I would like to clarify a few things from your editorial last week (“Don’t give us gobbledygook”, Feb 24, 2014).
Firstly, UTMSU has put in both time and effort to make the students on our campus aware of what’s happening at the student societies summit. There are nearly 13,000 students on our campus and reaching out to the vast majority is often a challenge considering the various different campaigns UTMSU runs year round.
The reasons that might seem “nonsensical” to you will make perfect sense when one carefully goes through the content of the entire letter. The letter not only summarizes the reasons but also gives a detailed explanation of why we believe so. Since the beginning of the summit meetings, the environment has been one that is very controlled and hinders active participation and discussion. I don’t understand why the U of T administration is taking a lead on this summit when the outcome of this summit is in no way enforceable upon an autonomous organization such as UTSU. If student societies have concerns, they should raise it with UTSU directly rather that approaching the administration for help. UTSU is membership-driven. If there are concerns by its members, it will definitely look into those concerns.
The summit is a breach of autonomy on many levels. The administration is trying to influence the workings of an independent organization such as UTSU by hosting this summit. Why aren’t levy-collecting groups a part of this summit? Do they not have a direct stake in what is being discussed behind these closed doors?
The issue to me seems that student societies (that, by the way, duplicate what UTSU does) just want to redirect membership fees from UTSU to themselves. Well, if you are that determined to redirect and collecting fees to fund similar services already being provided by UTSU, why don’t you run your own referendum to do so?
UTMSU’s relationship with UTSU was endorsed by our joint membership at the annual general membership meetings of both UTMSU and UTSU and is re-emphasized in our union’s by-laws—By-law XV. Students at UTM appreciate the cooperative relationship we have with our sister students’ union that has saved UTM students’ money and provided students with access to services such as the health and dental plan. You wrote that the university requires anyone who receives student money to be financially transparent. Well, keeping that logic in mind, students at UTM also pay tuition fees to the university. Does that mean that if students put forth a request to view Chartwells’ contract with the university, the university would provide them with the original and “unblackened” version of it? UTMSU had made this request repeatedly for many years and has been denied. Does this mean that the University of Toronto is not financially transparent? If so, we hope that you will focus your future editorials on why students need a strong central students’ union that will hold the university accountable and ensure more transparency.
Raymond Noronha
President
UTM Students’ Union
]]>I think that most of the discontent that the student body has with the UTMSU office team comes from a lack of effective communication between both groups. Communication is key if the UTMSU office team wants more students to voice their opinion and get involved.
Students often complain that UTMSU seems to not focus on important issues like lack of study space in favor of ideas like the student centre expansion or the heated bus shelter. These problems have a root cause with a lack of effective communication between the two groups.
The biggest communication issue is a lack of effective communication channels. A lot of students don’t even read the weekly UTMSU e-newsletter—they consider it spam. Some cite that the same things are posted in there every week. Others compare it to someone leaving a flyer on the windshield, an advertisement that they must now delete from their inbox.
Some students don’t even know how to voice their complaints directly to the union. They know that there’s an office but they have no idea who to raise their issues with.
Other students say that even though they’ve raised issues, they feel that those issues haven’t been addressed or followed up on.
Students often feel harassed by the union’s solicitors and volunteers. They feel that their personal space is being effective and that the concerns or questions that they raise are ignored or addressed with cookie-cutter answers. Students feel that some of the solicitors aren’t trained properly or are rude. Here we can cite the example of the students being followed out of buildings by volunteers, as pointed out in last week’s “Few attend open forum”. This type of behavior is threatening and creates an environment where students will feel unsafe voicing their opinion.
In short, if the union wants to get more students involved then they must create an environment where students can feel that their input is valued. This means that the communication between the students and the union ought to go both ways, and students must be made aware of how they can communicate with the UTMSU office staff.
Jakub Stach
Second year, philosophy
]]>I am writing to share with you the concerns raised by representatives of the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union at meetings of the QSS committee. These concerns have been communicated in past QSS meetings and we hope that members of governance will be able to create spaces for these matters to be adequately resolved.
The concerns are:
The decision by the university administration to pursue non-QSS-approved priorities with no recourse from student representatives.
The lack of a permanent secretary, and meeting minutes been circulated without adequate notice.
The lack of transparency. A budget process that prevents members from adequately consulting their members.
As a students’ union, we are further concerned that the current governance timeline does not permit for adequate consultation regarding the budgets of university services.
In the 2012/13 governance cycle, student representatives made it clear that they were not in support of certain expenses that will be forced onto students. One example is the cost of the purchase and maintenance of the shuttle bus ticket machine. Student representatives made it clear that the machine will serve faculty and staff, since students have access to a T-card and do not require shuttle bus tickets. All UTM Students are charged an incidental fee through the shuttle bus portion of the student services fee. At meetings of QSS, all student representatives on QSS made it clear that we do not support a mandatory charge for all students to purchase, operate, and maintain a ticket machine that will not service UTM students. A decision was made by the administration to purchase the ticket machine and charge all UTM Students for the operation and maintenance of the ticket machine. We request that the campus council and its committee review whether operation of university services are supported by QSS since they are funded primarily through QSS-approved ancillary fees.
As per the terms of reference of the Quality Services to Students committee, the secretary of the body must be recommended by the dean of student affairs. We would like to encourage the administration to make a recommendation for a secretary as soon as possible. We are also concerned that meeting minutes are circulated during the meeting day and not in advance of meetings as per the expectations set out in Section 4: Policies and Procedures. We strive to abide by the terms of reference of this important protocol body. Unfortunately, over the past 12 months we have noticed a trend of meeting minutes submitted just before meetings or at meetings. This prevents members from adequately reviewing and approving of these minutes in a timely manner. We hope this trend will be rectified moving forward.
We have made many requests for more information on the status of the amalgamation of the Sheridan and St. George shuttle bus operation. We have pointed to the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities guidelines that govern how services funded through program fees are charged.
We have not been provided with any information that validates student approval for the amalgamation of the Sheridan and St. George shuttle bus operation as per the expectations of the protocol. We are also concerned with the prospect that the administration will recommend specific program-related costs to be borne by all students through an ancillary fee charged to all students. Our request for more information regarding the decision to amalgamate a program related expense (Sheridan service) with the St. George shuttle service has not been addressed to this date.
We are concerned by the current governance cycle that allows for little consultation regarding the proposed university services. In the current cycle, we did not have adequate time to properly review the proposed budgets with all stakeholders. The working groups of Quality Services to Students were not presented with budgets that they could review before making recommendations to the entire body. This is a concern that we hope will be addressed moving forward.
Finally, we would like to thank the directors of all the university services for being accessible throughout the process. We believe that the ongoing concerns will be resolved if we work together to find solutions that challenge our current governance system at the University of Toronto Mississauga.
With respect, and hope for a future where we can work together.
Raymond Noronha
President
UTM Students’ Union
On behalf of the board of directors
]]>It’s always great to see the Medium publishing articles on career-related topics to assist students in navigating their career goals—the last one being on LinkedIn, specifically their University pages.
Ms. Farah Khan outlined the feature and identified some flaws which may make it difficult for employers/recruiters to find students and vice versa. As an employment advisor who assists students on a very regular basis with LinkedIn, I know that while the initial aspects of LinkedIn can be beneficial (create a profile, look for job postings), its far greater potential lies in its research and networking tools that are not as obvious.
One of the biggest questions I get is “What can I do with my degree in…?” Well, the University pages allows students to browse through alumni profiles based on what they studied, where they work, and what they are skilled at. It allows you to explore different career paths, companies, and jobs by learning about what the people who graduated from the university are doing. You might be surprised at the diverse professional paths they’ve taken and what’s possible for you.
Networking is key in one’s job search; 70 to 80% of jobs out there are never even advertised—you find them via your network. While networking, you strategically build meaningful relationships with people and exchange information and ideas with them. One challenge most students have however, is to create that network—it can certainly be intimidating! LinkedIn, including the University pages, can help you identify contacts currently working in jobs and companies you may be interested in. They may be able to share information and insights that will help you in your job search. When reaching out to the people you find, you can leverage the fact that you are a student from the same university they attended. Often people are very willing to help others, especially since they were probably in your shoes at some point; you just need to make it easy for them. Once you create that connection, ask questions, listen, and learn from others And thank them for their time; it’s a positive way to network.
The University page is just one tool you can use, no matter what stage you are at in your journey. LinkedIn has other research features that may not be as obvious; the Career Centre holds LinkedIn workshops and individual profile critiques to help you get the most out of this system. Visit our website, call, or come to DV 3094 and see how we can help you!
Sincerely,
Natasha Walli
Employment advisor, Career Centre
]]>Amir Moazzami
UTMSU Division IV board
]]>The students’ union announced on Monday that its referendum to expand the Student Centre has failed. Of the 3,195 students who chose to vote on the issue (a 24.77% turn-out), 1,621 students, or just over 50%, voted against the expansion. While I was personally surprised by the outcome, it certainly did not exceed the limits of imagination. I had seen many students voice their opinions against the plan to expand the building, both in person and on Facebook. Of particular concern to many of these students was the incongruence between UTMSU’s stated goal of reducing student tuition fees all while arguing for substantial increases on fees paid to the union to support the building and maintenance of the expansion. This is not the first time that I had seen many students voice their skepticism of the expansion, and indeed the union’s effectiveness as a channel through which students can have their opinions heard. When this very same referendum was held last year, student opposition was present, if more subdued, and when elections for the student’s union executive team were held, I could sense some wind of cynicism wafting through any discussion of the voting.
Defeat of this referendum signals two things to me: first, contrary to the cliché, UTM students do care what happens at their school, and they don’t need someone to tell them to participate on campus. Opposition to the expansion was an organic movement whose members were not organized in any formal manner. There were no Facebook pages or posts. There were no posters, flyers, or any other campaign materials. If you had walked through campus throughout the past few weeks, you would have predicted that the motion would pass almost unanimously. One of the big criticisms levelled at UTM is the lack of school spirit and disinterest in university affairs and so this spontaneous movement signals that students do actually care about what is happening on campus, even if it is only likely that they are doing so because it relates to how their tuition is spent. Second, I think this indicates a general skepticism of the students’ union and its goals. Despite the lack of apparent opposition to the manner in which the students’ union is generally run, defeat of this referendum signals that many students do not believe the union’s goals are aligned with their own, at least on this issue.
So does this signal the start of perhaps more competitive and, by extension, more democratic student representation on campus? I don’t think so. The general poor opinion of the performance of UTMSU and a movement that would seek to put an opposition team to oppose the so-called “caucus” that seems to churn out UTMSU execs every year are not the same thing. There were no campaigns organized to vote “no” to the expansion. The referendum failure was the result of students individually voicing their opinion through voting. By contrast, opposing the current slate effectively would take organization, campaigns, and commitment, which I suspect is presently too isolated to gain momentum in an election. The last time two full slates ran for UTMSU executive positions was in 2009/10, and I think it is still too soon to talk about the return of such competition to student elections, no matter how unhappy students are with the same group of students that runs year after year.
The result of this vote will not by any means be the end of the union’s crusade for an expanded Student Centre. I am quite confident they will return in the near future to argue the need and supposed want for a bigger building. But I think this result will serve to highlight to UTMSU that perhaps they are not fully in tune with students’ wants. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might lead to better student engagement.
Sincerely,
Faris Al-Natour
4th year, commerce
]]>I recently engaged in a public debate on UTMSU’s Facebook page regarding the Quality Service to Students meeting. [Editor’s note: Cuts were made to material covered in the letter from Zoya Tahir.]
I questioned them and they responded saying that the budget increase was for administrative support and not for another mental health professional. This began a debate filled with evasive answers from UTMSU. At one point, I was given this as a response to where else the money would come from to fund the HCC: “The university magically finds money from its operating budget to fund budgets that we vote down.”
To which I responded: “Magically. So you’re telling me that somebody, somewhere has a money tree? Wow, way to go for an awesomely informative response, UTMSU. My confusion has been cleared up. Thank you.”
Of course, my sarcasm, countless times, was lost on the students’ union. What frustrated me most about this encounter was not even that the budget was shot down but that UTMSU acted in a completely unprofessional manner when responding to honest questions. I dealt with passive-aggressive, attitude-filled remarks before anyone gave me an answer that was even remotely justifiable. I wasn’t the only one questioning the decisions and receiving passive-aggressive responses. I expected more from my representatives and I was supremely let down.
The worst part about all this is that ultimately, UTMSU has no problem asking the student body for $50 per person to expand the Student Centre but refuse to ask us for a measly $3 in comparison to help make a very, very important service on campus run more efficiently. I’d like to think that essential student services on campus are just as important to UTMSU as building a bigger building. I’m sharing this story because I believe, as I would of any political organization in a democracy, that UTMSU needs to have their actions challenged and questioned by the constituents they represent. I hope more students are willing to follow suit and hold UTMSU accountable and in check, and hopefully UTMSU will learn to respond better in turn.
Canya Selvakumar
Fourth-year, English
]]>At UTM, there has been a spike in the number of medical calls due to alcohol consumption requiring hospital conveyance of students by ambulance services.
In 2013, nine students were taken to hospital by ambulance because of excessive drinking—completely preventable incidents that put intoxicated students at risk, burdened friends caring for them, and strained the resources of responding police, ambulance, and fire services. Some of those conveyed to hospital were under the age of 19. Most of those at risk were students engaged in binge-drinking in residence social gatherings and students attending pub events. The gender distribution of those requiring hospital conveyances was about equal.
Excessive drinking leads to intoxication and in some cases to alcohol poisoning: a dangerous step beyond. The risks of ingesting alcoholic beverages to excess include choking on one’s vomit, unconsciousness, irregular heartbeat, hypothermia, hypoglycemia, and seizures. Any of the risks may lead to permanent brain damage and death. Canadian university students have died after binge-drinking events. Unchecked alcohol consumption can also lead to dependency issues that could linger for the rest of one’s life.
In public places and common areas on campus, intoxication by alcohol is a provincial offence under the Liquor Licence Act. Intoxicated students and visitors at UTM have been charged for being intoxicated in public places. A few ended up spending a night in custody.
Aside from the health risks, intoxication by alcohol renders a person less capable of judging events as they unfold. The likelihood of committing a criminal offence, be it fighting, impaired driving, destroying property, or committing sexual assault, is higher when a person is unable to make good decisions. Being intoxicated by alcohol during a crime does not lessen the responsibility of the offender, nor does it reduce the penalty. Intoxicated persons are also more apt to become victims of crime. Approximately half of the assaults and sexual assaults that occur on campus are alcohol-related.
UTM is a place of education and personal growth. Stay safe and do not fall victim to alcohol abuse.
Corporal Charles Helewa
Campus Police
]]>This week a Quality Service to Students meeting was held in which representatives of the UTM Students’ Union voted against tuition increases of up to $11.74 per session. This may seem like a win for the students, but it is in fact a loss. The proposed increase in tuition was, in part, to bring on more staff at the Health and Counselling Centre.
The HCC is an essential service for many students on campus. The services they provide include medical care, personal counselling, psychiatry support, and nutritional counselling. There are, however, not enough staff in the centre to aid the increasing student population. We have about four mental health professionals for over 12,600 undergraduate students. Did you know that the wait time to speak to a mental health specialist is more than two weeks? This is an incredibly long time for someone who may need immediate assistance.
The HCC thus asked for a 10.11% increase in their budget to bring on more staff. This translates to roughly $3.34, which UTMSU turned down. Their argument was that the added staff would be administrative. But this administrative staff would be responsible for leading a group of 50+ student volunteers as part of the Peer Health Education and Outreach program. The Peer Health Educators are responsible for reaching out to students about services available on campus. It is surprising that in such a large student body, many students are still unaware of these services or even where the HCC is located. This is why a program like this is important. Furthermore, the administrative staff the HCC proposed to hire would be a medical professional. They would be responsible not only for keeping the PHE program running but also for providing their expertise to students in the HCC.
Another personnel that the HCC was looking into hiring was a mental health professional. A major error being made by UTMSU is simplifying mental health. Mental health is not just a byproduct of increased tuition. Their argument is that by dealing with the “root” of the problem, decreasing tuition, they will be able to solve students’ mental health issues. But there are many other factors involved. The mere transition from high school to university can cause mental health issues. Other factors include relationship challenges, emotional or social concerns, exam anxiety, family conflict, self-esteem issues, and many others. Even with programs such as group counselling put in place by the HCC, it’s not enough. This is why it is important to have more professionals added to the team to reduce wait times for students and provide them with the assistance they need.
UTMSU may think that they are doing the students a favour by rejecting an increase in their tuition, but in reality they are just stripping students of a chance at better and quicker service that the HCC can provide for their mental well-being.
Zoya Tahir
Fourth-year, biology
]]>I couldn’t agree more with Valeria Ryrak’s letter about university stress from last week. I graduated a year ago and nothing prepared me for the immense mental stress I endured during my period of unemployment.
I was unemployed for six months and underemployed for two before I found something nice. I had coping strategies in the form of working out, but sometimes it just wasn’t enough. One of the reasons was I was going through a rocky phase with my mom and I had a perverse habit of internalizing my stress as opposed to talking about it with my support (friends and family).
I am telling this story because I’ve gone through it and I’m sure others have as well. I just hope that what one takes away from it is the importance of one’s support group and that you can and should turn to them when the stress is just too much.
Carl Ewen-Lewis
UTM alumnus
]]>