Looking at the Fine Details

Student Union Building Not Owned By Students: Sonin

NewsClay Hemmerich — Published November 16, 2010

FEM members Robert Sonin, Erik Chevrier and Holly Nazar sorted through legal documents for the student union building obtained through Quebec’s Access to Information Program and encouraged students to do the same. The trio made it clear that students should demand transparency from their university.

Through their access to information request, FEM found that administrative space would take up over a third of the student union building.

“Theoretically each party should pay for its portion of its space. Undergrads should pay for about two-thirds, and the administration should pay for about one-third,” said Sonin. “I think it’s more tilted to the university.”

The Concordia Student Union is planning to manage the hypothetical student union building as a joint operation.
A five-member board of co-management, which would include two members appointed by the university and three by the CSU, would oversee the operations of the student union building.

“The CSU will have the majority [of the decision making power],” said Nazar. “However, the board is subject to quite a few university regulations. If the board wanted to remove some of these regulations, both of the university board members have to agree.”

The FEM members showed concern for the policy of distribution of publication on campus, which states that student groups can’t flyer on campus except for designated specific spaces, and the policy on filming and photography on university campus, which states that students need permission to take photos or video on campus.

As for food services, Nazar said, “any exclusivity contracts [existing in the Hall building] won’t apply to the new building.”

Chevrier said that in order to understand the reasons behind university contract acquisitions like Chartwells, one has to know that “[Concordia] is actually a corporation, it’s a non-profit corporation. It follows the Quebec charter of how a non-profit corporation should run.”

FEM members said that they don’t disagree with the student union building, but rather with the legal agreement between the administration and the student union building.

“I think the problem is that it is not a good agreement. Whether they do it now or later, it’s still the same agreement,” said Sonin. “The problem is the student center has been sold as a student run, student operated, student owned, under control of the students kind of space, and it’s not. It’s not going to be that. It’s going to be a university-owned building.”

This article originally appeared in Volume 31, Issue 14, published November 16, 2010.