A few interesting points:
1. The Provost and VP Students were tasked with checking the fee with AvEd before this will go to full board. This exposes an opportunity to raise concerns with the Ministry, and I feel there’s a good chance it’ll be thrown out.
2. Apparently there was little-to-no concern around the table about the precedent this sets, and in fact one Board member reportedly spoke up about how it’s ‘fantastic’ students want to pay for academic buildings.
3. The reason given for why this has to be done so fast is so that seismic upgrades can be done over the summer. If this is true, I would prefer to see a Board 3 revised approval for just Phase I and seismic, with a separate Board 3 for Phase II at the May/June Board meeting. This would allow the CUS time to try to negotiate any changes to the building that they desire, and would at least provide the appearance of being more transparent.
4. Reportedly the final approval also hinges upon Commerce and the University being ‘on the same page’ as well as student by-in, but somehow I’m not sure I believe them.

The tuition-related fix apparently had “International” written instead of “Domestic”, which was fixed at the meeting, and apparently is all correct now with no changes of substance.

Peter: Trust me, there was great debate about moral responsibility, but when it came down to it, it appeared that we were *legally bound* to vote yes (or abstain). The wording of this bylaw was more specific than the Student Court one, and there appeared to be no reasonable wiggle room.

Maybe, but I can see the point. Not like it, mind you, but see it nonetheless.

Though, the same used to be said of the Council’s inability to reject Student Court motions… until it first tabled them (ignore) and later voted them down (reject) [if I recall correctly].

Thanks for the info and great article Andrew!

Council did in fact approve the fee. It was felt that according to the way the AMS Bylaws are written, the only grounds Council has to reject a student fee are if procedure was not followed correctly. Since they did in fact follow the procedural rules set forth in the Bylaws, Council was obligated to approve the fee for submission to Board.

That said, the majority of Councilors abstained in protest of the nature of the fee, and a lengthy discussion was had. Ideas regarding authoring a letter to AvEd were also tossed around, but as I’m no longer on Council I’m not sure if those are being pursued or not.

A friend of mine said it best:
“Maybe the university there wanted to somehow get a new building?”

…

Honestly, all this entire saga has taught me is that university administrations and investment banks have much more in common than one would have thought possible.

Any basic mortgage calculator will tell you that the additional prepayments ($50*2700 students) could reduce the mortgage from 35 years to 26 years. I wonder if letting students off the hook by 2036 is sufficient.

Angus docket item has some gems in it:

“Project commenced prior to establishment of firm sustainability targets.” [in 2007?

UBC didn’t care about sustainability in 2007?

“Cyclical Maintenance: $642,500/yr. Funding Source: Student Fees”

If “phase” doesn’t mean “standalone project”… what does it mean?

Hope someone can attend the meeting. I’ve got an exam.