THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN’S MAIN CAMPUS IS SITUATED ON TREATY 6 TERRITORY AND THE HOMELAND OF THE MÉTIS.
THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN’S MAIN CAMPUS IS SITUATED ON TREATY 6 TERRITORY AND THE HOMELAND OF THE MÉTIS.
VICTORIA MARTINEZ
Senior News Editor
The University of Saskatchewan Students’ Union’s decision to not post two amendments for discussion at the Nov. 18 annual general meeting has created concern from the two students who proposed them.
After eight amendments to the USSU bylaw had been voted on, Sara Waldbillig spoke up with a piece of new business.
Two of her proposed amendments to the bylaws hadn’t been discussed at the meeting, nor posted online, despite the instructions of section 7.(2).
“The General Manager or designate shall publish proposed amendments to the bylaw at least eight days before the meeting of members at which the amendments will be considered,” the section reads.
Waldbillig’s amendments, to include positions for USSU centre volunteers on the students’ council and to disallow sitting on council for centre coordinators, were deemed unfeasible and undemocratic by the USSU’s lawyer, Greg Walen. USSU general manager Caroline Cottrell notified Waldbillig on Nov. 10 that the two amendments were not permissible. By this time, reformatting and resubmitting amendments was no longer possible.
Specifically, the centre representation amendment was rejected since not all volunteers are undergraduates, and centres do not constitute student societies.
Her other amendment was deemed “not permissible since it is fundamentally anti-democratic to disenfranchise a group of USSU members based on their employment.”
See related: Six amendments passed, two defeated at AGM
Daniel McCullough, last year’s USSU vice president academic affairs, also had an amendment rejected which added a limit to the ratification of councillors from one department in a college. The amendment was “specifically to go hand-in-hand with the amendment [to give arts and science one more councillor] that was discussed at the AGM,” he said.
“What I was trying to do was give a more diverse voice to the largest college on campus,” he added.
As it stands, all arts and science councillors, along with everyone on the executive, are working toward a degree in political science.
McCullough’s intent was not to stop students from running, but to diversify representation at council. The amendment was also deemed undemocratic for potentially blocking students from running for office.
The overarching legislation is the Non-Profit Corporations Act, 1995.
“The Act basically is the law and is at the top of the hierarchy. There are provisions in the Act that the bylaw cannot override,” said Cottrell.
Section 127.(8) of the Act says that if a proposal is rejected, the corporation must provide notice with reasons for the refusal. Additionally, 127.(3) says proposals that are primarily for the purpose of airing personal grievances or for promoting specific causes unrelated to the corporation’s aims can all be rejected.
The two students were notified by email that their proposals were deemed undemocratic and could not go forward, but McCullough said he was surprised not to see them posted as proposed.
“The USSU never explicitly told Sara [Waldbillig] or I that the amendments would not be posted,” McCullough explained. “As far as bylaw section 7 reads though, I assumed that I would just have to amend it at the AGM.”
“I think the way [the bylaw] is to be interpreted is constitutional amendments to the bylaw going forward [will be posted],” said USSU president Chris Stoicheff. “I think the majority of students would agree. Why would you post something that you are not able to entertain?”
McCullough disagrees.
“My interpretation is it’s completely imperative. Especially in light of the Non-Profit Corporation Act,” said McCullough.
He is referencing section 127.(7) which reads: “No corporation or person acting on its behalf incurs any liability by reason only of circulating a proposal or statement in compliance with this section.”
Cottrell said at the AGM, “I do not think it would be in the USSU’s best interest to publish all of the amendments that I have seen, ” naming “liability issues” as her reasoning.
“We get proposed amendments that are defamatory”¦ that probably invade the human rights act.”
McCullough thinks the explanation is weak.
“I don’t see why they would disregard something as important as the Non-Profit Corporation Act… the fact that they would then turn around and lie to students about what the act says [about liability], I think that’s a huge blow to the student body and any faith we can have in the student government.”
Waldbillig and McCullough were directed to campus legal services with their complaints, but campus legal service is not currently insured and cannot take up cases.
– –
image: Pete Yee
