Board Shorts: January 8 2020

Written by: Michelle Gomez, Assistant News Editor

Motion passed to fund SFU’s Got Talent event organized by Peak Frequency 

Kayli Jamieson and Tony Yu, co-presidents of SFU Peak Frequency, presented their intended budget for SFU’s Got Talent 2020 at Wednesday’s board meeting. 

Last year’s approved budget for the event — which will be held for the third time this year — was $3829.68. This year, they are asking for an approved budget of $3756.25. Yu noted that this year, they are hoping for an attendance of 400 people. 

According to their Facebook page, “SFU Peak Frequency is a music club which aims to bring students together of all music genres to share their passion and enjoyment through musical events.” 

Jamieson noted that the event “encourages [student] engagement in campus activities [ . . . ] it also showcases cultural, musical, and artistic talents of SFU students.” Entrance to the event is free. 

The motion to approve the budget was passed. 

Sylvia Ceacero, Executive Director of the SFSS, said that she looks forward to attending the event for the first time. 

SFPIRG presentation on fee change proposal

Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG) board members Ana Lozitskaia and Simran Randhawa delivered a presentation requesting that a referendum question be put forward at the next SFSS General Elections to increase student member fees. 

Their proposal explains that they would like to increase student fees from $3 per semester to $5.50 for students taking more than 3 credits, and from $1.50 per semester to $2.75 for students taking 3 credits or fewer. 

Their proposal states that “SFPIRG needs additional revenue to maintain current levels of programming and services, to expand and enhance the organization’s scope and capacity, and to adjust for the inflation that has occurred over the last 25+ years.” 

The board will vote on the motion at the next board meeting. 

Discussion in response to SFSS Council letter condemning board’s SUB decision

Gabe Liosis, SFSS Council Liaison to the Board, spoke up at the meeting to discuss the letter that council had written to the Board in December. The letter urged the Board to reconsider their decision to not house Rotunda groups in the new Student Union Building (SUB), and told the board that Council “will consider putting the matter to referendum for Spring 2020.” 

“At the last board meeting I asked that the Board acknowledge that the letter was received and to make a commitment [ . . . ] that the Board would take further action regarding that letter and I hope that will happen later today during the discussion item,” said Liosis. 

Giovanni HoSang, president, opened the floor for the Board to discuss their response to the letter. 

Business Representative Andrew Wong began by saying “I acknowledge that [the Rotunda groups] provide viable services to students, but I’m still standing firm on my decision.” He agreed that it is fair for council to put forward a referendum question. 

Jennifer Chou, Arts & Social Sciences Representative, expressed that her support for the Rotunda groups has not changed. 

VP External Relations Jasdeep Gill said that it would be ideal if an alternative could be reached before the election, however “if it comes down to it I think that the council has the right to go to referendum with this.” 

Applied Sciences Representative Nick Chubb said, “I think that they’re totally in their rights to have a referendum, we can’t really stop them.” 

Shina Kaur, VP University Relations, noted that “I still support that the groups should get space in the SUB and I think that the council putting forward a referendum question is a great idea.”

Osob Mohammed, Health Sciences Representative, said, “I think the most diligent thing to do would be to respect the council’s wishes to reconsider the motion, but if we’re not ready or willing to do that if council wishes to put it to a referendum then I am agreeable to that.” 

Ceacero addressed the board members on the topic, asking them to “Explain to me why the Board would forego its [ . . . ] obligation to put the referendum question forward itself.” She noted that the Board putting forward the referendum question would demonstrate leadership and responsibility. 

Ceacero added that “There may be another proposal that could be possible, but I haven’t had the chance to fully explore this with other individuals, but there is work that could be done.”