The Medium Talks to students
Learning news from comedians
Cupcake icing sculptures
Print journalism in an online world
Networking with sports leaders
News, page 3
Opinion, page 4
Arts, page 5
Features, page 8
Sports, page 11
Historic UTMSU election underway Four slates and three independent candidates are vying to be elected to UTMSU’s executive team NICOLE DANESI NEWS EDITOR ALICIA BOATTO ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR KASSANDRA HANGDAAN ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR
For the first time in at least seven years, four full slates and three independent candidates are vying for student votes with hopes to be elected to the UTMSU executive committee for the 2016/17 academic year. Beginning last Tuesday in anticipation of polls opening this Tuesday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in CCT, Deerfield, Davis, IB, and the Terrence Donnelly Health Sciences Complex, the campaign period immediately followed changes to election rules this year.
Voting for the UTMSU election will begin on Tuesday.
ELECTION CHANGES According to a notice posted on UTMSU’s “Wall of Transparency” located in Davis, a notice board primarily used to list demerit points racked up
by candidates during the election, changes were made to rules involving the number of non-UTM volunteers that candidates are able to use to campaign. Not listed in the official UTM-
SU election procedural code, the new rule was posted on the wall barring candidates from using non-UTM volunteers to campaign on their behalf unless the volunteers were used “in a
OLIVIA ADAMCZYK/THE MEDIUM
supporting role”. As of Friday, however, the rule was crossed out and a notice was posted on the Wall of Transparency explaining that the Election and Referenda
Committee approved a change on February 29 that now allows each independent candidate or slate to use five non-UTM volunteers to campaign. Candidates running for a spot on the board of directors are now permitted to use two non-UTM campaign volunteers following the changes. As previously reported by The Medium, last year’s election between UTM Rise and UTM Reform saw tensions arise between the two slates vying for election as outside volunteers were used to campaign. Among other changes posted on the Wall of Transparency, current executive committee members “cannot play an active role within the Spring Elections and have no part in the elections process” while executive members are also barred from “support[ing] any team/individual candidates and campaign on their behalf ”. UTMSU continued on page 2
UTMSU request denied, fee increases prevail Fee increases were passed at Campus Council on Thursday as UTMSU voices opposition to changes ALICIA BOATTO ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR UTM Campus Council moved ahead with student service fee increases despite UTMSU’s attempts to defer the motion last Thursday. As previously reported in The Medium, the Campus Affairs Committee had passed a motion last month to raise fees for various student services, such as student fees at the RAWC. Once the motion had been passed at Campus Affairs, it was then moved to the next highest governing body, Campus Council, for approval. The chairman of the council called this item “trickier than usual”, due to legal concerns raised by UTMSU. Representatives from UTMSU have taken issue with the processes applied by the Quality Services to Students committee. This committee is designed to make suggestions regarding the operation of UTM’s student services, including the budgets and fees involved in those services. In a letter to members of QSS, Campus Council, and Campus Affairs Committee sent half an hour
Fee increases were passed at Campus Council on Thursday. prior to the February 11 campus affairs meeting, UTMSU said that their voice as the student body was not being valued or heard and they would not participate in any further meetings with the QSS. In order for QSS to reach quorum at its meetings, UTMSU is required to be
present. UTMSU’s decision to boycott QSS prevented the meetings from being held and prevented any further discussion regarding fee increases. “In the current cycle, after much debate, student representatives
JEANLOUIS REBELLO/THE MEDIUM
opted to not participate in a process where the quality of consultation was inadequate and most importantly the recommendations made by student’s representatives are not respected,” reads the letter. UTMSU alleged that the QSS and Campus Council have violated
terms of the university’s protocol. The protocol is a memorandum that is used to explain “the procedures and limitations associated with the establishment of and increases to compulsory non-academic incidental fees charged for university-operated student services,” according to the Campus Council agenda. The fees in question, for example the shuttle bus and Career Centre fee, were originally presented as individual fees, but are now being presented as a combined fee referred to as the student service fee. “This amalgamation of fees violated past practices where the University Affairs Board of Governing Council received advice on those services from QSS as separate fees,” wrote UTMSU president Ebi Agbeyegbe in his letter to the Campus Council. “The impact of the amalgamation violates the protocol and the QSS terms of reference, in our opinion.” UTMSU also argued that a new fee was introduced without consultation. This fee is called the Student Life Initiative. Fees continued on page 3