This month’s Special Assembly will be ed as much for its chaos and mismanagement as for its outcomes.
On Nov. 18, over 250 students gathered in Stirling Auditorium for the AMS Special General Assembly, which concluded nearly six and a half hours and several voting mishaps later. The disorderly timing and voting systems alone are enough indication of how operations went that night. According to an AMS communications post, at its peak, Assembly saw 277 students in attendance, which is significantly higher than the 208 students required for quorum.
Compared to previous Special Assemblies, this year’s saw a considerable turnout, with students attending for a variety of reasons, including motions related to governance, equity, club ratification, policy, and two motions relating to The Journal’s autonomy and operations. When it came to facilitating and accommodating all these students, the AMS was very unprepared.
Before Assembly began, questions regarding accessibility and transparency were already circulating among the crowd. Despite being integral to the student experience and paraded by the AMS executive team, such principles were only experienced through their ironic absence the entire night.
From choosing Stirling Auditorium—a rather inaccessible building with many steep stairs—to the lack of readily available information about the Assembly’s location 24 hours leading up to it, it’s clear students’ best interests weren’t at the forefront of any decision-making. And these issues proceeded to trickle into the rest of Assembly.
As if forgetting their goal was to promote healthy discourse between students and their elected officials, the AMS President Owen Rocchi and Secretariat Sylvie Garabedian, the movers of two of the most contentious issues on the agenda, brought a less-than-inviting attitude to the table. Laughter and facial expressions from our elected leaders at the front, while Journal staff and students voiced serious matters, was not only unproductive and unprofessional, but the last step to fostering mutual respect.
It seemed like the Secretariat and Assembly Speaker’s job to moderate the room only came into play when it conveniently served the AMS and their proposed motions. This selective moderation gave way to instances of anti-Journal rhetoric that had more to do with personal grievances or qualms with specific staff than problems with the paper’s general operations. On the other hand, Journal staff were repeatedly silenced for bringing in personal points, shutting them out for irrelevance to the motion.
Regardless, important points, in favour or against the motion, were brought up, but any momentum gained during this debate period was all lost during the convoluted voting process for motions eight and nine. Ignoring students’ and student leaders’ concerns that foresaw complexities with using online ballots, the AMS proceeded to use Simply Voting, a digital voting software.
As a result of the online voting causing Assembly to run late into the night, other motions on the agenda including a new equity policy and club ratifications were put at risk of not being discussed.
Voting on motions regarding transparency and ability, while students were unable to see how their elected representatives cast their votes, was deeply ironic and concerning. The lack of visibility in the voting process only added to the frustration of an already chaotic evening.
To make matters worse, inevitable software troubles resulting in delayed e-mails and missed votes diminished any legitimacy or trust between students and those working the ballot. Fairness should be a no-brainer, yet it took students’ majority vote to send out a third ballot after the first and second attempts failed to function properly.
Having reached a point in the night where morale was low and attention spans were dwindling, the chaos wasn’t in complete control of the AMS—we can sympathize with their challenge of keeping over 200 students in order. But it goes to show how beneficial more consultation and preparation would’ve been.
In this kind of environment, we ask ourselves if the AMS is as receptive to our values and concerns as they claim to be, and how many Assemblies it will take until they show us the level of respect we deserve.
There’s always room for improvement, and with this historic Assembly behind us, the AMS must take meaningful steps to address these shortcomings and rebuild trust with the student body. This is an opportunity to turn criticism into progress and demonstrate a genuine commitment to the values of transparency, accessibility, and respect. Students are paying attention, and they expect action—not just promises.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
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].