BAH.
This should be fun.
Dean is not going to go over the report at length - it does not require the approval of the Board. He does represent the ROC here. He is aggressively defensive. 'don t even think about ASKING questions!'
Michele: Is it possible to add pertinent information to the report? Like INCIDENTS that were not included?
Dean: We will send it to the Yes and No side for input. Send me your feedback by email. I really just don t care so much.
-- by the way, if you have a bus transfer, the BOA will reimburse you! even the audience! sweet! 3 bucks! --
Miscellaneous (aka warning shots!):
PJ-Saurus: (Gender parity controversy alert!) Directors should identify their gender at the beginning of the meeting, so that the Chair is not making assumptions re: gender.
Kyle: missed it. sorry : \ please add it in the comments!
Dean: Policy! By-Law!
Amy: Motion on first year committee under the BOA - will bring it up at the next meeting.
Myriam: Point of Info - Faculty of Education - will bring forth a motion to change the mandate dates for the Faculty of Education
Antonio: Requests documents from Dean more than 5 days in advance of the next meeting
Danika: looking over By-Law for clubs, will come up
Question Period:
Virginie - not a question. just yelled at everyone and called them children without any specific examples. how entirely unproductive and self-serving!
Peter - question re: exec meeting. Rox and Julie motion regarding a controversial subsidy decision. Peter thinks they have acted against the Constitution rewarding one for SCAW.
Rox: Came out of a special SFUO Partnership Fund? Will remedy the mistake of reporting, but otherwise, there is no problem... The Constitution has changed slightly regarding amounts.
Dean: it was a subsidy, not a donation - the policy is apparently for donations.
Peter - can you update that bitch online (paraphrase...)?
Federico: welll, it s a lot of workkkkk, but i GUESS.
well, good luck and good night! this thing is finally OVER!
happy commenting, kids!
2 comments:
Um, with all due respect, with the giggling and block voting that goes on with certain (not all) board members, and with the preposterous motions (ie: forcing board members to identify their gender? What?), who's being unproductive and self-serving here?
First of all, it was supposed to be question period. And THIS blogger never heard a question in all of the lambasting and berating. How is anyone supposed to take something from the criticism if it is just a generalized attack on the Board's propensity for giggling? It was a waste of everyone's time and not the appropriate arena for such remarks. Maybe start a blog if you just want to make comments.
Post a Comment