A number of concerns addressed at Sept. 20 meeting
A proposal for renovations that would affect the first-floor and the basement of the University Centre (UC) was presented at the UC board meeting on Sept. 20.
Don O’Leary, vice-president of finance for the University, and Shane Danis, project manager for Physical Resources were invited by the Management and Operations committee (M&O) to present the proposal to the UC board of directors.
Members of GRCGED, the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG), campus union CUPE 1334, The Ontarion student newspaper, and UC Administration were also present at the meeting as guests.
“…the University has already approved $3 million to be allocated to this project…”
The proposal consisted of plans to convert the first-floor of the UC into an open-concept student lounge, which is currently occupied by the UC 103 meeting room, washrooms, two commercial tenants, the Guelph Resource Centre for Gender Empowerment and Diversity (GRCGED), and a few vacant spots for which the University has paid rent for years in anticipation of renovations.
The basement meeting space and Peter Clark Hall area would be updated with modern furnishings and new sliding partitions to create adjustable spaces for multipurpose uses.
In anticipation of the board’s vote, the University has already approved $3 million to be allocated to this project to create more student space and meeting room space.
Following the proposal presentation, a motion was passed to extend speaking rights to the representatives from GRCGED, OPIRG, and CUPE 1334. The discussion addressed a number of concerns from key stakeholders.
Concern #1: Timing (or lack thereof)
Hong Lam, GRCGED’s outreach and organizational coordinator, spoke on behalf of GRCGED’s collective, outlining a timeline of dates on which they were contacted throughout the proposal process.
According to Lam, the M&O committee first notified GRCGED of the proposal and the possibility of moving their space from UC 107 on July 29. One month later, on Aug. 31, they were contacted by Ryan Shoot, the CSA’s finance and operations commissioner and member of the UC board, to compile a list of space requirements in the event they should have to move from their current space.
Lam argued that GRCGED did not receive enough time to prepare this document, having received the request three days before Orientation Week, and objected to the absence of official communication from the board itself.
Shari Dorr, who was acting as chair for this meeting, apologized on behalf of the board for the timing or lack thereof, and clarified that the timeline was intentional in order to go through the proper procedures laid out in the constitution.
“…the commercial tenants occupying space on the first-floor were notified well in advance of any other group.”
Brenda Whiteside, vice-president of student affairs and member of the M&O committee, said that she would “take a lot of the heat” for encouraging the committee to wait to contact GRCGED about the proposal until they were able to make a conclusive decision.
Lori Guest, GRCGED’s volunteer and resource coordinator, noted that the commercial tenants occupying space on the first-floor were notified well in advance of any other group.
Mike Calvert, manager of operations for the University Centre, explained why the commercial tenants were notified earlier than GRCGED in an interview with The Ontarion: the commercial tenants’ leases were due for renewal in May.
“We had to advise them at the time that their leases would be moved to a month-to-month scenario,” said Calvert, noting that this scenario was pending the approval of a modified floor plan.
Peter Miller, a member of the UC board and former CSA executive, also expressed his concerns during the board meeting about the lack of consultations the M&O committee had with special status groups (SSGs) and the board before the proposal was made and that the funding has already been approved by the University.
Dorr clarified that the University’s funding of the renovations does not change the ownership or governance of the UC’s space, which is under the jurisdiction of the UC board.
Concern # 2: Defining student space
With the main goal of the renovations geared toward creating more student space, members of GRCGED maintained that their space in UC 107 already acts as student space, and has been a welcoming place for students to gather, study, and relax for the last 25 years.
Guest argued that, based on what has been heard from students at GRCGED, that more students want quiet study space, not communal space.
Whiteside explained that a great deal of research has gone into student spaces at the University (such as a survey conducted for the University’s 2013 master plan), and the data indicates that students want more space to study in groups.
“When asked by a board member at the Sept. 20 meeting to define student space, O’Leary simply replied, ‘Whatever you want it to be.'”
In an interview with The Ontarion, Meghan Wing, academic and university affairs commissioner for the CSA, acknowledged her support of the plans in their ability to meet the needs of as many students as possible and providing a “much-needed lounge space.” Wing, while a member of the CSA, is not a member of the UC board.
When asked by a board member at the Sept. 20 meeting to define student space, O’Leary simply replied, “Whatever you want it to be.”
According to the UC board’s constitution, as read by Dorr at the meeting, the purpose of the UC is to provide space for social, recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities.
Calvert, speaking on on behalf of UC Administration in an interview following the Sept. 20 meeting, said that the proposed renovations “take us back to the original spirit of the building,” which originally had lounges, game rooms, and recreational spaces for students. “For the UC, we see this as the best possible way to enhance our space.”
Concern #3: Displacing a special status group
Guest, on behalf of GRCGED, said that one of the biggest issues they had with the plans was that they only saw a proposal for erasure of their space, not a proposal for new space.
In the event of being asked to move from their current location, GRCGED has compiled a document outlining their space requirements, focusing on “accessibility, comfort, and prominence of space,” explained Lam.
Marie Tina Asoh, a member of GRCGED’s collective, also presented to the board an altered floor plan that allows UC 107 to remain untouched in the renovation process.
O’Leary explained that he has promised to offer GRCGED all they want and more if they were to require a new space, noting that they may not want to stay at their current location given the amount of noise and traffic on the first-floor if the proposal goes through.
Asoh explained that the first-floor hallway is already an active space, “I don’t think we’re scared of noise. If anything, we’re open to new people.”
“This isn’t a quick decision…”
Brad Evoy, a representative from OPIRG, also informed the board that any actions they take in regards to a special status group like GRCGED would set precedence on the issue of space and would be noted by other SSGs going forward.
When asked if plans could be amended to allow GRCGED to stay in their current space, O’Leary explained that it is now up to the board to decide.
The M&O committee has met since the Sept. 20 board meeting and will be bringing forward a motion to the board to either accept, deny, or amend the proposal at their next meeting on Oct. 4.
“This isn’t a quick decision,” said Shoot in an interview with The Ontarion. “We have a lot of different opinions from a lot of different stakeholders in the University Centre [to consider].”
At the beginning of the Sept. 20 meeting, Shoot was appointed as the new chair of the UC board during a closed session, but his duties as chair did not begin until the end of the meeting. Shoot will still get a vote on the board in his position as a CSA rep.
Photo by Mariah Bridgeman/The Ontarion.