Going Through the Motions

A Play–by–Play of the BoG Blowout

News — Published October 3, 2011

During the Board of Governors meeting last week, student representatives introduced three separate motions in an effort to postpone passing new legislation to the Board’s bylaws that would drastically cut student representation.

This is a brief breakdown of those motions.

Strike One: The Motion to Table

The first motion, introduced by undergraduate Board rep Laura Beach, was to postpone voting on Article 23 of the updated university bylaws that outlines Board makeup—which decreases undergraduate student representation from four members to one member.

“The changes [to this bylaw] will not be put into place until June, 2012,” chimed in graduate student rep Erik Chevrier. “There are a number of issues that still need to be discussed. […] I just don’t see the point in hastily rushing through the motions.” 

Undergraduate Board rep Cameron Monagle then expressed his hesitation to adopt the report, as “it has not gone through the proper processes” of Senate approval.
At a Senate meeting in September, Senators urged the Board to slow down the process of implementing structural changes.

After a faculty member requested reasons why the motion shouldn’t be postponed, Board member Rita de Santis and Interim President Frederick Lowy both said that “larger picture” concerns with the Board at the university last winter needed to be addressed.

“It was not a healthy situation,” said Lowy, referring to controversy that arose following the Board’s dismissal of then-president Judith Woodsworth. “It would be a greater danger not to adopt the changes.”

Beach then got the floor back, pointing out that “the motion as it stands acts like an omnibus”—or a single legislative motion containing many laws and amendments—“but none of the members here are able to provide motivation or explanation, or adequate justification for a 36 per cent decrease in proportional student representation.”

De Santis rebutted that “postponing is not a solution,” while Concordia Student Union President Lex Gill maintained that “the Board is trying to solve the problem of bad governance with more bad governance.”

“With all due respect, consensus on the [joint Senate and Board] committee is a false one,” Gill explained. “That committee was appointed [by the Board] unilaterally, so I don’t think that this process has much legitimacy.”

The motion was then called, and did not carry.

Strike Two: Motion to Isolate Article 23

The second motion the student representatives put forth was to separate Article 23 from the rest being voted on. They argued that this would allow for continued debate on the Board makeup.

“People didn’t think we were going to take this seriously,” said de Santis. “But we are going to move forward. […] Other than respect to the one issue—the student issue—all others have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Senate and Board.”

“We’re talking about this as the singular, unresolved issue that remains,” argued Beach, before Gill motioned to consider the other bylaw changes with the exception of Article 23.

The motion failed, though it did garner noticeably more support for students than the first.

Strike Three: Motion to Add Members

After the second motion failed, a non-voting Board member representing pensioners—who are losing their one seat entirely—gave a lengthy speech about how the proposed report sends a message that some factions of the Concordia community are not important, and that, paraphrasing George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “We’re all equal, except some are more equal than others.”

Afterwards, Chevrier put a motion forward to amend the Article to increase the number of seats on the total board up to 28, proposing the addition of one student to the internal membership and two to external, giving the pensioners a seat as well.

Kruyt then quickly called the question, without making time for deliberation, and the motion failed.

And You’re Out

Shortly thereafter, the question of adopting the updated bylaws was put to the Board, with Kruyt announcing it would be voted on in a secret ballot. 

Gill immediately demanded why the vote—which she called the most important in Concordia’s governance history—wasn’t more transparent.

“It’s not a debatable point,” said Kruyt.

The vote was called and passed, with 27 for and seven against. The students walked out in protest.