On Oct. 6, 2015, the CSA held an emergency board meeting to discuss further action regarding the motions struck during the emergency board meeting on Sept. 21, 2015. The Oct. 6 meeting was called to order in an attempt to rescind the motions struck on Sept. 21 and, in the event that the motions fail, to enact a judicial board of trustees to review grievances.
In order to strike motions regarding the decisions made during the Sept. 21 meeting, it was revealed that the CSA passed a motion to suspend the human resources and operations commissioner (HRO), Matthew Campbell, for 30 days with paid leave. The HRO is responsible for maintaining CSA finances, human resources, and general operations – working alongside the permanent full-time staff. In accordance with the in-camera nature of the Sept. 21 meeting, it is not possible for constituents to address the meeting’s details. As such, information regarding the HRO’s suspension is available solely because of the language in the motions proposed at the Oct. 6 meeting.
The Oct. 6 meeting began with general discussion regarding the nature of the meeting, as well as the motions struck on Sept. 21. The evening’s business was to address a single motion, proposed by Interhall Council representative Jack Fisher and seconded by College of Physical and Engineering Sciences Student Council representative Ellen Song. A motion soon passed to split the proposed legislation into two separate entities: one part addressing the desire to rescind motions passed on Sept. 21, and the second part to enact a judicial board of trustees in order to address the suspension and grievances against the HRO.
“The CSA meeting on Oct. 6 was called mainly because the CSA was not complying with a huge part of their HR policy [specifically: Appendix D Section 14],” explained Fisher, via email. “That policy contains the complaint resolution and grievance procedure. The procedure calls for the appointment of an unbiased judicial board to deal with the internal issues of the CSA.”
Following the decision to split the motion into two parts, College of Arts representative Zoey Ross proposed a motion to take the meeting into camera. The motion passed, and the meeting became inaccessible for guests and non-directors.
A few hours later, the meeting resumed out of camera, and the directors present at the meeting voted to refer the judicial board of trustees motion to the CSA’s Policy and By-law Review Committee (PBRC)—a group co-chaired by the policy and transition manager.
On Oct. 8, 2015, the CSA held a regularly scheduled board meeting. As a result of the Oct. 6 meeting, the presence of only four of the five elected CSA commissioners was not a point of confusion. Following an amendment to the agenda, the board moved to ratify a College of Arts Student Union (CASU) alternate representative, a GRCCED primary representative, and a Central Veterinary Students Association (CVSA) primary representative. In order to ratify a new primary representative, the board was forced to de-ratify the previous CVSA primary.
The executive commissioners then delivered their reports. The reports mentioned the success of the Oct. 7, 2015 Vandana Shiva lecture, Additionally, the reports also addressed the role changes as a result of the HRO’s suspension.
Sarah Cooper, the CSA’s policy and transition manager, then delivered her report. She explained that the PBRC has not yet met and that meetings had yet to be scheduled.
There were no director reports.
Once the board dispensed with reports, the group moved forward to discuss business. On the agenda were several items of board logistics. Of importance to readers of this column was the suggestion to live stream board of directors meetings.
Sonia Chwalek, the communications and corporate affairs commissioner suggested that she wasn’t “sure that we have the passion for board meetings within the public.”
Chwalek also suggested tabling a presentation for the CSA’s strategic plan for the next board meeting. Ellen Song countered by arguing that the board should discuss the strategic plan as soon as possible. Asia Barclay, the external affairs commissioner went over the plan’s table of contents.
When Ashwin Lal, a representative for the College of Business and Economics Students’ Association, suggested working with CSA executives to better the plan, Sarah Cooper explained that the plan is more board-oriented.
“I think the plan is more this way,” said Cooper, while motioning towards the board.
The major business of the evening was the actions to discuss an interim grievance policy and the actions to strike a complaint resolution and grievance policy committee. These actions occupied the chunk of the meeting, with CSA executives arguing in favour of recommending the motions to the PBRC, while a vocal group of directors arguing in favour of discussing the issue at the meeting.
A motion to refer the issue to the PBRC failed, however, and the board was forced to discuss the interim grievance policy. The board was divided between two groups: one believed that it was important to enact a judicial board of trustees in order to deal with grievances, while the other believed that the CSA—alongside a human resources consultant —could work together to create a reasonable grievance policy.
After a significant round of discussion, the group eventually voted and the motion passed. The side in favour of enacting a judicial board of trustees lost out. The motion to strike an ad-hoc complaint resolution and grievance policy committee also successfully passed.
Once the important business concluded, the board passed motions in support of work/study positions for the CSA, in support of approving committee and board scribe job descriptions, and in support of working out a timeline for CSA by-election appointments. The meeting quickly adjourned.
The Ontarion reached out to Sonia Chwalek regarding the Oct. 6, 2015 meeting, but has yet to receive a response. The CSA board will next meet on Nov. 4, 2015.