CSU election concerns raised at council meeting

Long meetings continue to be an issue for the union

NewsIndia Das-Brown — Published February 13, 2025 4 minutes

The meeting began with the chair announcing that an item was removed from the agenda as it was deemed to be outside the CSU’s rules of order and scope of council. The item was a motion opposing the Jan. 29 Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) vote at Concordia University. The rejected motion argued that the BDS vote violated CSU’s Safer Spaces Policy, among other things.

Councillors proposed other amendments to the agenda, including a motion to appoint a councillor to the Fee Levy Committee, as a former committee member was no longer a student and had not attended three consecutive meetings​. 

After a short debate, the motion to appoint a Fee Levy Committee Councillor failed. 

Afterwards, academic and advocacy coordinator Vanessa Massot proposed a motion to add a discussion on the Concordia Co-op Bookstore to the agenda, as the Dean of Students’ office had sent a letter to the CSU outlining efforts to revitalize the bookstore. The motion passed with nine in favour and three against.

Next on the speaker's list was councillor Drew Sylver, who motioned to remove all committee minutes and the mid-mandate report from the consent agenda. A procedural debate followed, with some councillors arguing that this removal required justification. However, the items were removed without a vote, as permitted under Robert’s Rules of Order​, and were to be discussed next in the meeting.  

The council then voted on the amended agenda, which failed to pass with a vote of five in favour and eight against. This left the meeting without a functioning agenda. The Chair suggested that instead of immediately terminating the meeting, council should rather attempt to reconstruct the agenda.

After more discussion, a revised agenda was eventually passed with a vote of 12 in favour and four against. The revised agenda moved the consent agenda discussion, including the committee minutes and mid-mandate report, to after guest presentations and motions regarding reading week and the co-op bookstore.

CSU election mismanagement concerns

Nilufar Mamad, a former polling clerk during the November 2024 CSU by-elections, presented a report detailing significant administrative issues with in-person polling​.

The ex-polling clerk said she was first informed of her hiring on the same day she was scheduled to work. She added that polling tables lacked basic election materials like banners and clear signage.

She also reported that some students were unable to vote as some students had not received election emails from the voting system. 

According to her, the CSU’s election process relies entirely on the chief electoral officer (CEO), who was working without oversight and had hired only one deputy electoral officer (DEO). 

Following the presentation, Massot motioned to mandate oversight of the CEO by the CSU general manager and a member of the Graduate Student Association for the Winter 2025 general elections​. They also motioned for the chair of the Policy Committee, Massot and Mamad to collaborate on drafting election policy changes. 

An hour-long debate ensued with some councillors arguing that the CEO must retain their independence.

“If nothing is being done today, you guys have just wasted $5,000 again,” Mamad said, referencing the estimated cost the CSU paid polling clerks in November 2024​.

An amendment to the motion mandating that the CSU chair be involved in election oversight was introduced and passed with a vote of nine in favour and three against.

CREW calls on CSU support in union negotiations

Lauren Laframboise, a representative from CREW, gave a presentation asking the council to support the union in its ongoing negotiations with the university for an increase in teaching and research assistants’ salaries.

After the presentation, external affairs and mobilization coordinator Danna Ballantyne motioned for the CSU to endorse CREW through three actions: mobilizing CSU members in CREW to support the union’s demands, formally endorsing CREW’s demands in the negotiations and encouraging CSU members to show support for CREW.

The motion sparked debate, with some councillors arguing that the CSU has a history of supporting labour unions and should continue to do so. 

“We are a union ourselves, and as the CSU, have always been very pro-union,” sustainability coordinator​ Maria Chitoroaga said. 

Despite several clarifications from executives and the presenter, councillor Sylver insisted that the CSU shouldn’t endorse the union if the pressure tactics CREW plans on using in the event of a strike are not clearly laid out. 

Following another long debate, councillor Sylver proposed an amendment to the motion. He called on the CSU to condemn what he called “pressure tactics” that are “radical or too violent” should they arise during a potential CREW strike. Sylver added that he was concerned that union members might picket classrooms.

Laframboise reiterated that any strike action would be democratically decided by its members​.

“To clarify, this is not a motion to support a strike. Only our members will be able to decide that,” Laframboise said. “The ask is to encourage your members to support us, and there’s not really any specifics beyond that.”

Sylver’s amendment failed with five votes for and 10 against. 

Ballantyne’s motion in support of CREW passed with a vote of nine in favour and six against.

The meeting was adjourned before the agenda was completed. This is the third time this academic year that a CSU RCM has been adjourned without completion of the agenda.