A motion put forward at the Dec. 5 University of Manitoba Students’ Union (UMSU) board of directors meeting by the governance committee has failed to be carried in a tied vote. Motion 0633 sought to adopt a revised UMSU bylaw document which contained several changes to board meeting procedures.
In July, UMSU’s executive committee put forward Motion 0618 which called for a governing document review. The motion stated that “the executive committee has heard concerns from students about discrepancies in UMSU’s governing documents,” and that it is “challenging” for UMSU personnel and students of the union to navigate between six different governing documents and to locate the proper clauses to abide by.
Other reasons were provided for the governing document review, such as the issue that “the current structure of governing documents frequently leads to rules and procedures being violated.”
Governance committee presents proposals
Brooke Hilland, member of the governance committee, presented the committee’s proposals at the Dec. 5 board of directors meeting following the governing document review. “The new [board meeting] procedures outlined in this presentation have been developed based on best practices from a number of organizations, specifically student unions across Canada,” said Hilland.
Proposed changes by the governance committee included modifications to the motion proposal process, public participation, speaking rights, closed sessions and the structure of meetings.
Hilland stated that the intent of the proposed changes to board meeting procedures was to “model good governance, to ensure board meetings are a space for respectful and healthy debate [and] to restore the intended role of board members which is to represent the best interests of their constituents which requires understanding and being able to genuinely listen.”
She continued that the goal is to also enhance the effectiveness of the board.
Proposal for 50 signatures for students to submit motions
Hilland stated that the governance committee is proposing that students-at-large, UMSU members who are not directors, would require 50 signatures on a petition to submit a motion for consideration by the UMSU board of directors. Presently, any student who is a part of UMSU could draw up a motion without signatures.
“We believe that it is quite easy to get 50 signatures on a petition with social media and virtual petitions nowadays,” she said. “And keep in mind that students can still ask their [UMSU representative] to put forward motions if they don’t want to get 50 signatures.
“I also want to reinforce that governance does not want to silence student voices,” stated Hilland. “The intent of this change to motion proposals is to ensure a singular voice does not get lost in the crowd,” she added.
“It won’t be up to a committee that may be composed of four to five people to decipher if it’s something that actually represents the wishes of the student body. Instead, each proposal, whether conscious or not, will be taken into consideration with a heftier weight attached to it.”
Hilland said that the Waterloo Undergraduate Student Association only permits directors to submit motions with notice, and that the University of Alberta Students’ Union and Carleton University Students’ Association place “an emphasis on context and approval processes.” Hilland also mentioned that the Government of Manitoba and City of Winnipeg require constituents to work through representatives.
The details of other proposals involve allowing students-at-large to speak on motions only if a UMSU director yields their speaking turn, having a closed session at the end of each meeting and allotting 20 minutes maximum for a question period, unless extended by a two-thirds majority vote of the board.
Board divided on adopting motion
Motion 0633, which considered adopting the changes put forward by the governance committee, was contested by several board members.
“We should get rid of the 50 signatures,” said Heaven Kaur, women’s centre representative, who motioned to remove the signature requirement. “[The requirement] is also a little inaccessible for students that do have social anxiety,” said Kaur.
The motion to amend was seconded by Theodore Biggs-Engel, 2SLGBTQIA+ students’ representative, but failed to be adopted during the vote.
Victoria Romero, a student-at-large, stated, “I think the idea of having a signature requirement for putting forward a motion […] creates unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, which will prevent students from using this as a forum to bring forth their concerns, and in turn will eliminate the chance of UMSU being able to effectively address those concerns.”
“We should at this point be decreasing the barriers, not increasing them,” said Gurpahul Kaur, UMSU director for the Arts Student Body Council.
Christabel Attoni-Oteari, racialized students’ representative, said “the students we are representing are telling us clearly that they do not like this motion, that it is taking away their ability to freely speak on things.”
Heaven Kaur added, “I don’t think it’s a good idea to continue forward with this motion.” She indicated that what works for other student unions will not work for the U of M, citing the university’s smaller student body population. Kaur also indicated that the signature requirement makes it less accessible for students looking to bring forward motions. “Some people might not have the courage, some people might be busy.”
Other board members spoke in favour of the motion.
Sarah Pittman, UMSU director for the Science Students’ Association, stated that “there are multiple avenues that students-at-large can go through besides just the petition for signatures. They can go to their representatives, they can go to different committees, they can go to executives.”
Pittman continued, “if we are to have that avenue where students must come to their UMSU directors, it is fostering that engagement that we want between students. And it is forcing us to do our job, because I don’t have a lot to do right now because nobody is coming to me.”
“What this motion actually does is it puts the onus on you as board members […] making sure that you are able to represent their voice,” said UMSU president Divya Sharma.
“If it’s so wrong to have board of directors represent people, we shouldn’t even have a government. We shouldn’t even have a federal government. We should not have a provincial government,” said Sharma. “The reason why we have structures in place like this is so that we have a productive meeting.”
Prabhnoor Singh, UMSU vice-president external affairs, stated that he agrees with the governance committee’s suggestion to require a set number of signatures, so that someone “cannot bring forward any motion that they want […] We have like 27,000 people on this campus that we represent. If all 27,000 people then decide to bring forward a motion one board meeting, we’ll be working through each and every single one of them one by one.”
Singh referred to the province’s use of petitions and stated that the signature requirement “gives us backing” that students support the motion, “instead of just one person that did not agree with something.”
Following a secret ballot vote requested by Singh, Motion 0633 was defeated in a 9-9 tie. UMSU requires that 50 per cent plus one of the votes be received to carry a motion, according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
