the Sports Module, preparing the faculty for the Pan Am games and reviewing the faculty’s budget. The FKPE has recently had substantial funding withdrawn from the provincial government. The faculty has also chosen to shift leadership development programs to reduce overlapping of other UofT leadership programs. The faculty continues to collect funds for the Goldring Centre for High Performance Sport.

KEY FACTORS- Students are the largest contributers to the FKPE

- The Ontario Government has clawed back operating grants

- Leadership Development funding has been redistributed

- The FKPE & UTSU have created free rehearsal space for clubs

- The University has npot increased funding support since the 1990s

RECOMMENDATION:The Council on Student Services student representatives recognize that the FKPE provides vital services and is the largest employer for students on campus. The UTSU representatives recognizes that FKPE has been very receptive in implementing recommendations and policy changes to reduce costs for campus groups. However, students continue to pay the most into the operating budget while University funding has remained static for more than two decades. The UTSU is committed to working with the FKPE to secure government grants, implement new programs and lobby the University for a new funding strategy for the faculty. The UTSU CoSS representatives recommend defeat of the fee increase on the principle that students are continuing to fund the majority of expenses while the University remains uncommitted to alleviating the financial issues of the program.

FACULTY OF KPE



��

��

��

��

FKPE OPERATING REVENUE

Student Fees

Other Programs

Non-Student Membership

Rentals

Services

University Support

��

��

��

��

FKPE OPERATING EXPENSES

Programs

Facilities

Services

Tri-Campus

February 2013 Board Package

Documents

Transcript of February 2013 Board Package