The CSA board of directors held the final official meeting of the fall 2015 semester, on Nov. 18, 2015. Chaired by Joshua Ofori-Darko, the meeting began with land acknowledgements from two members—College of Physical and Engineering Sciences (CPES) representative Ellen Song, and external affairs commissioner Asia Barclay.
While discussing the adoption of the agenda, Ofori-Darko explained that, due to the difficulty in discussing issues during the previous, Nov. 4, 2015, meeting, Robert’s Rules of Order—as well as the CSA’s own internal board policies—were to be followed.
However, the adoption of the agenda once again proved to stimulate discussion around the room, beginning with communications and public affairs commissioner Sonia Chwalek’s motion to strike two items off of the agenda, while amending one in-camera item.
The first item to be removed was an in-camera item titled “Internal Executive Issue.” The second item to be removed regarded a new temporary CSA position. Finally, Chwalek explained that the board could not vote to accept the in-camera minutes from Nov. 4, 2015, as the minutes were not prepared, due to the CSA executive committee taking part in protests occurring on-campus. As such, the in-camera item regarding the acceptance of in-camera minutes from the Oct. 6, Oct. 8, and Nov. 4, 2015 meetings was amended in order to reflect the lack of Nov. 4 minutes.
The board then quickly turned its attention to an item of business that was absent from the most recently distributed Nov. 18 agenda: In-camera item Pineapple. According to several directors, Pineapple was an in-camera item that was present on the copy of the agenda that was distributed on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. However, the copy of the agenda that was distributed on Wednesday Nov. 18, 2015, did not feature the Pineapple item.
Policy and transition manager Sarah Cooper provided an explanation for Pineapple’s absence.
“This week has been unreal,” said Cooper. “You’ll notice that the agenda is 120 pages long. Originally, it was a miscommunication on my part. I thought there were going to be items under Pineapple, but then once we had a little bit of conversation, I realized there shouldn’t be [certain] in-camera items under business.”
Discussion continued, and College of Arts at-large representative Zoey Ross proposed to introduce Pineapple under new business.
“The board gave the subcommittee a mandate to present results by this meeting,” explained Ross, when asked by the board chair why Pineapple was urgent enough to be included in the agenda. “If we don’t do it, then we’ll be out of line by the board direction given last meeting.”
The motion to introduce Pineapple—renamed Executive Decision Committee Report (EDCR)—eventually carried, but not before discussion about the item’s position on the agenda. When Ofori-Darko, as board chair, stood by his decision to feature the EDCR under new business, a board director challenged his role as chair, forcing the board to enter discussion regarding whether the EDCR should be introduced as new business, or if it should be given a position under the in-camera items under regular business.
Chwalek provided insight into the issue via email.
“As was explained in the meeting, the agenda item Pineapple was removed because the item, which had been put forward by the [executive commissioners] was no longer deemed necessary to be in-camera, and, as such, was removed and included openly in the remainder of the business.”
Via email, Chwalek explained that Pineapple was delegated under item 10.10.2 and 10.10.3, CSA Board of Directors Composition and Training PBRC Working Group.
After discussion, the EDCR remained under new business. All motions to strike items or amend the agenda carried.
The board moved on to discuss accepting the meeting minutes from the Oct. 6 and Oct. 8, 2015 board meetings. The Oct. 6, 2015 minutes were quickly accepted, but the Oct. 8, 2015 sparked confusion. According to a board director, who has asked to remain unnamed, speaking at the meeting, a policy change that was voted on at the Oct. 8, 2015 meeting did not secure the appropriate number of votes to carry. However, the official minutes for the Oct. 8 meeting show that the motion did, in fact, carry.
According to CSA by-laws, policy changes must secure a two-thirds majority in order to carry. Board directors at the Nov. 18 meeting, however, raised the issue that, while the policy-change secured a majority vote, it did not secure a 2/3 majority.In spite of these objections, the board eventually motioned to end discussion on the policy change. However, when voting on whether to end discussion, Ellen Song, Jack Fisher, Matthew Hernandez, Eric Prelaz, and Nicholas Kowaleski all abstained.
The remainder of the meeting went without major incident. Following reports from the policy, delegations, and representations committee, the policy and by-law review committee, the accessibility working group, and the capacity, analysis, and planning committee, the board went in-camera, at approximately 7:57 p.m. The board returned out of camera at 9:16 p.m.
The remaining out of camera items of business were processed.An item that unified the entire board was an information item regarding the need for increased action to support the Guelph Student Foodbank. This item pledged that CSA board directors would consult their respective parent organizations in order to increase funding and support for the Foodbank.
Finally, owing to the time and the absence of the chair of the Executive Decision Committee, the EDCR was not discussed.
The final official meeting of the fall 2015 semester concluded at approximately 10:53 p.m. Though the board had enough remaining members for quorum, Ofori-Darko did not adjourn the meeting. As such, the Nov. 18 meeting technically adjourned because it lost quorum.