KEVIN MENZ
Associate News Editor

For the second time in the last three weeks, students’ council voted down building a social justice centre at the University of Saskatchewan next year.

At the March 24 meeting of the University Students’ Council, councillors voted 11 to nine to not build the centre but, at STM councillor Galen Richardson’s request, the centre was put back on the agenda for the April 7 meeting.

The results did not change, however, as council again voted 11 to nine against building the centre.

The April 7 debate started much the same as previous debates on the social justice centre: Those for the centre said it was needed immediately while those against it felt that more research is needed to find the best way to combat social justice issues on campus. However, discussion quickly shifted to the ethics of voting — specifically, it shifted to whether or not councillors should vote on their personal opinions or on their college’s behalf.

Engineering councillor Leejay Schmidt was central to this discussion after stating he would be voting on his college’s behalf and not on his own personal opinion.

“Obviously something needs to be done and, as the University of Saskatchewan Students’ Union, it is our job to ensure that students are supported,” said Schmidt. “However, since this centre was voted on a couple weeks ago and since our college now leans significantly against it, I do have to speak on behalf of my college.”

He said that his vote would be against building the centre next year because his college was against building it.

Section 91.4 of the USSU bylaw states that “Officeholders shall represent the views of their constituencies and Council without personal bias as a result of conflict of interest and shall perform any and all duties as required by this bylaw or imposed from time to time by the Council.”

Council had numerous interpretations of this bylaw, as some members felt it implied an obligation for councillors to vote on behalf of their college and others didn’t.

USSU president Chris Stoicheff told Schmidt that he should vote on his own personal opinion.

“I feel quite strongly like [councillor Schmidt] is being pressured into doing something that he doesn’t believe in. I don’t think that’s fair,” said Stoicheff. “Everyone around this table should know that they are under no obligation by their college to vote a certain way. You were elected and they were not.”

Vice president operations and finance Scott Hitchings echoed this statement.

“You are not a delegate. You are here to exercise your own judgement,” he said. “You can go and talk to your college and use their opinions to decide what you’re going to do, but you don’t need to.”

VP academic Kelsey Topola disagreed.

“The executive and I were elected to represent the views of all of our constituents and if that doesn’t create our opinion, it should inform it very heavily,” said Topola.

Many councillors agreed with her, including education councillor Alysha Joanette.

“You can take the bylaw whichever way you want to take it, but I personally feel that [if I don’t vote on behalf of my college], I shouldn’t be here,” said Joanette.

While the ballot was secret and it is not known how Schmidt voted, there is no reason to assume he did not vote on his college’s behalf.