The 2022 AGM provided those in attendance, an evening full of tension and confusion.

 

On a night meant to give student members the chance to shape the future of the Student Association of George Brown College (SAGBC), the 2022 Annual General Meeting (AGM), was filled with confusion and heated discussions over one tenuous issue.

Voting on the governance review was something some did not expect to turn the meeting on its head, but it got to the point where Hildah Oteno, chair of the meeting had to say, “I will kick people out of the room, I may be virtual, but I can still kick you out of the room.”

The AGM took place in the evening of Nov. 2 with voting members consisting of the SAGBC board members and pre-registered students. The meeting is an opportunity to present reviews, recommendations, and get member perspectives and votes.

The board governance review report which polarized the room was prepared by Ben Millard of Millard and Company, external legal counsel to SAGBC. This came in response to the need for review, update, and revise the association’s governance model.

One major recommendation from the report, and the reason behind the heated discussions, was the current executive positions be replaced by three hired, non-voting positions.

If passed the motion to change the present governance model would result in creation of three new positions namely, president; governance manager; and treasurer.

These positions would not only replace the existing executive positions held by students but would be filled by recent alumni of SAGBC instead of students. The positions would have a two year term with the possibility for extending the term another two years.

All the board members seemed to be on opposing sides to one another and a long discussion ensued.

“The whole purpose of the SA is that it’s led by students for students and with the new model that would be taken away. It’s crucial to have students in the executive roles because we’re the ones that have the lived experience of being a student and dealing with issues,” said Angie Nijmeh, director of education and equity.

Nijmeh spoke many times during the AGM about her concerns that replacing students on a board supposed to be about the students could cause issues along the way.

Dhwani Bhalavat, director of operations on the other hand said, “There are several actions or changes that people would like to bring forward but because of this repeated turnover of the board members by the time they realize how they can actually function or how they can make a change, their terms are over.”

Nijmeh pointed out that the board governance review report was much more extensive than presented at the AGM. “He (Ben Millard) just decided to pick out a few points just to back up the new model that he wanted, without looking at the big picture and other issues that were brought up in the governance review.”

As the voting started, several accounts of background chatter and visible attempts to persuade voting members were noted in the physical space of the meeting. This was when meeting chair Oteno had to intervene with a firm voice.

Students also had the chance to speak whether online or in person. Many got up to voice their displeasure with the idea of giving leadership board roles to those who are no longer students.

“So, it seems like you want to restructure the operations at the George Brown Student Association, to make it more of a bureaucracy and almost less of a democracy. Well, from what you’re saying is it almost seems like the representation from the elected officials is less going to reflect what the George Brown students want,” said one student. “You want to bring in foreign people with their own interests, and more of a sweet bias, who don’t understand the culture of the college to make crucial decisions,”

However, with 18 votes against the motion and 16 for the motion, the motion failed.

“The first reason to go into the governance review process that the current structure wasn’t working well for the association. To get a report of that they interviewed about 30 to 40 people on this, and this is the report of not an individual person, it was from these people and their suggestions. So yes, I am disappointed that this didn’t go through,” said Bhalavat.

Once the vote was final, several board members asked for a reconsideration of the votes, and it was claimed by a few students that they did not understand their stance during the vote.

In order to raise a motion to reconsider the vote, the chair asked anyone who voted on the prevailing side to be a mover. Many questions arose amongst students and a wave of confusion went around the room.

Nisarg Bhatti, a student, said, “We students are just starting, and we don’t even know the college, and we are exploring the things we like, we don’t want to enroll in this politics right now.”

Several people who voted on the failing side came up to the microphone asking if they could be the mover. Several expressed that most students did not intend to reconsider.

The reconsideration did not happen as no one eligible came forward to move the reconsideration motion.

Bhalavat insists that there is a need for non-student positions to lead the board by saying that students running to be members of the board need someone to train them or support them.

She said that this lack in the SA structure may be why no one has run for the position of director of operations for two years.

“There’s a reason why people don’t run for these positions.”

Nijmeh on the other hand said that an educational institute should strive to give students the opportunity to learn about leadership, governance, and advocacy and that having student directors in the SA helps achieve that.

Despite the many different views from board members, the vote is final, and the board will continue to operate the way it does.

Election nominations are now open for three positions on the board and details can be found here.

You can also find the AGM resources by clicking here.