At the ICSS Annual General Meeting (AGM) on October 29th, a motion passed to remove the section of the ICSS Constitution allowing Orientation Coordinators (OCs) to join council after the end of Orientation Week. In the two days following this meeting, OCs Jericho Allick and Isheeta Chakrabarti both resigned from council in two emails sent to the ICSS executives.

Previously, section 11.5 of the ICSS Constitution outlined the voting rights and council membership that was made available to Orientation Coordinators after Orientation Week. Section 11.5 stated that “At the end of Orientation Week, the Orientation Coordinators shall be given the option to remain on council as voting members, and as members of the Social subcommittee. If they choose not to exercise that option, they shall forfeit their voting privileges for the remainder of term unless they fill another position. If they choose to remain on council, that membership must be approved by referendum at the September By-Elections.”

During the September by-elections, students had the option to either confirm Allick and Chakrabarti’s membership on council, or to spoil their ballot for that section. OCs are hired in the spring prior to the upcoming Orientation Week by a committee composed of the ICSS executives and former OCs [editor’s note: this past year the selection committee was the ICSS executive, one former OC, and one social director], making their election to council without a ‘no’ vote option somewhat undemocratic. This flaw in the election protocol prompted the constitutional change at the AGM.

At the AGM, VP Finance Janielle Palmer moved forward a motion to “remove Section 11 subsection 5 entirely” from the ICSS Constitution, which was seconded by ICSS Photo-Videographer Winston Chan. This would remove the option for OCs to secure membership on council for the upcoming academic year after the close of Orientation Week. In the future, OCs would have to run for an open ICSS position in order to gain council membership. This change would apply to the 2019 OCs, but did not apply to Allick and Chakrabarti.

This motion was the most contentious issue presented at the AGM, and prompted debate among those in attendance. Students who supported the motion argued that it was more fair to other potential ICSS candidates. Chan, who was also an Orientation Leader, told the Herald that he seconded the motion “because of my personal belief in the democratic process… whereby every student should be given the right to openly challenge fellow colleagues when it comes to serving in an elected position of power.” Chan felt that prior to this change, OCs “were given an unfair advantage at representation” because no other student could run for their positions on council.

Palmer, who created the motion, expressed similar sentiments. “Other council members had to get a certain amount of signatures and campaign against whoever decided to run for that same position to get the most votes,” she said. Palmer believes that the OCs “are hired and paid for doing a job and it should be separate from them running for council.” She felt strongly that this hiring system “should not provide [the OCs] with an “express route” to council that others do not have access to.” Proponents of this motion generally agreed that the change was more democratic and that the previous policy gave OCs an unfair route to council. However, not all students supported the motion and some spoke out against it at the AGM.

Lucas Granger, the Innis College UTSU Director, is one of the students who opposed the motion. In a statement to the Herald, Granger said “I just think it is sad to see the loss of two voices on a council that could generally provide some insight into issues,” reflecting his belief that “more voices on a council or student government usually isn’t a bad thing.” Granger felt that claims about the undemocratic nature of the positions were slightly unfair, especially claims that the OCs should have to run for a position in the fall by-election. “The flaw with this is that in a perfect situation, there would be no spots on the ICSS vacant for upper years,” Granger said, noting that “only the First Year Reps and ICC Reps are elected in the fall unless there are other vacancies.” Provided that the OCs did not already hold a council position upon their hiring, they would have to wait until the following spring to run for council.

Granger also felt that the proposal was “sudden” and could have been better addressed through referendum rather than as “an outright slash to positions.” Granger believes this could have potentially included the creation of upper-year reps, which would give “students who didn’t know if they wanted to get involved a chance to do so” and would allow the OCs “to apply without having to hold two positions over the summer.”

Despite the somewhat heated debate that took place at the AGM, with strong voices on both sides of the argument, the motion passed with 71 votes in favour, 23 opposed, and 13 abstentions.

On October 30th, one day after the AGM, Allick emailed her resignation to the ICSS Executive team. In a statement to the Herald, Allick explained that she “felt like the council this year wasn’t a good environment” for her personally. She also referenced the nature of her position as an OC, and the recent AGM decision, as influencing factors. “Being in the position of coordinator, I feel that my ‘value’ to the council, considering that orientation was now over, changed,” said Allick. “These feelings were later solidified by the fact that a motion to not provide future OCs with the opportunity to be on council made it very clear that, to some, my position was not welcomed or even necessary.”

Allick does not support the change made at the AGM, stating that removing the possibility for OC positions to transfer over to council is “taking away opportunities” for student participation, a key reason she joined the ICSS in first year as the First-Year Off-Campus Representative. Allick also felt the AGM change was a loss for council, as the OC council position was intended to provide support to first year students. Allick reflected on her training as an OC that provided her with various resources and information, saying that “taking away that resource and vital piece [the OCs] from council is like throwing away a dictionary.” Allick was not present at this year’s AGM and did not proxy her vote.

Chakrabarti emailed her resignation one day later on October 31st. She echoed similar sentiments to Allick in her statement to the Herald, stating “I personally resigned after I heard [about the motion]. It showed me that not only am I not welcome on council but the knowledge and work each OC has put in year after year is not valued.” Chakrabarti felt strongly that the continuation of the OCs’ work was beneficial to the student body, stating that she has learned “more in the past six months about our college and school than I have over the past few years as a student.” Chakrabarti believes that “[the OCs’] role is to work for our incoming students to make sure that their transition into the school is nothing but smooth and this continues beyond Orientation [Week].” In her eyes, removing the potential for OCs to serve on council amounts to “stripping away opportunities for our students, and that’s not okay.”

The Herald reached out to the ICSS Executive team for comment, who said in a join statement that “[The OCs’] resignation came as a surprise to us, due to the fact that we had a meeting with them earlier that week to discuss our working relationship moving forward through the 18-19 school year.” Allick and Chakrabarti had each attended one out of eight ICSS meetings during the fall term.