On June 4, the AMS’s special general meeting (SGM) was adjourned before a vote could take place as the meeting did not meet quorum.
In April, Sulong UBC submitted a petition, signed by over 500 students as per AMS bylaws, which called on the AMS to hold a SGM to vote on a motion to reinstate AMS associate members’ access to the AMS Food Bank and to hold referendums, going forward, regarding changes to food bank access. Associate members include UBC and AMS staff and faculty.
In March 2023, the AMS restricted UBC staff access to the AMS Food Bank starting in May 2023 because of financial hardship.
- UBC staff now ineligible for AMS Food Bank due to insufficient funding
- There’s an AMS special general meeting on June 4. What does that mean?
- Banking ahead: The creation and continuation of the AMS Food Bank
For the petition’s motion to be voted on, the meeting needed to reach a quorum of 623 students, roughly 1 per cent of students registered in the 2023/24 academic year which runs from September 1, 2023 to August 31, 2024.
Quorum was not reached as just under 460 people were in attendance, and the meeting was adjourned at around 10:30 a.m.
AMS adopts ‘no’ stance on motion
On Instagram, the AMS posted saying “Prioritize UBC students at the AMS Food Bank” by voting no to the motion.
In the post, the AMS wrote it believes staff deserve access to the food bank, but “budget restraints have already limited the quality and quantity of food [the AMS] can offer to students.”
“Reinstating access for UBC staff and faculty would limit students even further,” read the post.
In an interview with The Ubyssey, AMS President Christian ‘CK’ Kyle said the AMS adopted a no stance because AMS Council’s last decision was in favour of keeping food bank access solely for students. As chair of the SGM, CK said he has to remain impartial and did not take a stance regarding the motion.
Student groups like Sprouts, Climate Justice UBC, UBC Social Justice Centre and Sulong UBC advocated for students to vote yes. In an Instagram post, the student groups wrote “food is for everyone,” and that voting yes is “the only option … that comes from a place of compassion for others in the community.”
Students express governance concerns, Sulong to host community meeting
Students expressed concern online about the AMS not following its bylaws regarding the SGM.
CK said SGMs do not have technical rules in the AMS bylaws, so the society used Robert’s Rules of Order instead.
“We went pretty far above our actual bylaw requirements for notice of a Special General Meeting,” said CK.
The meeting did not hit quorum after a 30-minute grace period from the meeting’s official start time. This grace period is in accordance with the AMS bylaws for its annual general meeting.
Students and student groups have also criticized the AMS for limited promotion of the SGM, for requiring registration to access the webinar and for releasing the registration only a day in advance, but CK said the society adhered to its bylaws.
The meeting was initially supposed to take place in-person. CK said Sulong UBC asked the AMS to move the meeting from in-person to hybrid, but the AMS couldn’t afford to host a hybrid meeting. Instead, the society held the meeting online over a Zoom webinar.
“I wish we had gone through the online option earlier … We wanted it to be as accessible as possible,” said CK.
In response to the quorum failure, Sulong UBC wrote in an Instagram post that it is holding a community meeting to discuss the motion.
In an interview with The Ubyssey, Sulong representative Maya Fernando explained “there were people who wanted … to speak” at the SGM.
“I know that they’re disappointed, so we wanted to provide them another opportunity,” said Fernando.
Additionally, CK said this motion will be discussed by AMS Council at its June 19 meeting.
“I’m excited for the discussion of Council. I hope that students come and make their opinions heard,” said CK. “I think it’s unfortunate we didn’t get quorum, but it’s a trend in the AMS.”
While Fernando will speak at the upcoming AMS Council meeting, they highlighted their discontent with the restraints of the platform.
“They only offer three slots [to speak at Council] ... We really wanted to centre the workers’ voices ... and that’s why we were really looking forward to the original SGM, because they let non-students speak,” said Fernando. “It’s about giving the voice to the people … most affected by the decision.”
Fernando said that although not reaching quorum “was a bit of a disappointment,” the SGM set a “precedent” given that the last SGM was about 30 years ago.
“Now people know that there’s an option to have your voice heard,” said Fernando.
“There’s this democratic process for you … so even though it was a loss, I think it’s still a gain overall that the student body knows of this process.”
Share this article
First online
Submit a complaint Report a correction
