Board Reports

No referendum yet on beverage exclusivity
Kristina Spence

Prior to Reading Week, the Board of Directors (BOD) did not have quorum for its meeting. The directors who did attend discussed the disappointing voter turnout and general lack of interest in everything surrounding the election.

President Gareth Cunningham also told the Board that only one other university decided to hold referendum on beverage exclusivity. Other universities simply accepted the contracts without direct student input. Overall the meeting was casual and quick.

In comparison, the Febuary 24 meeting was productive, well-argued and slightly shorter than Titanic. Cunningham made an update on the Comprehensive Student Services fee, announcing the Board of Governors passed the fee and the papers only need to be signed.

He also touched on issues of non-Y2K compliant meal cards, volunteer appreciation events, and Human Resources hiring plans. He cited recent concerns pertaining to late charges on tuition payments and explained the university has agreed to extend the payment period one month.

Next, Constitutional Operations and Development Chair Wes Ferris presented eight ammendments to the hiring policies. Mike Fox argued against restricting volunteer positions for directors, saying students might be less likely to run for the BOD if they can only hold one other volunteer position within the Union. "I think our positions are theoretically like executive or coordinator positions. I think realistically, you can't hold an executive position and do your Board job too," said Director Sam Corbey.

The ammendments passed despite opposition from Derek Simon, Mike Fox and Trevor Strassburger.

Moving from policies to pennies, Finance and Building Committee (F&B) Chair Derek Simon made the motion to adopt an ammendment to allow the VP: Finance and (F&B) greater authority to approve minor budget changes. The motion passed.

After several weeks of postponement, Director Kevin Nasir's motion for a referedum on cold beverage exclusivity faced discussion. Nasir began the debate by restating the importance of the issue as illustrated through market research.

Cunningham stressed that the next step in the process is discussing possibilities with interested companies. Depending on the expectations of the company and the Union, a contract might not even evolve.

Nasir pointed to the indecisiveness of the Laurier community as a good reason to hold a referendum.

To avoid unnecessary arguing, Board Chair Will Chung recommended having a round table to hear everyone's opinions.

"I think we should talk about this for more than a half an hour when we spent five, eight, ten hours on the hiring policies," said Simon in opposition. The round table commenced anyway.

In response to a comment made about dealing with the university as a partner, Ferris said, "Our primary consideration is not the university but the students . . . We have a responsibility to the students and the cost of a referendum should not be a concern."

"I think we should have the referendum after the proposals are constructed," said director Megan Atkinson. "The issue is going to affect all students . . . we should not vote on this ourselves."

"I'm not in favour of it unless everything is dealt with. I am very concerned about voter turnout and the time left in this year to deal with a referendum. The creditability of how we do things is in question here and I am confident we can have things done in a constructive manner," Cunningham concluded.

With only a simple majority required to pass it, the five members in support of the motion lost to the remaining six.

Cunningham then made a motion to move into phase two of the exclusivity discussions which passed seconds prior to the adjournment of the meeting.