AGSEM General Assembly September 23, 2004 Minutes

							AGSEM General Assembly
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Minutes prepared by Jessica Wurster, AGSEM Treasurer

Meeting called to order at 6:15pm

1) Introductory Remarks
   a) Lilian Radovac (Coordinator) welcomes new TAs and calls for contributions from
       members over the course of the year.
   b) All motions must be moved and seconded, though not as strictly as Roberts’ Rules
       of Order
   c) TA Guide handouts available at end of meeting; always available at the office and
       on the web
   d) Who are the Coordinating Committee (CC)?
       i) We run the show at AGSEM
   e) Who are the Union Council (UC)?
       i) Delegates from all depts.
       ii) Act as liaisons between dept and union.
       iii) If dept has no delegate, please run!
   f) 2 CC members to be elected: Grievance Officer (as of Nov) and Communications
       Officer (starting immediately)
       i) Voting procedure –
            (1) Voting Card – show as you vote
            (2) Use ballots for the right position to vote for elections & amendment
   g) Thanks to Oriane Landry (Grievance Officer) & Christina Ponte
       (Communications Officer) for all their hard work this year..

2) Approval of Agenda
   a) Diana Huculak (Political Science) moved to approve
   b) Seconded by Erin Vollick (English)
   c) Approved unanimously

3) Officer Reports -- covers activities from May 1 to now, since this CC was elected
   a) Coordinator (Lilian)
      i) Consolidating office operations
      ii) Taking over from Johanne at PGSS
      iii) Office hours M-Th 1-3pm
      iv) Meetings: CC & UC
           (1) CC Meeting now twice a month
           (2) UC Meetings
               (a) 2 since May – July & September
               (b) Held every 3 months
      v) Accounting and record keeping
           (1) Trying to get AGSEM to work well
           (2) Updating member lists and databases
      vi) CSN
                                                       GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)      2


        (1) More in touch with parent union
   vii) Listserv
        (1) Used for union-related announcements
        (2) Working to update list – currently very out of date
        (3) New Comm Officer will be in charge of this
   viii) Website
        (1) Jessica Cox (AOS) is new webmaster
        (2) New site launched
        (3) One stop shopping for AGSEM info
        (4) Being updated and improved regularly
        (5) Please comment
   ix) Other initiatives
        (1) Sexual & Psychological harassment policy
            (a) Consulting with Admin, other unions, student groups, etc on this one
        (2) HR
            (a) We are trying to meet with them to deal with policy and procedure
        (3) Arts and Science Councils
            (a) Increased student representation on campus
            (b) Currently not much student involvement
            (c) People should consider running
        (4) PGSS
            (a) Working more closely w/ PGSS & new pres. Noah Billick
            (b) Funding issues are a big one
            (c) Turn-it in.com – “plagiarism prevention software”
            (d) Time to completion is another issue
        (5) Article 39
            (a) Ruling rec’d earlier this month on whether graders were part of
                original certification of AGSEM
            (b) Graders are NOT represented by AGSEM
            (c) Ruling is final and cannot be appealed
            (d) Problem was lack of documentation
            (e) Another possible reason was that initial attempt only included TAs
                because it was easier to unionize with a small discrete group
            (f) JORDAN GELLER (Chemistry), former AGSEM Coordinator, speaks
                on this issue:
                (i) Arbitration is another way to approach this
                (ii) Arbitration deals with present job classifications rather than past
                     intentions of certification drive
                (iii)To go through with arbitration, we need proof now of graders
            (g) LILIAN will speak to this later in the meeting when discussing
                formation of committee on this issue
            (h) There are various possibilities that the committee can consider
   x) Coordinator report approved unanimously

b) Grievance Officer report
   i) Oriane Landry
                                                       GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)       3


        (1) what’s a grievance?
            (a) Grievance = official complaint
            (b) If dept. violates a clause in the Collective Agreement (CA), AGSEM
                writes a letter to dept asking not to do this violation any further
            (c) No individual retribution for TAs who report problems
            (d) Filing grievances puts problems on the record, in writing and makes it
                easier to address
            (e) We want to prevent recurrent problems that are continually handed off
                to new unsuspecting TAs
   ii) Kyle Spyksma
        (1) Grievance blitz filed last year
            (a) Because paperwork wasn’t being filled out at dept. level
            (b) In Fall 2003, approx. 25 grievances filed about not receiving
                membership forms
            (c) Winter 2004 – 13 grievances sent on the same issue, some to the same
                dept.
            (d) Two grievances taken to the next step (DEAN): Chem Eng & ECE
                (membership forms)
                (i) Training of Administrative Officers from all departments was
                     supposed to happen but it hasn’t as of yet
                (ii) With no response from depts, taken to arbitration
                (iii)Both depts. given this semester to clean up their act, submit forms.
                (iv) Chem Eng has submitted membership forms this term
                (v) ECE has not submitted yet – has til Sept 30 to do so
                     1. Kyle asks if ECE TAs are here.
                     2. None are present
                     3. Because we don’t have contact info for them!
   iii) ORIANE
        (1) Current grievance
                (i) Employee evaluation confidentiality
        (2) Delegates
                (i) 2/3 of departments have delegates
                (ii) Other depts have lost delegates through graduation
                (iii)Please inform us if you graduate!
                (iv) Delegate policy approved at UC meeting
                     1. If delegates don’t show at meetings or respond to emails, we
                         have procedures to replace them
                (v) Oriane has delegate list
                     1. You can verify at end of meeting
                     2. If your dept has no delegate, you can sign up here
                     3. Must attend UC meeting
   iv) Report approved unanimously

c) Treasurer Report – Jessica Wurster
   i) Revised 2004-05 Budget (copies handed out to members)
      (1) Projected numbers were found to be off, so revisions were made
                                                           GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)       4


                (a) Membership dues were vastly overprojected, which affects expenses
                    (parent unions).
                (b) Biggest change in expenses: CC salaries.
                    (i) Because we took over the administrative work contracted out to
                         Johanne O’Malley at PGSS
                    (ii) PGSS cost sharing expenses was halved as a result of this change.
       ii) Term accounts
            (1) We have $$
            (2) We will have about $10,000 to add to it at the end of the year.
            (3) Formation of committee to look at priorities for $$ will be addressed later
                in the meeting
       iii) Questions
            (1) Jordan Geller (Chemistry) is questioning increase in CC salaries
                (a) Lilian defended the increase: detailed log sheets, setting up the office,
                    better day to day operations.
            (2) Jordan questioned the source deductions issue
                (a) Jessica is preparing to implement at the beginning of 2005.

4) ELECTIONS
   a) 2 positions
      i) KYLE presented proposed Voting Procedure
      ii) See attached
      iii) Kyle nominates Lilian to chair the vote because she’s not voting
   b) Scrutineers
      i) James McCrea (Politics)
      ii) Frederic Fournier (Philosophy)
   c) Grievance Office nominations -- Position starts November 1, 2004
      i) Erin Vollick (English)
           (1) Nominated by Stephanie King (English)
           (2) Nomination seconded by Dima Ayoub(English)
           (3) Erin accepts nomination
      ii) Emeka Nwakanma (GSLIS)
           (1) Nominated by Tao Jin (GLIS)
           (2) Nomination seconded by Jordan Geller (Chemistry)
           (3) Emeka accepts nomination
      iii) Candidate position statements
           (1) Emeka
               (a) PhD student in GLIS
               (b) 4th year
               (c) AGSEM exp. – TA 2 yrs ago
               (d) Was part of negotiating team for current contract
               (e) Hasn’t TA’d in the last year but is this year so wants to get involved
                   further
               (f) Grievances arise from misunderstandings between TA and McGill or
                   Dept
                   (i) GO should act as go-between to ensure that TA gets their due
                                                 GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)    5


            (ii) GO should be experienced
                    a. Emeka has been curriculum committee in his dept.
                    b. Represents PhD students on Fac of Ed committee so knows
                       about running of university
    (2) Erin
        (a) PhD5 in English
        (b) Exp: AGSEM delegate for English
        (c) AGSEM member since 2001
        (d) President of Eng Grad Student Society last year
        (e) Co-founder of new Grad Arts Student Council @ McGill
        (f) Member of Professional Development Committee in Eng dept.
        (g) Member CUPFA (Concordia Sessional union)
        (h) York University Grad Union experienced
        (i) Exp as writer and speaker
                 1. Communication is a problem, as other speaker has said
                 2. Wants to:
                    a. Protect rights of TAs
                    b. Accountability: ensure that grievances are accurate and
                       legitimate
                    c. To recognize the specific needs of TAs
                       i. Needs and grievances of TAs need to be considered in
                           their specific circumstances (faculty, dept, etc)
iv) Questions for nominees
    (1) Jordan Geller (Chemistry)
        (a) Grader issue: How are you going to convince graders to come forward
            to AGSEM? What are you going to do with this issue?
            (i) ERIN
                 1. Grader case came from English.
                 2. Considered casual labour.
                    a. Asked not to have contact with students.
                    b. Not expected to comment on papers, just to know the
                       subject.
                 3. How to deal with this
                    a. Have good relations with TA and depts.
                    b. Erin doesn’t want to address question of arbitration vs.
                       unionizing because that’s an issue for entire membership.
                    c. But if it can be proven that TA and grader work is that
                       same then a grievance can be pursued.
                    d. Can take this step by step.
            (ii) EMEKA
                 1. Dept of English grievance, therefore neutrality is needed to
                    deal with this issue.
                    a. Since he’s not from English, he speaks from neutral
                       ground.
                 2. Graders vs. TAs
                    a. Members of AGSEM employed by McGill as graders?
                                                         GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)       6


                         b. Investigate who graders are
                            i. If they’re AGSEM members then we can fight for them.
          (2) LILIAN
              (a) How much time do you have available for position?
              (b) Would you like to run again in March?
                  (i) EMEKA
                       1. Has plenty of time.
                       2. May not run again if he’s completed his dissertation
                  (ii) ERIN
                       1. Has lots of time after the first of December when job starts.
                       2. Will be available to run again; not graduating any time soon.

       v) GRIEVANCE OFFICER ELECTION RESULTS
          (1) Winner= Erin Vollick
          (2) Move to destroy ballots: Scott Matti (Anthro)
          (3) Seconded by Amy Cox (Politics)

   d) ELECTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER
      i) Amy Cox (Political Science) nominated by Jennifer Salahub (Political
           Science)
           (1) Nomination seconded by Marc-Etienne Ouimette (Political Science)
           (2) Amy accepts the nomination
      ii) No other nominees
      iii) About AMY
           (1) PhD4 Political Science
           (2) Been involved with AGSEM since the 2003 strike
           (3) Movement to create Faculty level student councils. Communication
               Officer should be involved in this.
           (4) Wants to improve communication; work to stimulate interest in the union;
               newsletter for AGSEM members;
           (5) Participation in larger union issues
               (a) Where did the $10M for TAs go?
               (b) With increased enrollment at undergrad level, why isn’t there an
                   increase in TA funding? Wants to investigate this issue
      iv) Acclaimed unanimously

5) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
   a) One amendment on the table
      i) Changes are mostly grammatical
      ii) One change of substance
          (1) Including CC members as members of AGSEM and ensuring that, as
              members they pay union dues on their CC salaries
          (2) See attached proposed amendment for full text of proposed changes
   b) CLARIFICATION
      i) Jordan (Chem) asks: What is the difference between “laid off “ and
          “dismissed”?
                                                            GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)      7


          (1) Dismissed = fired, dismissed for cause
          (2) Laid off = dismissed for other reasons
      ii) Francois Leblanc (Physics) asks: Aren’t you a member for 12 months after
          your last TAship?
          (1) Kyle responds in the affirmative.
   c) COMMENTS
      i) Erin Vollick (English)
          (1) This amendment is important to endorse
      ii) Jordan Gellar (Chemistry) says: Good job
   d) Vote called by: James Mccrea (Political science)
      i) Constitutional Amendment passed unanimously and with quorum.
      ii) Amendment will be binding once CSN has given formal approval.

6) FORMATION OF COMMITTEES
   a) Budget surplus committee
      i) Purpose of committee detailed in Treasurer Report
      ii) Volunteered for committee service:
          (1) Marc-Etienne Ouimette marc-etienne.ouimette@mail.mcgill.ca (Politics)
          (2) Jordan Geller jordan_geller@hotmail.com (Chemistry; until January)
          (3) Greg Brass gbrass1@po-box.mcgill.ca (Anthro)
          (4) James McCrea james.mccrea@mail.mcgill.ca (Poli Sci)
   b) Grader Mobilization Committee
      i) Issue previously touched upon under Article 39 & Nomination of Grievance
          Officers
      ii) Volunteered for committee service
          (1) Maggie Livingstone maggie@physics.mcgill.ca (Physics)
          (2) Laura Perry perryl@physics.mcgill.ca (Physics)
          (3) Dima Ayoub dima.ayoub@sympatico.ca (English)
          (4) Frederic Fournier frederic.fournier@mail.mcgill.ca (Philosophy)

7) OTHER BUSINESS
   a) Arts & Science Faculty committees electing members at large in October to sit on
      these committees
      i) Science meeting: Oct 13, 5:30 (PENDING). Thomson House
      ii) Arts meeting: Oct 20, 5:30, Thomson House
      iii) Spread the word
   b) GRADERS brought up by JORDAN Geller (Chemistry)
      i) For three years at GAs, people asked if they were graders at sign-in
      ii) In English, grader grievance was filed; needs to be pursued
      iii) Unionizing graders is going to be difficult; is a long term strategy
           (1) Most important issue: distinction between TA & casual grader is unclear
           (2) No student contact = grader : This is McGill’s position, but it is unofficial.
               Not in the CA
           (3) Job classification issue is key. Arbitration of this issue is where this should
               be pursued. Need for fresh grader cases to pursue arbitration.
                                                      GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)      8


   iv) Must get through to graders and overcome their fear of reprisals so they come
        forward to support this case in arbitration.
   v) This is Jordan’s suggestion for the Grader Mobilization committee.
c) Other questions and comments on graders
   i) AMY COX (Political Science) poses question to Jordan:
        (1) Is there any way to ensure anonymity for graders fearful of reprisals?
        (2) Jordan’s response:
            (a) All hearings are closed hearings at le ministère du Travail
            (b) Reprisals can be stemmed by discussing with dept. chairs and ensuring
                  that any reprisals are investigated and followed-up.
            (c) Reprisals can also be stemmed by getting ALL graders in a unit to sign
                  on to grievance
   ii) AMY asks: Is it possible to get a hold of graders through surveys or other
        means that aren’t as laborious?
        (1) JORDAN responds: Access to information laws will provide grader lists
            from McGill
   iii) ORIANE asks: How can one distinguish casual grader employment from other
        types of casual student employment?
        (1) Discussion about feasibility of using access to information laws to get the
            list.
   iv) Jordan proposes 3 pronged approach w/ various time frames
        (1) Access to info laws
        (2) Survey members through listserv
        (3) Possibility to pursue unionization of graders
   v) Question: Olivier Landry (Physics) raises issue of undergrad graders
        (1) Undergrads are not covered under the AGSEM contract so would not be
            involved in these efforts
   vi) JORDAN wraps up grader issue
        (1) Advises to try all tactics and act quickly

d) PHYSICS TA EVALUATIONS REPORT by Olivier Landry
   landryo@physics.mcgill.ca (Physics)
   i) Presented issue of lack of thorough feedback mechanism to assess TA
       performance.
       (1) With lack of training, TAs want to use whatever means they can to
            improve their teaching performance.
       (2) Physics TAs want to start TA evaluation process in First year courses as
            well as with professors at end of this term.
            (a) Will be voluntary and confidential.
            (b) Run by MGAPS (Physics Grad Association), not by faculty or
                administration.
            (c) Approval sought from Physics dept.; AGSEM UC; etc.
e) KYLE says: These evaluations won’t affect future hiring, they’re strictly for TA
   improvement;
   i) Physics forms may be made available and TAs from that department may be
       listed as contacts for this issue on the AGSEM website
                                                     GA Minutes (Sept 23, 2004)      9


  f) JORDAN says: In Chemistry this already happens;
     i) tallied by a student group;
     ii) Physics should look into how Chemistry does it as a model.
  g) Marie-Claire Albanese mclaire@bic.mni.mcgill.ca (Psychology) says: PSYCH
     does this too.
     i) Undergrad program secretary responsible for handing the questionaires out.


MEETING ADJOURNED at 8:45pm