Board members not holding monthly meeting since September should raise concerns for students.

Students should ask themselves if the board of directors are really interested representing their best interests.

Students are elected by their peers to represent them and their needs, advocating on their behalf and working towards the betterment of the Student Association of George Brown College (SAGBC).

Under the voting directors accountability manual, section four notes how important it is for members to complete their duties. This includes “attend all board/committee meetings on time in accordance with their job descriptions, and as required under the bylaws and policies.”

For the last two months – October and November 2024 – the mandatory monthly meeting of the board of directors has not taken place. This comes amid growing tensions among the members, following the suspension of three executives.

A full meeting of the board has not taken place since September 2024.

The lack of meetings taking place, and the blatantly obvious inaction by the board members to do their jobs, should be concerning to students since it is student fees that pay board members salaries.

In fact, under bylaw four, section six, it notes that educational centre representatives must meet certain conditions in order to receive their monthly honourarium. There is a requirement – 6-a.3 – that board members must meet the obligation of attending board meetings or notifying in advance with appropriate notice and regrets.

While the board are allowed to notify ahead of time if they cannot attend, students should know that the majority of representatives who did not attend, sent regrets the day of.

Because only three members attended the November meeting, quorum could not be reached and it was ultimately cancelled.

The reason for the October 2024 meeting not taking place was worse.

Members wanted to fire the legal counsel of more than five years, Ben Millard of Millard and Company LLP, and wanted to add his termination to the agenda. This was not allowed because members of the board did not follow proper procedures – which includes the process of finding and hiring a new lawyer; managers must also sign off on the new hiring in this case.

After arguing for nearly 40 minutes and not getting their way, voting members refused to pass the agenda and left.

Peter Corno, director of student experience – and the only executive currently on the board – believes that the remaining members have lost sight of their purpose.

“Everyone’s getting a little too personal. People are forgetting why they joined the Student Association. They’re forgetting that we should be helping others. We should be working for others. And now it became such a personal, egotistical situation that it’s getting messier than it should ever be, [with] this job.”

He adds that despite his constant attempts to reach out to the members and hold them accountable to their duties, they don’t respond back.

“I try to talk to them. No one calls me back, texts me back. I might get an email to ask to go to a free event, I feel like I only get texted whenever people want to go to an event for free. And then if I say no, because, oh yeah, but you’re not showing up to these meetings. You’re not doing this, then I get backlash. I reach out countless times, and I don’t get response back, and if I do, it’s such a vague answer that it means nothing,” he said.

After the lack of meetings, Corno sent a memo out to the remaining members, highlighting key items that needed to be addressed. To get these items voted on Kayla Weiler, chairperson of the board, held an online vote to address things like the Montreal trip – among other things.

Despite this taking place, Corno says the majority of the voting members did not even bother to cast their decision. However, when it came to voting on the Montreal trip – something he has been working hard to bring back for interested students – all seven members actually voted, with the majority of them saying no.

“They don’t even care about that, they didn’t approve that… With the actual board agenda, it’s kind of funny because we had three items we were going to try to approve online. All of them didn’t end up getting approval, but it’s funny because two of them (the agenda items) only had four out of seven directors vote on it,” he said.

“The Montreal trip had all seven out of seven directors [vote]. One [vote] for which was me, five against and one abstain. More people came out just to say no to my Montreal motion than all the other actual, more important motions that they should have at least came out [and voted].”

Corno explained that this lack of participation and communication might come from personal bias, as he believes some members “just don’t like” him.

Rosalyn Miller, general manager with the SAGBC, hopes that the board members will turn things around – especially as the December meeting involves ratification of the newly elected directors.

“The board members are not fulfilling their duties as they should, and I’m really hoping that this changes. We cannot have three months of Board of business backed up. It is not effective,” said Miller. “So, I do not know what else we can do to have these individuals, or some of these individuals, not all of them, take their responsibility seriously and the accountability that this corporation requires.”

Student concerned about the actions of the sitting board can reach out to Charles Wilson, CRO and review officer.

“The review officer is ready to investigate and adjudicate any complaints submitted concerning the breaches of the COC (code of conduct) and the bylaws,” said Wilson.