uwstudent.org

Council talked about the recommendations for a long time. They finished the review almost six hours into the meeting.

From my admittedly poor notes, here’s enough to hold everyone over til council’s minutes…I didn’t keep vote counts, but the contentious issues were either close (10-9 as noted above), or not close (1-14 as noted above…)…my apologies for any unintended inaccuracies…

Motion initially raised to have recommendations considered on an individual basis, which passed…

Change to Bylaw 4 for definition of a service was passed after the phrase “as a whole” was stricken for a variety of cogently expressed reasons.

The next six general recommendations (relating to branding, advertising and signage, satellite campuses, long term planning, benchmarking) all passed with ease.

The recommendation “Direct VPI to appoint Service Coordinators for more than one term and provide justification for single term coordinator-ships” was rejected (I don’t think it was a close vote) on a variety of grounds, including the contention that it may pressure potential service coordinators, issues with co-op, etc.,

CRT recommendations (relating to a new class of volunteers, coverage expansion efforts, and increased participation of primaries) all passed

Food Bank recommendations (relating to office set-up, drop-off boxes, advertising, and flexibility in guidelines) all passed.

There was considerable debate and discussion relating to the first GLOW item (run at least one event per term which is geared toward reaching out to all students). It eventually passed with an amendment from VP-Ed Henry. I don’t have it written down, but I think it referenced the final two paragraphs of the MOU (which noted GLOW’s core target should remain LGBTQQ, and that its current programming is inclusive).

The second recommendation (“Take on task of engaging in dialogue with students who hold diverse views on pertinent contentious issues”) was challenged for a variety of different reasons. There were concerns over the boundaries relating to homophobic conversations and “heterocentric conversations”. (This, of course, was not the type of dialogue the IAC had in mind, but it’s a valid concern nonetheless)…There was a separate concern about the ability of GLOW to engage in such dialogue in a non-biased manner (I believe the comparison was made by a councilor to a Christian group having dialogue on atheism). Once it was clear the votes weren’t there, a vote was called, and this recommendation was quickly quashed.

LRO was discontinued without much opposition. The second point was amended with a semantic change making it more clear (“Ensure useful information is available online” was changed to “…is available online on the Feds website.”, something along those lines.

OCD recommendations (assigning dons based on geography, collect feedback on event planning, and developing local links) passed easily.

Wellness Centre was discontinued without much opposition (and will be conducted under Health Services)

The first Womyn’s Centre recommendation (“Re-adjust image to reflect a more open and welcoming service”) passed after it was amended to cut “and less political”

The second Womyn’s Centre recommendation (“Redecorate office to reflect a more professional level of service”) passed, but it was amended to include something along the lines of “ensure material is presented with proper context, as discussed in the MOU”.

The Amendment to By-Law 4 to change the name to “Women’s Issues Resource Centre” and update the duties and functions was quickly amended to just change the name and leave the duties and functions. There was a bit of discussion, before a re-amendment was proposed limiting the change from “Womyn’s Centre” to “Women’s Centre”…this amendment passed easily, and then the amended recommendation passed.

There were three recommendations for the future.

The first (“Continuation of the Service Review”) passed after being amended to denote the other services that fall elsewhere (such as under VP-Ed). The second (“Include the International Student Connection”) passed easily. The final recommendation (“Evaluate progress and success of implementation of this year’s recommendations” was aptly amended to “this year’s adopted recommendations”.

By my count, there were 33 recommendations. 2 were rejected, 8 passed with amendments (about half of which were notable), and 23 passed unamended.

----

There was certainly a high level of debate where expected. It was nice to see that the majority of council had the good sense and judgment to consider the prudence of each recommendation. Each and every recommendation had a basis in student feedback, either through survey responses (from users, volunteers, at-large) or interviews with service coordinators. To wholeheartedly reject the report and all its recommendations would have been an affront to the student body.

I am extremely delighted that the majority of Council found value in listening to students.

To hear councilors raise constituent concerns (be they positive or negative), address by-law and procedural points, and even-handedly debate the merits of each recommendation was pleasant.

Hopefully, the lessons learned as part of this year’s review will prove instrumental in improving a vital review process and heighten the level of student feedback. I look forward to VP Lo’s efforts to this end.

My kudos to the IAC for their hard work, dedication and consideration. The same to the service coordinators (especially Sue and Jeremy) who handled a potentially difficult and precarious conflict management process with delicacy and respect.

I’d be more than happy to speak at length with anyone so interested, but perhaps on a patio somewhere with a nice lager; the weather’s far too nice to spend this much time at a computer.

Best,
Kevin Royal