Matt Hirji

HIGHER POWER A majority of 10 board members voted to approve Amrhein’s motion at last Friday’s BoG meeting.

BoG will decide which MNIFs need student approval

SU takes issue with BoG’s new MNIF proposal

The Board of Governors will now have final say in which mandatory non-instructional fees go to student referendum, following an approved motion proposed by university administration at last Friday’s board meeting.

According to a motion from 2001, MNIF increases beyond the Consumer Price Index had to be approved by Students’ Council or a referendum. Alternatively, the motion brought forward by Provost Carl Amrhein last Friday eliminated those requirements and instead included the establishment of a third budgetary committee dedicated to MNIFs called MBAC.

This committee would include two Students’ Union representatives and two Graduate Students’ Association representatives on a committee of eight.

Amrhein said during the meeting that the MBAC committee will decide on a case-by-case basis which fees are brought to student referendum.

SU Vice-President (External) Farid Iskandar said the Students’ Union had intended to propose an amendment to the original 2001 motion that was rescinded during the meeting in order to require referendum for all existing fees, as well as any new fees to come, as the 2001 motion only covered MNIF increases.

However, this amendment would have contradicted Amrhein’s motion to rescind the 2001 decision altogether.

“We wanted to put that on the board as a motion, and we wanted to debate both of them,” Iskandar said. “But when we went to university governance, they told us we can’t have two contradicting motions on the same agenda.”

Amrhein said at the meeting that this new process does not mean there will not be student referendums on MNIFs, but it gives the BoG final say on when to hold a referendum.

“Administration is not opposed to referendum when it makes sense ... Our disagreement with the Students’ Union is their proposal that a referendum be mandatory on any new mandatory fee before the administration presents it to the board,” Amrhein said.

He cited a governance issue with the SU’s proposal, indicating that it doesn’t properly reflect the board’s supremacy.

The SU began discussions with the university regarding mandatory non-instructional fees in July, a process which was reinforced when the province’s Minister of Advanced Education and Technology, Greg Weadick, sent a letter to administration telling them to include a consultation process with students on non-instructional fees.

However, Iskandar doesn’t feel that consultation alone is adequate in this situation. “I think the consultation process since July proved that, for something like non-instructional fees, consultation does not work,” Iskandar said.

“The proposal that administration brought forward during the Board of Governors’ meeting was not the status quo — it was worse than the status quo.”

During the meeting, Vice-President (Finance & Administration) Phyllis Clark gave a presentation on whether or not there should be a student referendum prior to mandatory non-instructional fees, as advocated by the SU.

The presentation stressed that “consent” was not the same as “consultation,” and that the Minister had asked only for a consultation process, which she believes the new MBAC committee will provide.

“We have a very rich set of consultations that have gone into this committee,” Clark said. “We believe this is a sound proposal for consultation, and that it gives students and other stakeholders an adequate, if not enriched chance to talk about this fee.”

Students’ Union President Rory Tighe argued during the meeting that consultation is not enough for students, especially with concerns that MNIFs are being used to circumvent the tuition cap.

“The administration’s proposal is actually, in my opinion, a step backwards in adjusting the issue,” Tighe said.

“The proposal we’re voting on right now is whether or not to rescind the motion that the board put forward 10 years ago that gave the students a real voice ... (Our proposal) is a framework that accounts for fairness and accountability while maintaining the board’s supremacy in making final decisions.”

Iskandar said the next step for students is to move the conversation to a provincial level and rekindle talks with the minister.

“We’re going to need to go beyond consultation and aim for a regulation on non-instructional fees,” Iskandar said, adding that students should have say in the final approval process for MNIFs.

Iskandar added that a provision for student financial assistance given under the 2001 motion was also rescinded.

“The other part (of the motion) was if the revenue made by the CoSSS fee exceeded the cost of the service by 10 per cent, that money will go into student financial assistance,” Iskandar added. “That motion was rescinded.”

“I don’t think (their decision) was necessary, and I think it makes it less transparent for administration to tell students what fees they’re paying,” Iskandar said. “Students need to be concerned about the fact that their costs could be going up, and the Ministry is not protecting them from this loophole.”

University administration was unavailable for comment on the approved motion as of press time.

-With files from Alex Migdal

© Gateway Student Journalism Society — All Rights Reserved