Council February 23

10:05: We’re just waiting for quorum. Chair Jake Eidinger has been showing off his awesome dance moves.

10:11: We’re getting started. Jake is acknowledging that this meeting is taking place on unceded Mi’kmaq land. We do this every meeting but I don’t always record it in the live blog.

Sophia says it has been a pretty quiet couple weeks for her but she’s been helping out where she can. The DSS has been taking a look at their finances. Once they get a cheque in they will get going on some Wardroom updates (a kettle, some new frames for the gallery wall).

Katie had a crazy couple of weeks! Tenant’s rights workshop  (the first in the “escape from the quad” workshop series). About 30 people were there and lots of people told her it was very informative. She’s looking for more tenant’s rights handbooks for the KSU office. Next up, on March 6th at 7 pm Luke Van Horne will be giving a workshop on budgeting. She was also involved with consent week (and crazily made some cupcakes one morning). She helped set up and take down for Student Action Day Camp. She’s been talking to NSPIRG about what it will look like next year, they’ve already started brainstorming. She also just got twitter! @DouglasKatied. Check it.

My big excitement was speaking in favour of the dues increase at speeches, so I was really happy to see it go through. We had a really productive finance committee meeting last week. I wish I had been able to help more with consent week but I did frost a few cupcakes. Grad Week planning is also going really well- keep in mind that you can always get in touch with me if you have questions about that. You can also email kingsgradweek2014@gmail.com or follow us on facebook.

Karis apologizes for not being more involved with consent week, but she’s really excited about the upcoming board meeting and is doing a lot of planning for that.

John says the new email option for study snacks seems to be going well.

10:20: Anika helped out with some referendum posters (the ones with puns). She had a meeting with Kevin Gibson from the board to talk about the upcoming year. Also, this week is green week! She reminds us that fighting for equality also means fighting for the environment, as climate change overwhelmingly affects the poor.

Jake spent his Valentine’s Day writing his ruling on the referendum appeal (#labouroflove #marriedtotheunion). The decision was that the inclusion of “ABSTAIN” on the ballot was a technical error and it did not affect the outcome of the referendum. He says the KSU elections rules are under construction so they’ll be looking at building better referendum procedures in the future. You can read his full report here.

Anna’s report! Congrats to elections candidates. The staffing review committee is getting to work and is looking for feedback from people who work with union staff (e.g. councillors, wardy and galley staff, exec and UHPs). They’ll be presenting their recommendations at the next council meeting.

The Galley levy is up for discussion this year. It’s been $14 for two years and we’re looking to reassess. Once the Galley Board meets we’ll talk more about that.

Anna is bringing up the conversation about fraternities and sororities at our last meeting. Though some members of the union have approached her suggesting that a public forum might be beneficial, the majority of students she has talked with have made it clear that if such a forum was available, they would not feel able to contribute due to fear of social penalty. She finds this very unfortunate and she is saddened to know that such an important conversation cannot continue. She encourages councillors to remain sensitive to this issue.

Consent week went really well and there were a lot of great conversations had, but she says in future years they’ll keep in mind that the week before reading week is not the best week for it (too busy).

Anna heard Stephen MacNeil speak this past week and she said the most encouraging thing was that he said that post secondary education should be seen as a resource, not a liability.

10:32: Michaela’s turn. First rounds of Academic and Enrolment Plan consultations are now done. It’s a tricky balance- they want to make concrete recommendations, but they don’t want to make them so concrete that people will be disappointed if things don’t happen. There will be more opportunities for student feedback once these drafts come out. This can be done via email, and there will also be a university wide meeting (March 5th for academic plan, March 6th for enrolment plan- those are tentative).

Students, so far, have emphasized the importance of strengthening our current programming rather than expanding. They have also emphasized the importance of the relationship between King’s and Dal and are hoping for more opportunities for collaboration with NSCAD.

As for the strategic enrolment plan, students asked for more honesty in recruitment (telling incoming students how much philosophy happens in FYP) as well as better advertising of upper year programmes.

Across both consultation sessions, the importance of mental health was a huge theme.

In the future, Michaela would like to be able to do a bit more advertising and she wishes that more students could be on those committees.

Society activities are going super well- but Michaela reminds society execs that if they haven’t submitted their midterm reports yet, they need to do that ASAP.

AND the 225 party is happening next weekend! March 1st! If it isn’t on your calendar yet, get it on your calendar. Tickets go on sale tomorrow at Alex Hall Front Desk ($2.25 for students, faculty, and staff, $22.50 for alumni).

We’re about to talk to Alex Doyle about facilities updates, but Michaela is giving us a debrief now. One big question is security- it’s important for us to bring in a professional security force to protect the campus (this would be separate from Patrol’s responsibilities to work with residence students, and security would not be allowed in residence without specific invitation). However, this would mean cutting several student patrol shifts. We’re going to talk to Alex Doyle more about this soon.

10:42: Alex Bryant has been working on the KSU risk management policy all year, and he just met with our lawyers, and apparently this is not quite as complicated as he thought it would be. He’s starting a working group to figure this out and is hoping to have it good to go by December 2014, before we next need to renew.

Yearbook is going well for next year, AND a reminder that the 2012/2013 yearbook is now available in the KSU office. Feel free to pick one up any time if you’re interested and feeling nostalgic.

Alex also has a piece he’s written on gender equity that he’s reading out to council now. Here’s the full text:

“Having been a member of the Kappa Alpha Literary Society from 2012 to 2013, a fraternity present on campus, I have tried to remove myself from the conversation at Council surrounding equity and institutional sexism at King’s in the past month for fear of overcomplicating the situation. This silence is something I can no longer accept, and so I will offer some words on the matter:

Reading and writing are principles of the King’s community. To be complacent in the segregation of a group of men from the King’s community in their relationship to these principles, and then celebrate this segregation says fraternity members are better than non-members in respect to this institution by way of those members’ inherited privilege. It says too that fraternity members find non-members toxic to their ability to participate in these foundational aspects of King’s and that members require an escape. Such a position is abhorrent, and that the abhorrence of such a claim might come into question is worrisome.

The campaign of harassment and intimidation against women on our campus who raised concerns about equity and discrimination related to the presence of a fraternity, is at once a saturated example of the oppression we should fear in the presence of institutionalized discrimination, and it is vile. That opening the conversation around fraternity activity on campus has brought about a crusade of terrorism against these women, and others who were unwilling to address the question of sexism in a public forum, should serve to strengthen their argument, and that this harassment has been quietly handled for fear of vilifying its perpetrators is backwards. That we should have a drive to deny the experience of our community members – to discredit them as overly sensitive and inflammatory – is a familiar theme of misogyny, and is frightening. To flip the conversation from protection for the oppressed to protection of the social comfort of the oppressor is caustic not just to those who do not feel safe on campus in the company of sexism, but tells that community:  “That couldn’t happen here.” – it is right here, and it is made manifest through people we love. This is difficult.

What has been most worrisome in opening this dialogue around equity has been addressing our loved ones, as well as those we may hold in contempt. Sexism that has infected the social infrastructure, academics, and intimate relationships of its perpetrators and its victims creates a great difficulty. If we wish to rehabilitate the intentions of those who will react violently to accusation about their behaviour, how can we accomplish such a task without creating the kind of toxic environment currently, and while accommodating those who may well be worthy of our contempt?  That is, if we do care about King’s as whole, how can we can help those in the community who do not recognize the harm they invite without doing greater damage?

The greater damage has been done, and may continue to be, perhaps in the same form as the systematic, politically motivated, violence and intimidation of the past month. This is unacceptable. In fact, unacceptable is the least inflammatory of a number of words I wish to use here.

To the Watch, who have successfully pimped out the letter submitted to Council on January 26th without any context surrounding it, I hope at least there has been a conversation around compensating the five contributors that have brought you your most successful story. I do hope the fallout of such an irresponsible presentation of the submission to Council has been a learning experience for those involved in its original, hasty publication. To post such a sensitive document without presenting the context around it, or conducting a preliminary discussion with its signatories is not only irresponsible, but disrespects the character of these women, who may not have intended for the letter to be published. I have been pleased at least to see an article that addresses the topic in the most recent magazine edition of the Watch, and hope that the Watch continues to pursue this topic.

I am a man who was once a part of a fraternity that continues not to be accountable to the Dalhousie Greek Council, has no legitimate association with Dalhousie University or the University of King’s College, and has been addressed in a formal fashion to this Council as problematic. This issue is not Council’s purview insofar as there are no official associations between the University or this Council with any fraternal organization. This issue is exactly the purview of this Council as a body that represents student concerns, especially to the University that we attend together. That I should be the confidant and consultant for conversation about how to broach the topics of sexism, privilege, and harassment has been exceptionally frustrating. Before anything else, as a cis-, white, heterosexual male, I should never be a necessary mediator for these conversations. It should not require first-hand experience of participation in an organization in order criticize it, especially when the criticism comes from the raw experience of women on our campus. When people we care about raise concerns about their ability to attend this institution, participate in basic student life, and remain safe every alarm bell from here to Vancouver should go off.

I originally felt uncomfortable as a student representative participating in this conversation due to my previous participation in Kappa Alpha. I would like to apologize to Council and the students I represent on this point. It is unacceptable for me not to engage with this topic in a public forum and involve myself with the thoughts presented by students in our community, especially when I strongly support those thoughts. It may be uncomfortable to engage with the problematic behaviour of our loved ones, but it is necessary.”

Both Anna and I thanked him for speaking out.

Jesse’s report. He’s been part of a continued discussion of levies. He said the Student Action Day Count had about 60 people at it’s peak. He’s telling us more about Green Week (which Anika also mentioned in her report). It’s a competition (a separate one for res students and day students). They’ll be competing to try to waste the least food in Sodexo, use less water during showers, etc. The winning group will get a prize (a party?). For day students, the challenges are similar but also include buying and eating more local food. A facebook event is coming soon.

Sophia asks what powershift is. Jesse says it is a giant non profit that operates in several regions across Canada. They do youth organized environmental conferences.

Jake and Anna just sat down and rewrote a draft of the new Bylaws (and Operations Policy). They’ve been sent to the Constitutional Review Committee to look over. This will be coming to council likely after changeover. The biggest change is that the Operations Policy will be amendable by council (whereas Bylaws, like the constitution, will still be only amendable by a general meeting). This is a huge reorganization that we’ve needed to figure out for the last few years. Now that we finally have figured out the legal details, we’re ready to put this together and bring it to council and then to the general body. Also, all councillors are now legally considered “directors” of the KSU. This means we’re all legally responsible for decisions council makes, and also that we’re insured.

Haritha has a couple updates for us from the last DASSS meeting. They’re voting on whether they want their elections to happen online or not.

11:02: Action items! BIRT Emma Reid receive a $100 travel bursary to attend the North American Women’s Debating Championships.

She originally asked for $300, but finance considered the total amount available in the travel bursary line ($300) and the other requests on the table, and therefore recommended $100 in consideration of these factors.

The motion is adopted.

BIRT Rachel Ward receive a $200 travel bursary to travel to El Salvador to research the presidential run- off elections.

Alex explains that considering the overall expense of the trip (over $2000), Finance committee determined that $200 would be appropriate.

Sophia asks if this would use up the last of the Travel Bursary budget. Alex confirms that this is the case. He says that based on how many requests have come in over the last few days, it is definitely worth having a discussion about increasing this budget line and working on some new travel bursary policy. This will likely happen just after changeover.

The motion is adopted.

SQUASHED! is asking for $350 in contingent society funding for a tournament in Charlottetown. They previously asked for travel bursaries from the travel bursary line for society travel, but now that we have no money left in that line, it makes more sense to classify it as society funding.

The motion is adopted.

Alex Doyle (director of facilities) and Jim Fitzpatrick (bursar) have just joined us to give us a presentation. This will be an opportunity for discussion and questions.

Jim says this is a useful opportunity for him to talk about what’s going on financially.

King’s has a deficit of about $500 000 right now for the 2013/2014 year. The Board of Governor’s requires a balanced budget each year, which requires at least no negative cashflow. So the aim is to at least be able to balance the cashflow relating to operations, but that’s not going to be the case. At least $200 000 is due to lower enrolment than expected. The second major factor is the cost of heating the campus. We rely on natural gas, which is very expensive in Nova Scotia. Though the cold winter hasn’t helped, the high price of natural gas is a major factor. This accounts for about $100 000. The other $200 000 are spread across other areas.

He’s now talking about the 2014/2015 budget. There’s a fairly lengthy process, which started in November with the Budget Advisory Committee (made up of staff, faculty, and students). It’s made up of major assumptions like enrolment, operating grant from the government, etc. Each department is also asked to make their budgets for the upcoming year based on their priorities. Even the operating grant is a question- the government has said it will increase by 1%, but we don’t know if each university will get exactly a 1% increase or if that’s an average. Over the last few years the grant has been cut by 10%, with just a 1% increase coming up this year. They’ve budgeted for a 1% decrease in enrolment in order to be conservative. He notes that we are not unique in this drop in enrolment (11/15 universities in Atlantic Canada have seen drops in enrolment).

When all those assumptions are put together, they’ve come up with a $299 000 deficit for next year. The decision was to assign an across the board cut to the university. This is new at King’s but it isn’t new to the university world. Dal has been doing this for decades. Our budget cut is around 2.3 or 2.4%. The same percentage cut is assigned to each department according to their operations (excluding salaries and other costs that simply can’t be cut).

They’ve set up a long term financial strategy committee which is a board committee that will start operating in March. There will be student representatives on this committee. The University has a history of budgeting year to year and not thinking about the longterm. He’s also mentioned that ad hoc cuts to some areas and not others could be another option (rather than across the board cuts), but that this is something that would need to be more considered. The long term financial strategy could help with this.

His points out the fact that at least the university consults with each department about what they want, while other universities don’t always do that. Some universities are moving away from across the board cuts and are asking departments to justify their expenses.

Jim mentions that if heating and facility costs were managed differently, for instance if they were built into each department, individuals might be more concerned about saving money by being more energy efficient.

I asked Jim and Alex about the possibility of making the campus more energy efficient. Jim suggests that this would definitely be worth the savings if we could make the campus more energy efficient, but it’s a question of finding the money in the first place.

Alex says all the heating system in the Bays are original to the Bays. He says since he’s been on board they’ve made a lot of improvements- for instance, to the banging of the pipes that had been going on. But he mentions that if we were to try to improve energy efficiency in the bays we would need a total retrofit.

Right now in Alex Hall, with the renovations that are going on, thermostats will be streamlined so that there will be one to control each room in the room it controls (in the past it has been a little all over the place). The damage has been very extensive due to the flooding. He says they’ve got a Flickr account that will be going up next week so that community members will be able to stay up to date with the construction progress. He says the renovations have been taking much longer than expected because the damage has been more extensive than could have been anticipated. At the end of the day, the whole west wing of Alex Hall is being rebuilt, meaning better insulation, new wiring, lighting, and so on. The silver lining of the flood is that we’re able to get well over $1 million of work done for just $10 000 (most is covered by insurance). The downside, of course, was that many students had to be disrupted during the school year.

They’re looking to be able to track energy usage in specific areas of campus, for instance, to check the temperature in residence rooms. This will allow facilities to be more aware of issues as they arise. They’ve applied for a grant through the government to make these changes. Jim emphasizes that if we are able to make this investment, the payback would be amazing. Alex says it’s amazing what can be done- the new lighting in Alex Hall use 15% of the energy the old lighting used, and it’s better lighting.

He anticipates that overall with a retrofit, we could save 50% on electricity costs.

Anna notes that salaries represent a huge proportion of the budget, but they aren’t able to be cut with the rest of the budget. She asks if he could talk a bit about how salaries are determined.

Karis is also curious about severance pay and money going to people who no longer work here.

Jim says that King’s is one of the few universities whose faculty is not unionized. King’s has a 90 year tradition of following Dalhousie faculty pay scales. Staff salaries also follow Dal scales.

Jim says there is one final payment to the former president of the university. Karis does not want to argue that faculty should make less, but she wonders if there could be consideration of structural changes to how money is distributed. She says we do have a lot of money but we need to think about how it is distributed. She’s concerned that the new mechanisms of budgeting that Jim mentioned might lead to moralistic judgments about the value of the activities of different departments. She wonders if there is a concern about different activities being judged based what is determined to be a meaningful activity. Karis emphasizes that we should not follow what bigger universities do in terms of budgeting as King’s is different. Jim agrees and says that if the longterm financial planning committee does not acknowledge this they will have failed at their task.

Gwendolyn asks about the chapel’s budget. Jim clarifies that the chapel itself breaks even but that music is losing money. This is partly because Easter fell outside the fiscal year last year, so this year we needed to budget for two Easter concerts.

Anika thanks Jim for coming in and for writing such a clear and easy to understand report. Anika notes that the previous government has cut funding by 10%. 25 years ago government funding was over 80% of university funding and now it’s closer to 50%. She’s wondering if as an administration, the university is going to push for a restoration of government funding- to what it was three years ago, and eventually to what it was 5 years ago.

Jim sits on the committee for renegotiation of the memorandum of understanding. He says there are several working groups that involve students, staff, faculty, etc. He sits on two committees related to this issue. The presidents of universities in NS sit on a steering committee with government. None of the working groups have reported yet. The two working groups he is on have been suspended for the time being. The tuition working group is finding it isn’t able to report yet. That’s been put off for a few months.

So that’s just the structure that’s been put in place. It is complicated and time consuming and there are no answers yet.

Officially though this is their space to tell the government that they want more money from the government so they can take less from students. This is also the space to talk about how they want to distribute funding. He says he just doesn’t know where it is going to go.

Anika says the students’ union works to lobby the government for more money, but she asks whether the administration will do the same. Jim says George Cooper is an experienced lobbyist and is talking to the government whenever he gets the chance. He says the good news is that the liberal government seems to be more friendly to universities than the past university. He notes that in the current budget, universities were one of the very few groups to get any increase (1%).

Anna says that from the students’ perspective, we’ve actually gotten a lot of bad news from this government. For instance, it was recently recommended that tuition be increased by 3-4% next year. Jim says this is kind of “old news”- it was more or less determined by the previous memorandum of understanding. Anna notes that while the MOU stated that tuition could increase by up to 4%, it was always still up to universities whether those increases would actually go through.

If students are going to experience cuts to the student experience, how can they be asked to pay more? Anna notes that last year a new facilities fee came in. So how can students be asked to pay more specifically for facilities when there are cuts to facilities happening now?

Jim notes that departments are getting less than what they asked for but more than what they’ve had, and that academics have not been cut. In some cases departments are actually getting more than they’ve gotten in the past- the cuts are to proposed budgets, not to past actual budgets. Jim says Anna is right. He says it would be “lovely” to not get into the cycle of budget cuts as tuition continues to increase.

Jim emphasizes how important it is for the longterm planning committee to get to work. A lot can happen in March and April, and it will have to continue through the summer. He says we can’t afford to continue with short term planning year to year. We need to establish a long term plan as soon as possible.

Anna asks if the process will include open consultation. Jim says, “will it ever!”. He says he wants to hear everyone’s thoughts.

12:12: Alex (Bryant) notes that there has been a lot of administrative turn over at the university over the last few years. As frustrating as it has been to start to try to turn things around, he’s glad to see so many projects happening now.

Alex (Doyle) is giving us an update on the Pit. The KTS will get the green room back March 1st, Pit back March 10th. They have also purchased all new risers and chairs for the Pit. It’s all up to code, there’s a new ventilation system (“you’ll be able to breathe in there”). An additional lighting grid has been put up and properly secured on the ceiling. All the equipment has been looked at and refurbished as necessary. As for the chapel, due to the flood they’ve been able to refurbish it significantly. The floors and cabinetry are all redone. By the end of the first week of March, the chapel should be passed back to Father Thorne.

Alex Hall is getting repainted right now and everything is getting put back in. The third floor should be going back in next week, and second floor the week after. The first floor will be a bit longer as the damage there was not noticed until a bit later (and students were moved out later).

Jim reminds us that the money for these projects does not come out of operations- whether from government or external donations, this is where we need to look for funding for large projects.

Alex emphasizes that there is still a lot more work to be done in the chapel and Alex Hall, as well as in the A & A.

Alex says they make efforts to apply for a variety of different government grants in different areas, whether that be relating to sustainability, accessibility, etc.

Anika asks about proposed changes to student patrol. Alex is going to give us a little context. He says that until 2009 there was a security force that worked alongside student patrol. The previous bursar eliminated security at that time and left the responsibility with patrol. Nick Hatt would agree that student patrol was never meant to be a professional security system. Alex says the goal is to maintain the system that is currently in place with patrol and the dons and then add security on top of it. The idea would be to go back to a system similar to the one we had pre 2009.

Anika works patrol and she understands the need for a real security force, but she notes that the proposed change would involve removing patrol shifts (4 am- 8 am and 4 pm – 8 pm), and she asks why this would be the case.

Alex says this is how the schedule worked pre 2009. There would be a single security person who would not go into residence buildings. They would be there to support patrol.

He notes that there are concerns about who would do some of patrol’s responsibilities from 4-8, including unlocking doors, being first responders to facility concerns, and so on.

Katie notes that 4 pm- 8 pm is a high traffic time for residence students to interact with patrol, to ask them to unlock doors, and also to interact with them on a peer support level, which is another one of patrol’s responsibilities.

Alex says that this is not yet set in stone and they are still talking to Dean Hatt about this. He’s heard this argument before that 4pm- 8pm is an important time for Patrol.

Alex (Bryant) asks how this is being budgeted for and where the money is coming from. Did Dean Hatt submit a residence budget that would account for this new plan? Jim says he did not because when he submitted it in November the new plan was not accounted for.

Alex (Bryant) says he absolutely understands the need for security on campus, but he notes that the fact that this may have to come at the cost of student jobs, this will not be received well. He encourages the adoption of a security force but wonders if there is anywhere else the money can come from.

Alex Doyle emphasizes the importance of having a security force as patrol is not trained as security.

Emily says that in her experience working at Alex Hall Front Desk, the security that is temporarily there to keep an eye on Alex Hall seems to be able to relax and make money without doing very much. She’s concerned about this kind of position replacing student jobs.

Alex Doyle emphasizes that this is covered by insurance and it is a very different job from what a full time security force on campus would look like. He says they would have a full set of responsibilities. He’s seen this work well at NSCAD.

Furthermore, there would be consistency. Security guards would become familiar faces on campus.

Alex Doyle emphasizes that the security force would not walk around looking like police officers, they would be more toned down than that. The first response in an emergency situation would still be to call the police.

Gwendolyn asks when this will be decided and whether this would affect summer jobs for students (on after hours facilities). Alex says he doesn’t know yet, but as conference services have been switched around there should be more summer jobs available in that area.

Jim says that Sodexo had previously managed conference services at King’s during the summer. Jim says it was determined that King’s could do better by managing conference services themselves. He says Alex and his staff have done great work with limited resources. They’ve done great research seeing how other universities manage their conference services and how this can best support the University. This will start this summer along with the 225 anniversary.

They’re already budgeting for a $40 000 profit this year and hopefully more in future years. He says this is not only a great money making strategy but also helps get the King’s name out there (without having to pay for advertising).

Alex emphasizes what a great job creation strategy this will be for students during the summer.

Michaela asks about retention of upper year students, especially maritime students. She says the registrar’s office notes that student jobs are one of the biggest factors in retaining students. Michaela says that if patrol jobs and after hour facilities jobs are cut, this could affect retention.

Jim says he wouldn’t want to see that happen. He says they want to work hard to not to take away student jobs, but he can’t pretend that everything he does will always have a positive effect in this area.

Anna says Elizabeth Yeo in the registrar’s office has determined that student jobs are the largest factor in retention.

The number of hours cut to patrol would represent $20 000 to students.

Jim says that to the extent we can we want to both provide student jobs and secure the campus, but he says “to the extent we can” is a key phrase. If a serious incident happened on the campus, all other considerations would be secondary. There’s a lot of balancing of risks that go on (risk of students leaving due to lack of student jobs balanced against risk of liability).

Anna says she agrees that security is necessary but asks why increased student safety has to come at the cost of student employment. Jim says if student jobs weren’t cut something else (also valuable) would have to be cut instead.

Alex Doyle says that a major mistake was made in 2009 and these hours of student patrol jobs should never have been created. He says after hours facilities jobs in the summer are also a huge liability and this was the first red flag. It sounds like this is something that is also going to be cut.

12:57: Jim and Alex are done, we thank them for their time. We’re taking a ten minute recess while we wait for our res students to finish getting lunch.

1:09: We’re back! One last action item. BIRT the Unconscious Collective Vocal Ensemble receive $300 in contingent funding to rent out the JustUs! cafe on Spring Garden for performances on Feb 27th and Feb 28th.

The space costs $50 per hour, so 3 hours per night (time for the concert plus set up and take down). They are doing the event at JustUs! because there is no other space available on campus (they’ve been trying to plan this concert for two months).

Karis asks if there is anywhere they can do the show at Dal. Michaela says the room booking system is way more complicated at Dal and needs way more advance notice.

Alex says we have about $6000 remaining in the society budget line.

The motion is adopted.

New Business: Anna says that the longterm budget planning committee that Jim has put together (which does include student involvement) follows from Anne Leavitt’s sustainability committee that excluded students. She says it is great to see students being involved now, but it is important to remember the context.

The make up of the committee would be (we think) 2 board members, a student rep, a staff rep, a faculty rep, an alumni rep. Anika asks who the student rep is. It would be the financial vice president of the KSU.

Council is adjourned! The next meeting will happen on Sunday, March 9th at 10 am.