The CASA question gets withdrawn

VP (education) changes horses in mid-stream on membership issue

The questions surrounding the resignation of Arati Sharma as national director of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) are swirling and McMaster’s at the centre of the whirlwind. Of particular note is that two of the key players in this drama are former McMaster students.

Arati Sharma was Vice-President (Education) of the McMaster Students Union last year two years ago* and was able to propel herself to the top of CASA in large part by bringing the MSU back into the national student lobbying organization. Chris Martin is the current Vice-President (Education) and has been a cheerleader for CASA throughout his term.

Suddenly, though, Martin is highly critical of CASA and has started exploring the removal of McMaster from the organization. (19-March-2010)

At Sunday’s SRA meeting, Martin told the assembly that he was extremely concerned about problems within CASA and that he felt it was necessary for the MSU to evaluate its membership was an eye to potentially leaving the organization. In the same speech, Martin announced that Sharma was resigning from the organization. This left a clear impression that Sharma’s resignation was directly connected to the problems that the Martin now sees the MSU having with CASA.

Considering that tens of thousands of dollars have already been spent on CASA, Martin must clarify exactly what is occurring with student money. After flying across Canada and enjoying CASA conferences on the student dime, Martin owes students a clear communication of exactly what CASA is all about.
In politics, appearances are often worse than reality. Right now, it appears that the MSU’s membership in CASA may be driven more by the ambitions of full-time MSU politicians than by the merits of being part of a national student organization.

The fact that Martin announced Sharma’s resignation to the SRA – prior to the CASA membership being informed – at the same time as he was stating that the organization is severely flawed raises legitimate questions.

The simplest of these questions is, “What’s going on?”

Instead of answering questions, Martin has decided to hide behind the statement that this is a human resources issue in an e-mail response to The Silhouette.

By not addressing the whirlwind that has engulfed the MSU Vice-Presidency (Education), Martin is allowing questions about the use of student money to fester and concerns to grow.

The appearance of recent events may be worse than the reality, but nobody knows for sure except for Sharma and Martin.

It’s time for both of them to communicate with the student body and explain what’s happening with CASA and the tens of thousands of dollars sunk into it.

*Correction: The original article stated Ms. Sharma was MSU VP education in 2008-2009. This is incorrect, she was VP in 2007-2008.

Opera, just the word conjures up memories of Looney Tune cartoons with a fat lady singing and a bunch of old men with bad toupees; a false childhood stereotype which I partially held.

I’m a typical working-class male; my idea of musical entertainment is the cheerleaders dancing at a football game and rock concerts. The opera is at the far end of the culture spectrum from where I place myself, to discover that I enjoyed the opera was a shock to me. Even more shocking, it was affordable.

For $20 each, my friend and I were able to get tickets to the COC performance of La Bohème at Toronto’s Four Seasons Centre as part of the COC’s “Opera for a New Age” promotion. The promotion offers significantly discounted tickets for patrons under the age of 30.

My initial impression of the opera was what I expected; after the First Act, I was looking at my watch lamenting that I had another two hours before the end of the remaining acts. My female friend, on the other hand, was enjoying herself. I was feeling reassured that my belief that opera is boring was being confirmed.

Finally, after 15 long minutes, the Second Act began and I was getting closer to freedom. Then, it happened, I began to enjoy the performance. The scene was a market in Paris’ Latin Quarter. The stage was abuzz with action. Dozens of opera singers were performing, two performers were engaged in acrobatic dancing, and actors were bringing a full market to life. The main characters were in the middle of this mix acting their part fabulously. It is the kind of entertainment one cannot get from a LCD screen.

La Bohème is a traditional story of love found and lost set in Paris of the 1830s. Rodolfo, a struggling poet, meets Mimi, a seamstress. They fall in love. Rodolfo learns that Mimi is very ill and says he must leave her – for what he sees as her own good. However, when he sees her again, their love overcomes and the relationship continues. In the final act, they reminisce of their days together and Mimi dies leaving Rodolfo devastated. The end.

I arrived at the opera with the goal of being able to say “been there, done it, didn’t like it, don’t ask me again.” I left hooked to the opera and I’m now a season ticket subscriber to the COC.

For $20, I cannot think of a better way to spend a night out in Toronto. With affordable, easy, and frequent GO Transit service from McMaster; there is no excuse to not attend the opera. More information about Opera for a New Age can be found on the COC website at: www.coc.ca

newsdurhamregion.com ran a story today on the failure of Oshawa’s controversial anti-student housing bylaw.

As predicted, the bylaw has created a student housing crisis with only 11 houses near the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College being approved by the city.

The city received 201 license applications, however, they only approved 11 licenses.

It is estimated that over 500 rental houses are located near the university and 2,500 students are currently residing in those houses.

With an estimated 300 landlords ignoring the bylaw, the city is facing a problem.

With thousands of students living in illegal houses facing eviction, the city is considering granting another reprieve from the full brunt of the bylaw. The student union is demanding a guarantee that students will not be removed from their houses during the school year. On the other side, local resident homeowners are opposed to any reprieve.

During the rush to pass the anti-student housing bylaw, the City of Oshawa was repeatedly warned of the consquences of their actions and told they were creating a housing crisis. Surprise, the housing crisis is here and once again, the City seems to be rushing to find a band-aid to cover up its own poor planning.

While the city considers a reprieve, the local developer Tribune Homes and some resident homeowners are threatening further legal action to force the city to enforce the bylaw.

Last year, the City of Oshawa launched what I consider to be an anti-student campaign which began with a series of municipal law enforcement raids to harass students. These cumulated in the passing of Canada’s strongest anti-student housing bylaw.

This year, many other communities are looking at passing similar bylaws in an attempt to solve their “student problem.” One of these communities is my hometown, and current place of residence, Hamilton, Ontario. Hamilton enjoys the presence of two post-secondary institutions: McMaster University and Mohawk College.

Both institutions have large student populations and, surprise, many of these students prefer to live within walking distance of schools. This practical decision does not sit well with older residents of the communities surrounding the schools who prefer their suburban vision of the neighbourhood to the campus town vision of the students.

As the number of students at both schools has increased, there have been more encounters between the two groups and tensions have grown.

The non-student residents, or “permanent residents” as they prefer to call themselves, want a bylaw which will decrease the number of students living in “their” community.

Thankfully, Hamilton is not Oshawa and I very much doubt that a similar bylaw will pass here. At the very least, the worse practices of the Oshawa process will not be repeated here.

There will be no police raids, no ignoring of student opinion, and less of the blatant anti-student behaviour of Oshawa.

Brian McHattie, the city councillor representing the neighbourhoods surrounding McMaster, is actively engaging student opinion. He has formed a committee to look at the issue with students holding the majority of the committee seats.

Hopefully, Hamilton will not pass a bylaw similar to Oshawa’s. Right now, Oshawa is in the middle of a major student housing crisis and many students hold negative feelings towards the city. Considering the importance of knowledge workers to the economic health of a city, I hope the City of Hamilton is more wiser than Oshawa and continues to welcome young people to the city.

I wrote a solid opinion piece for The Silhouette on the topic last week. You can read it online.

RELATED: Students versus the world, Sept. 20, 2007

UPDATE: Councillor McHattie and I are discussing the issue on The Silhouette website here.

A group calling itself “concerned Niagara citizens” is distributing a flyer complaining about a proposed apartment building for students.

Apparently there is at least one individual who is not satisfied that students are being driven out of the neighbourhoods surrounding the University of Ontario Institute of Technology by the city’s new student housing bylaw. (The city says the bylaw is not actually targeting students.)

Now, they must be kept from living near the community. (The apartment building will be located on a main street near the campus. The community borders the campus.)

Do these people realize how great a place they live?

Their biggest problem is an influx of educated young people – there are communities that would pretty much sell their soul to the devil to have this “problem.”

Here’s the other thing I don’t get in a lot of these “town and gown” fights – the areas surrounding universities have high property values. The people who move into these areas are making above average wages, many of them are professionals. These means they went to university – why is it they are surprised to learn that universities have students and that students live near universities.

Common sense folks!

The student association representing students at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College is encouraging students to file human rights complaints against the City of Oshawa after a city committee passed a bylaw which will restrict student housing in the area surrounding the UOIT/DC campus.

The new proposed bylaw would limit the number of bedrooms within rental houses in the area surrounding the university to four, regardless of the size of the house. Landlords will have to pay a $250 per bedroom annual licensing fee and carry increased insurance. The policy change is the result of a nasty year of town-and-gown conflicts that culminated with police raids on student housing in the fall.

"Mayor Gray and the Oshawa City Council haven’t listened to a word that students have said. Now they have declared student renters to be second-class community members and we will have to follow by-law regulations that other Oshawa citizens do not," said Fraser McArthur, president of Durham College and University of Ontario Institute of Technology Students’ Association.

The Canadian Federation of Students opposes the bylaw and is concerned that similar bylaws will be passed by other Ontario cities with large student populations.

"Imposing unreasonable restrictions will result in fewer affordable rental units available and new landlord fees and inspection costs will be downloaded onto student renters," said Jen Hassum, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario. "By driving up the rental costs and reducing housing options in student neighbourhoods, it looks like the Oshawa City Council is trying to run students out of town. From where students stand, this looks like blatant discrimination."

Ontario’s chief human rights commissioner Barbara Hall weighed in on the bylaw. In an open letter sent to the editor of the Toronto Star prior to this week’s vote, Hall warned the City of Oshawa to reconsider its bylaw. "I urge Oshawa City Council members to look closely at what has been proposed, to apply a sound city-wide planning rationale, and to consider the human rights impact of its decision," Hall stated in her letter.

The UOIT/DC students association has taken the letter has an indication that human rights complaints against the city for age discrimination will be successful and has begun the process of filing complaints on behalf of students.

The bylaw will be formally passed by Oshawa City Council on February 18.

The new proposed bylaw would limit the number of bedrooms within rental houses in the area surrounding the university to four, regardless of the size of the house. Landlords will have to pay a $250 per bedroom annual licensing fee and carry increased insurance.

The issue has drawn much attention, even reaching the pages The Globe and Mail this weekend. A few local newspapers in Ontario mentioned on February 11 that, if passed, the Oshawa bylaw would likely be copied by other municipalities in the province.

The Students Association at UOIT/Durham announced today they planned to boycott of the council meeting. After making repeated submissions to the city government and seeing them ignored, the student president has had enough: “No longer are we going to attempt to present an opinion that is clearly overlooked and blatantly ignored,” says Fraser McArthur.

“It is far more appropriate for me, as a student representative, to encourage students to stay in their classes and finish their quality education at our schools, and eventually pursue a career in a different city that wants them,” he said.

Many students have expressed to Maclean’s a wish that Ontario’s newest university had been located elsewhere. They feel they are getting a good on-campus experience, but that young people are not welcome in Oshawa.

IN THE NEWS

Three University students killed in Ottawa crash

Story not reposted as copyright for it belongs to The Canadian Press and I do my best to respect copyright. You can read this section on Macleans.ca.

St. Thomas University faculty union ordered to vote

Striking faculty at St Thomas university have been ordered to hold a final offer vote early next week by the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board. The union had attempted to block a final offer vote from taking place in favour of their own vote, but the Board ruled against them. The union is recommending its members reject the university’s latest offer.

The university requested the employment board order the vote after the faculty union rejected a ruling by Milton Veniot, the government appointed mediator, that the union should accept the university’s pre-lockout offer. The university locked out the faculty on December 27 after 10 months of failed negotiation. The faculty then voted to go on strike earlier this month.

The university’s offer would see wages rise by three percent for two years of a three year contract, and 3.5 percent in the final year. The union wants to see wages increase by 43 percent over the same three year period.

The union claims that St. Thomas University is paying faculty at a rate significantly below comparable universities. However, Veniot concluded in his report that STU’s compensation was actually first for associate professors, and full professors at the ceiling of their wage scale, when compared to other undergraduate universities in the region such as Acadia University and Mount St. Allison. STU also ranked second in its compensation of assistant professors and newer full professors, according to Veniot. “The Union position on wages is based upon another model I did not find convincing,” he wrote.

Veniot was the mediator who settled the recent labour strike at Acadia University.

Classes have been cancelled but the university believes the so long as students restart their studies by Jan 28, the semester can be salvaged.

Oshawa moves closer to removing students near university

The city of Oshawa has moved one step closer to enacting a controversial housing bylaw that would leave hundreds of students without a place to live. On Monday the city’s development services committee approved the bylaw for city council consideration.

The new regulations would limit the number of bedrooms in houses, close to the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College, to four, and place restrictions to keep bedrooms from comprising more than 40 per cent of total floor space.

The official goal of the bylaw is to control “density.”

Councillor John Neal, who represents the ward where UOIT is located, says the proposed bylaw does not go far enough. He wants restrictions placed on the number of houses that can be rented in the area, as well as laws requiring a set distance between rental houses. “This will bring the neighbourhood back to what it should be, what it was . . . it was quiet,” says Neal.

Students and the University both feel that the bylaw is unfairly targeting students. The university sent out a news release prior to Monday’s meeting stating that it fully supported the position of the students’ association against the bylaw.

The bylaw is the first in Ontario designed to restrict students from living in an area near a university. Many other university towns such as London and Hamilton are looking to pass similar restrictions on student housing.

The city of Oshawa denies that it is targeting students.

British police offer to train academics to spot extremist students on campus

Story not reposted as copyright for it belongs to The Canadian Press and I do my best to respect copyright. You can read this section on Macleans.ca.

Cape Breton University student to stand trial on property damage charge

Story not reposted as copyright for it belongs to The Canadian Press and I do my best to respect copyright. You can read this section on Macleans.ca.

MUST READS

Campus Press

• Blue Chair initiative targets tuition fees by KATRYNA SACCO, The Queen’s Journal
• Town-gown standoff, EDITORIAL, The Queen’s Journal
• New president seat awaits Atkinson by DANIEL BIRD, The Charlatan
• CMSF DOA? by HILARY BARLOW & CAROL RODRIGUES, The Varsity (uToronto)
• Still no union for TAs, grad students by KENNY SHARPE, The Muse (Memorial University)

Canada

• U of A to get more funding, The Edmonton Journal

United States

• Employers want new way to judge graduates beyond tests, grades by MARY BETH MARKLEIN, USA Today

International

• Top universities fail to spend £3m set aside to attract poorer students by POLLY CURTIS, The Guardian

The city of Oshawa has moved one step closer to enacting a controversial housing bylaw that would leave hundreds of students without a place to live. On Monday the city’s development services committee approved the bylaw for city council consideration.

The new regulations would limit the number of bedrooms in houses, close to the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College, to four, and place restrictions to keep bedrooms from comprising more than 40 per cent of total floor space.

The official goal of the bylaw is to control “density.”

Councillor John Neal, who represents the ward where UOIT is located, says the proposed bylaw does not go far enough. He wants restrictions placed on the number of houses that can be rented in the area, as well as laws requiring a set distance between rental houses. “This will bring the neighbourhood back to what it should be, what it was . . . it was quiet,” says Neal.

Students and the University both feel that the bylaw is unfairly targeting students. The university sent out a news release prior to Monday’s meeting stating that it fully supported the position of the students’ association against the bylaw.

The bylaw is the first in Ontario designed to restrict students from living in an area near a university. Many other university towns such as London and Hamilton are looking to pass similar restrictions on student housing.

The city of Oshawa denies that it is targeting students.

21/01/2008 18:53:49 – at the meeting. Finally got here after getting stuck on a GO Train that was 30 minutes late.

21/01/2008 18:54:20 – the permanent residents are go in force tonight. They are unhappy.

21/01/2008 19:00:44 – applauses are not allowed. Heaven forbid a politician feel some pressure. (This case it is the anti-student faction clapping)

21/01/2008 19:01:42 – staff can exempt non-student rentals from bylaw.

21/01/2008 19:03:06 – back to the “middle of the night” renovations lines.

21/01/2008 19:04:00 – residents not happy at the three year exemption – students will still be living next the university.

21/01/2008 19:07:23 – one councillor says he would not live in a student house cause it does not have the amenities of a normal house. In other breaking news – old people have different tastes than young.

21/01/2008 19:24:20 – some parent has her kid wearing a sign saying “Keep me safe!” I would like to know how this parent would react if she found out a white collar criminal lived on the street. What would these people do if the Hell Angels decided to move in? Blow up the street with artillery? I mean, the city has already broken (executed search warrants) into houses with locksmiths to get leases because university students moved into the area. You thought Mel Lastman calling in the army to shovel snow was ridiculous wait till these people find a grow-op in their backyard. (I always thought search warrants were for criminal offenses, not the offense of going to school.)

21/01/2008 19:29:10 – one councillor suggests that the housing licensing bylaw should be extended to the rest of the city starting in three years. That is quickly shot down.

21/01/2008 19:30:11 – the generational divide is clear on Council. The young councillor is trying to allow for student housing, the rest don’t want the students near the university. My god, do these people think GM is going to be around in 30 years? I wonder how Milton feels right now watching this show, they want a new university and Oshawa doesn’t seem to want the full package.

21/01/2008 19:31:56 – can we find a way to get rid of the students without actually saying it that bluntly?

21/01/2008 19:33:10 – look at the maps! There is more land outside our no-student area. They are going to move there! Aren’t we going to expose newcomers that we are trying to get to move to Oshawa to the same problem? (The problem being students.)

21/01/2008 19:34:37 – so the same councillor who jumps when it’s proposed extending their bylaw that does actually target students to the rest of the city where students aren’t living wants the bylaw extended to the areas that the students may move? Forget Alice in Wonderland, it’s Alice in Oshawa now.

21/01/2008 19:36:30 – Reporters are evil. Actually, it’s not that we are evil, just that four of the six of us at the table are 20-something. Thank god only Superman has heat vision – cause I would be more crispy than the burnt pizza I had last night.

21/01/2008 19:39:02 – buzz word of the night “the problem” What’s the problem? I don’t know it is like the word “synergies,” people say it cause it sounds good.

21/01/2008 19:41:21 – the bylaw will be rolled out over the city eventually according to the Mayor. I am willing to bet tuition that roll-out follows the students……

21/01/2008 19:43:15 – what are we doing? Was that an amendment? Is there a motion? Man, now we have a real problem….

21/01/2008 19:44:27 – a laugh, we can’t hear the Councillor – he’s mumbling.

21/01/2008 19:46:46 – could someone call Robert already?

21/01/2008 19:49:52 – the councillors would like to do more to restrict student housing but that would be illegal. (They don’t come out and actually say it.)

21/01/2008 19:50:48 – it must be a licensing bylaw. If it were zoning, it be illegal.

21/01/2008 19:51:20 – politics at its best! Pandering…. I wonder if they have a pandering bylaw in Oshawa? I better not give them ideas.

21/01/2008 19:52:43 – we have to make sure the bylaw can stand on a challenge. We really like to do more, but we can’t.

21/01/2008 19:53:32 – the ward two councillor is pointing out the contradictions in the bylaw. Insert silly children’s song.

21/01/2008 19:55:16 – would someone think of the poor children! They are the most popular props tonight.

21/01/2008 19:56:30 – there will be “third-party groups” building student housing. Don’t call them developers… but people buying houses to rent to students are evil developers.

21/01/2008 19:57:20 – let’s play tongue twister. We can’t actually say we are targeting students cause they would be illegal.

21/01/2008 19:58:50 – I am going to skip Colbert tonight, I have got my share of political comedy.

21/01/2008 20:03:47 – doublespeak gets very confusing.

21/01/2008 20:05:28 – the citizens believe that the student houses are lodging houses. The city says they are not. Permanent residents laugh at Mayor, he asks them to show respect. Tension in the room increases. Some isolated heckling directed to Council.

21/01/2008 20:10:05 – Do these people realize the threat in their midst? All these kids will eventually be university students!

21/01/2008 20:19:17 – new buzzword – “speculators”. Seems to describe the purchase of property in the hopes of making profit from renting.

21/01/2008 20:20:33 – According to the council committee chairwoman “students are important to this city.” They sure don’t feel that way. Chairwoman: I shared a house with other students when I went to law school.

21/01/2008 20:27:46 – “98% of students in our community are good harding working people,” says one of the councillors pushing for the bylaw. “Some of the students feel they aren’t welcome …. they are.” Sure, that’s why you want to limit the number of them that can live near the university.

21/01/2008 20:30:04 – cue political speeches.

21/01/2008 20:34:06 – chair allows applauds for Councillor Neal.