www .we sterngazette.c a • @uwogaze tte
Turf’s up At long last, the turf fields’ are open and ready for use >> pg. 3
thegazette Using the news wire since 1906
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
today high 23 low 11
tomorrow high 22 low 9
canada’s only Daily Student Newspaper • founded 1906
Volume 107, issue 17
Peer Support Network blues Timely delays in Organization struggles to envision its role
debate time debate Megan Deviln News Editor
Kelly Samuel GAZETTE
WHAT’S BEHIND THIS DOOR? Western’s Peer Support Network has become a matter of debate at the University Students’ Council. The PSN has become the convergence point of differing visions, goals, and mandates.
Richard Raycraft News Editor Views on the role of Western’s Peer Support Network collided at last Wednesday’s University Students’ Council meeting, leaving the future of the service uncertain and a matter of contention. The PSN is a service that “Provides a comfortable environment for people seeking support to talk with peers who may have encountered similar issues and can offer genuine empathy and advice,” according to its website. Housed in room 38 of the University Community Centre, the PSN aims to provide support resources to all Western students regardless of gender, sexual orientation, culture, faith, ability or other identifying factors. Recently, however, questions about PSN policy and practices have been raised. Sam Krishnapillai, vice-president internal of the USC, explained some of her concerns that were presented during the meeting. “[In past years] we were doing great things but we didn’t have the reach,” she explained. “I realized we were doing a lot of events that were programming for a very small group of people, but using a lot of student dollars.” According to Krishnapillai, the space occupied by the PSN was also
One of the people who was involved with the space said ‘We’re being exclusive despite the fact that we’re inclusive people. — Sam Krishnapillai,
vice-president internal of the USC
being used as a hangout spot for a small number of students, eliminating its mandated inclusivity. “Students that weren’t really involved in the space but were regulars were given key card access to the space […] it basically became someone’s house,” she said. “Because of that students were uncomfortable walking through those doors, because it felt like you were walking into someone’s living room uninvited.” The use of the space also contributed to it being in a messy state at the end of last school year, to the point that it took a month to clean up. “One of the people who was involved with the space said ‘We’re
exclusive despite the fact that we’re inclusive people,’” Krishnapillai mentioned. “That really hurt me because it’s such a great group of people and they have so much to offer, and the space has so much to offer, but if we’re not letting other students come in and get that, then we’re not spending student dollars wisely, we’re not supporting the rest of the students.” Not all are content with the shift in focus that Krishnapillai plans on bringing to the Network, however. Gucio Jim-Poweski, a student senator on council, spoke up about his concerns during the meeting. “I totally understand that she wants to make it that the Peer Support Network affects everyone and helps everyone, but you also have to keep in mind that there are folks who are marginalized — people who have experienced depression and suffering, for quite some time perhaps, and in a sense we sometimes need to take a step back and realize that — that they may need more support than others,” he said in an interview. “I feel like the vision itself needs a lot of work,” he continued. “If there are people who are upset with the vision that she is performing, that’s a legitimate concern, and I believe that requires a lot of listening and a lot of action to their merit.”
The University Students’ Council has delayed their decision on whether to put time limits on debates and council meetings. At their meeting last Wednesday night, the proposed standing orders — which would have limited debates on all motions to one hour and cut off council meetings at midnight — were sent back to the governance and agenda standing committee for further discussion before being brought back to council later this month. Andrew Lalka, speaker for council, decided to send the motion back to the standing committee. He explained he made the decision in part to keep the first council meeting of the year running smoothly. He also said there was confusion among councillors about what the proposed standing orders actually meant. He attributed it to councillors not having long enough to mull over the document and decide how they felt about it. “The motion was submitted and seconded without a lot of discussion, and seeing as it engendered a lot of discussion outside of council and not as much within the committee we decided to send it back to the committee to try to flesh out anything that people didn’t like,” Lalka said. He mentioned councillors are often wary at first of standing orders that may appear to take away their control. However, Lalka stressed that councilLors would still have the ability to extend debates as long as they liked and that the new standing orders were more like guidelines. “As with anything, if we come to
that time limit, council definitely has the ability to extend it for any period that they want,” he said. The proposed standing orders stipulated that any motion has a time limit of one hour, and any amendment has a time limit of 30 minutes, which is consistent with the format council already follows. The motion came after two meetings last year that ran until four in the morning. “We’re finding that the longer a debate goes on it doesn’t necessarily produce a better result,” Lalka said. “It can often lead councillors to be more entrenched in their positions and less willing to find a compromise.” He mentioned this is the first time council would have a codified ending time of 12 a.m. “Experienced councillors have noted the need for some sort of a guideline to try to make council meetings more efficient or end at a more reasonable time,” he said. “I don’t think that anybody thinks we’re going to arrive at the best decision at four o’clock in the morning by virtue of having stayed there.” Lisa Nguyen, social science students’ council president, said she supported the motion but only if it would be amended from its current form. “It is necessary to limit debate to ensure students are not making poor decisions, but it needs more leniency,” she said. Nguyen said councillors shouldn’t feel rushed and be unable to make well-informed and thoughtout decisions — however, she also didn’t want more 4 a.m. meetings with councillors’ judgment clouded by fatigue. “The motion tackles this exact issue and I am excited to see how this debate unfolds,” she said.
Logan Ly Gazette