The first part of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held by the Students’ Union Okanagan (SUO) was an eventful one with a turnout of more than 100 students. As the student population debated and voted on the 14 resolutions proposed by the Alliance for Student Empowerment, the meeting went till midnight, with half of the agenda remaining, including presentations from the executives. It was thus decided to recess the meeting and discuss the rest of the agenda items at a later date. As a consequence, the SUO held the second part of the AGM on January 28 in the UNC Ballroom.
Unlike most AGMs, which are usually held in the evening in order to avoid conflicts with classes, the second AGM was held at 1pm in the afternoon, which was an odd decision on the part of the SUO. Since a lot of students had classes, and members of the Alliance thought items of their interest had already been discussed, the turnout was extremely low. However, there was a motion to reopen two of the resolutions that were already passed in the first AGM, and they were consequently overturned. Even though the SUO denies any involvement in the reopening of resolutions, members of the Alliance have claimed it to be a “clearly coordinated movement” and raised several questions against the validity of it.
Rebecca Godard, a member of the Alliance who was present at the AGM, shared her thoughts on the events that took place. She said that there was a disputable quorum. Quorum is the minimum number of members (students) that should be present at the meeting to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. Mike, who runs the Well, was the one doing the count to ensure quorum. This goes against proper procedure, as the responsibility typically falls on the chair, who may rely on a secretary, designated officer, or an appointed individual. Danial Asif, the current President of the SUO, said that the executives were doing what the chair had instructed them to do, and that the SUO takes issues related to fairness and compliance to rules very seriously.
Even though the SUO denies it being a coordinated move, it is interesting to note that the motions to overturn were raised by a director-at-large and a faculty representative, both students involved in the union. Moreover, the overturned motions were the ones that made the union more transparent and democratic. The first one required all SUO Board and Committee meetings to be observed by students and required them to post sufficient notice of the meetings on the SUO website.
The other overturned resolution made contracts with businesses in the UNC, such as Koi Sushi, RBC, and others, subject to AGM approval. This would have meant that students could officially vote for which businesses they want in the UNC. Godard said that after the overturning of resolutions, executives were seen celebrating. Saaim Imraan, the current VP Campus life, also posted an Instagram story about it that he later had to apologize for.
Considering the SUO’s history and allegations of embezzlement in previous years, one cannot help but ponder why the union is so adamant about not opening its meetings to the students. Asif clarified:
“[A]ny action following the AGM’s decisions was not intended to alienate or divide students from the executive team. The executive team’s role is to ensure the success of the SUO, and sometimes, it’s easy to misinterpret a moment of relief or celebration. That said, I understand how this could be viewed differently, and we will make sure to be more mindful of how our actions are perceived moving forward.”
Beyond the issues of quorum and intent, it is also questionable if the motions to reopen were valid according to Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules of Order are a set of parliamentary procedures that guide meetings like the AGM. According to the rules, a motion to reopen an already passed resolution can only be introduced by someone who originally voted in favour of the motion. In the first meeting, there was no record taken of which students voted in favour of the motions, as they were passed by a quick count of raised hands.
If one was to speculate, it only makes sense that the director and the representative, both involved in the union that treats the Alliance as an outgroup, are unlikely to have voted in the favour of the resolutions originally. This also makes it invalid. When I questioned Asif about it, he insisted that the rules were followed thoroughly, but failed to provide any concrete evidence in his favour.
As the motions were quickly overturned with little discussion, members of the Alliance felt blindsided and alienated, and walked out of the meeting in protest. Godard said,
“It all happened so suddenly, and felt so rushed. Someone asked for a motion to end discussion and go straight to the vote. I thought that could only be done when a matter was sufficiently discussed, and that motion definitely wasn’t. We did not know what to do, so we left after the first item was overturned, in hopes that they would have to stop because of lack of quorum. However, they did the count and said there were still 51 people, which is only one student above the required number … [T]hat is definitely not how the Union should go about their procedures.”
They argued that even if the procedure was in accordance with rules — which is highly unlikely — it still was not in a democratic spirit, as a petition signed by 600 students and passed by more than 100 students was then overturned by less than 60 students, at an inconvenient time, with little discussion.
With the recent elections, the Alliance and the union had a tiff once again, as the Alliance was looking to endorse candidates that align with their values. The SUO did not allow this, claiming it could be counted as slating. With this, the Alliance’s dissatisfaction increased more, as they sent out an email to their membership claiming the SUO was trying to “block grassroots scrutiny of elected officials” once again.
This 2025 election has had the highest number of people running for executive positions out of my four years at UBC. With the high number of candidates and high turn out at the first AGM, it is clear that the student population has a growing interest in union affairs. After the pandemic, this steady rise of involvement is very healthy. However, as the union keeps taking decisions that the involved students disagree with, it is extremely important for the union to go ahead carefully, and make sure the steps taken are in strict compliance with the rules.
Beyond this, as Asif rightly analyses, the perception of the union is as important as the work done by the union. Even though there is good work being done, such as the transport subsidy and the building referendum, there is also work to be done to make sure students are heard, their suggestions democratically discussed and implemented. Treating students as an outgroup that needs to be hushed is not a good strategy on the part of the union.
The events that took place at the second AGM raise severe questions about the intentions and processes of the union. As the elections take place as I write this article, I am curious to see what the turnouts are, and if the Alliance is powerful enough to get students with aligning values elected into positions of power. Regardless of who gets elected, it is necessary to understand that student alliances consist of highly motivated people with strong voices and values. It is important for the executive board to ensure that the alliances are happy. As a new Graduate Student Association is formed after years of discontentment, continued discontent from other student groups can further decrease the power of the union and have long term consequences.
If the SUO wishes to maintain credibility and legitimacy, it must act with greater transparency and inclusivity moving forward. Alienating student groups or appearing to maneuver against democratic principles can only lead to further division. The role of a student union is to serve its members, and the moment students feel excluded from the decision-making process, the institution itself loses its integrity. As students continue to demand more accountability and representation, the SUO must reflect on its actions and work towards building trust rather than eroding it.
1 Partridge, E., & Nixon, C. (2017). Conflict in Kelowna. The Ubyssey. Source Link
2 Robert, H. M. (2018). Robert's rules of order : Revised for deliberative assemblies : Inclusive of robert's rules of order, five hundred and twenty-fifth thousand. W. Briggs.
.png){kind=small}
