Last Thursday, AMS Assembly voted to allocate undergraduate students’ $25.5 million contribution to the Queen’s Centre to specific phases of the project. Students will pay $7.7 million towards the student life centre, $5.4 million for renovations to the JDUC, $4 million towards the fieldhouse and $4 million towards the arena.
The AMS also voted to renegotiate students’ contribution if construction on all phases has not begun by 2016, adding that no money will be given to the project during periods when construction is halted.
In 2005, the AMS signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the University pledging the contribution through mandatory student fees.
The agreement makes a provision for the AMS to re-authorize the fees each year, contingent on the University’s adherence to the set out in the agreement.
The AMS’s effort seems largely futile because it has already committed to a MOU. Unless the AMS is prepared to renegotiate the agreement entirely, withholding money for a specific amount of time—only to eventually contribute it—is little more than a politically polarizing move.
It’s counterintuitive to withhold students’ contribution if the University stops construction in order to raise money, or for some other equally responsible reason.
The AMS signed the MOU with the knowledge it was risky, as construction proposals often change, and students should be prepared for reworked plans.
It’s unwise for the AMS to allocate resources without expert knowledge in where the money would be best used.
It’s unfair to blame the istration for not delivering on their promises and simultaneously try to force a deadline for the construction.
The University should take the necessary amount of time to properly finance the project and build it well. If it means the buildings will live up to the students’ expectations, an extended deadline is time well spent.
The AMS doesn’t appear to have fully considered the implications of its actions, such as what to do in the event that it collects student money and later decides to withhold it.
Instead of fomenting the situation, the AMS should give the istration some time before prematurely forcing its hand.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].