BUSU’s mid-term board meeting yielded some interesting results, including the first failed motion of the year.
October saw the BUSU Board of Directors meet twice. The first was an hour-and-a-half long, in-camera special meeting on Oct. 1, in which no motions were reported, but the second was their regularly scheduled monthly public meeting.
Posted on their YouTube meeting playlist two days after it took place, the board’s Oct. 22 meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The agenda and the last meeting’s minutes were approved before Kayleigh Rossetto began her presentation on the 2024-25 BUSU Division 1 Operating Budget.
BUSU General Manager Robert Hilson acknowledged that the budget was coming a bit later than usual due to BUSU VPEA Mark Chrabalowski’s being away in Ghana for an academic excursion in the summer.
Rossetto explained that this several million-dollar budget was based on the BUSU Operating Fee, the $24.40 per credit ancillary cost applied to full-time Brock students. She explained that BUSU is a multi-million-dollar organization, around $15-16 million, so the numbers here are high for a reason.
This is a long and thorough list, but as Rossetto did, this article will only highlight the most pertinent stats. Students wishing to see the complete budget can do so through the BUSU Governance page on their website.
She began by outlining BUSU’s revenue, which comes from a variety of sources including $150,000 from the university, $12,018 in rental income from both The Brock Press and BrockTV, locker sales, food bank donations and more.
By far the largest source of income is through student fees, which provide $2,044,938 of the total $2,341,424 of revenue.
Next up were expenses, in which the budget had split into four categories.
The first category, “Staff Costs,” consisted of a total of $1,437,000. Notable items in this category were the $184,000 in BUSU executive team salaries, $790,000 to salary the BUSU permanent staff, $120,000 to cover part-time costs — for the 20 BUSU office part-timers, not staff at General Brock, Union Station, et cetera — $13,000 in parking for staff and executives, $8,500 for staff and executive food allowances, and $12,000 for the monthly cell phone plan. Also included in this list were numbers for typical wage expenses like EI and CPP as well as stat, holiday and vacation pay.
The second category was “Appointed/Elected Student Training and Development,” to which $58,300 was allotted. This fund included $18,000 in honorariums to recognize the time of the six student senators; a combined $5,800 for the BUSU Transition Retreat; a combined $4,000 for BUSU executive professional development and $20,000 for BUSU executive annual priorities — funds which the Board allocates via a vote.
The third category of “Office Expenses” had a total of $619,000, which covered everything from insurance premiums ($107,000), legal costs ($20,000), consulting fees ($40,000), IT support ($78,000) — which Rossetto elaborated are not covered by Brock’s IT Services — miscellaneous office expenses ($10,000) and more. The largest of these costs were the property expenses including utilities at $233,000, a reduced cost from last year since BUSU replaced the lighting in their building with more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives.
The fourth and final category was titled “Other Expenses.” Included here were relatively minor expenses like a $2,000 donation fund, $1,000 for meeting expenses and $4,500 for elections and referendums. Also listed were some major expenses, like a combined $10,000 for end-of-term BUSU parties “to recognize our students,” a $20,000 food bank donation, $15,000 for exam drive-home and safety services, a $35,000 Division 1 marketing expense, a combined $12,500 for costs associated with sending permanent staff members to conferences, $25,000 to keep the website running, a $20,000 contingency fund and $40,000 set aside to cover BUSU Social Enterprises losses.
This category listed an additional $225,500 of expenses, putting the total expenses at $2,340,000. When comparing revenue to expenses, the budget outlined a small earning of $724, a number that Hilson explained would be put into BUSU’s $1.6 million unrestricted surplus fund, money which is reallocated for a “rainy day.”
The board members had some questions:
Mohiz Imtiaz asked for clarification on the annual priorities worth $20,000. Rossetto explained that this is a pooled fund for BUSU executives to spend on their goals for the year. This fund used to be split between all four executives, but this year they decided to let Pahuja and the team decide how to split that money.
Vice-Chair Charlie Martin asked for clarification on the Donation/Goodwill line, a $2,000 expense. Rossetto and Hilson explained that this fund gives BUSU a chance to be a sponsor when they want to be present for something going on in the community, like the Hadiya’dagénhahs Pow Wow in January or the BLCS Play for Memories Ball Hockey Tournament.
Imtiaz asked to see staff salaries from previous years to have a benchmark to compare with this year’s $790,000 permanent staff expense. Hilson explained that students can see the last seven years of financial statements and budgets on the BUSU Governance page, but he said looking at just the last few years was “deceiving” because of their limited expenditures in the wake of COVID-19. He said this year is probably BUSU’s “first normal year of operation” since that time.
Imtiaz also questioned whether “group benefits or other contributions can be reduced,” to which Rossetto explained that BUSU regularly compares its employee benefits with other student unions and that they are “certainly in line and within the realm of what other people are doing.” To a follow-up question about pay scale, Rossetto said that this too had controls via pay bands based on the roles, responsibilities and skills associated with each job. She said these numbers are also benchmarked not only against other student unions but also the St. Catharines job market.
Board Chair Brielle Kaminsky requested the board be reminded how much each BUSU executive makes in a year. Rossetto explained that each of the three Vice Presidents makes $45,491 a year and the President makes $46,726 a year.
Kaminsky asked for elaboration on the $13,000 staff and executive parking expense. Rossetto said that the expense covers a spot for all permanent staff and all executives in Lot A, right beside the school.
Kaminsky asked for the breakdown of the $8,500 staff and executive food allowances. Rossetto explained that each executive and the General Manager get $1,000, and all permanent staff — except unionized staff — get $500. This allowance covers meals at Isaac’s, Harvey’s and Booster Juice as an “added bonus,” and the straight $500 is an expense that “doesn’t cost the organization,” said Rossetto. She further explained that this is supposed to cover meals for when workers are on campus for their jobs.
Kaminsky asked for clarification on the $12,000 monthly cell phone plan. Rossetto explained that this is also a tiered system based on pay bands: the lower pay band employees get $50 a month, the medium tier gets $75 and the executive tier gets $100. She explained that a corporate plan is “cumbersome” and “complicated” with constantly switching executives and the added grievance of carrying two cell phones.
Martin put it succinctly when he asked for clarification: “So essentially people who are getting paid more get more money for their phone plan?”
Rossetto countered that executives have the highest plan even though they aren’t paid the most and that it was better to think about it in terms of job responsibility and corporate hierarchy. Hilson clarified that from a communications perspective, executives have to deal with a lot more messages and he’s the one who people call when things go awry whether it’s a weekend or the middle of the night.
Imtiaz pointed to the increase in executive salaries from the last year, leaping from $120,000 in 2023-24 to the current $184,000, and asked for clarification on why this was the case, even as permanent staff salaries decreased.
Hilson explained that a couple of reasons had affected the permanent staff salary: the Student Choice Initiative where students could opt out of ancillary fees and the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which diminished BUSU’s resources.
To answer the executive salary question, he said that last year, the board accepted a request to increase the executives’ salaries and to keep these salaries growing each year in line with the cost-of-living index (CLI), which this year was a 3.67 per cent increase. Rossetto added that a portion of the VPUA’s salary used to come out of the Health and Dental Plan, but this is no longer the case, hence the large visible increase.
Imtiaz asked when the board could “contest or re-evaluate” the salaries of the executive team, which Rossetto responded would have to wait until the hiring process begins, but the board could look into the process come January.
With no further questions, the board moved to approve the budget, a resolution that passed unanimously by the seven present voting members.
With that hefty motion finished, the board moved to in-camera at 7:42 p.m., where they remained until 9:19 p.m. There were no motions reported in the minutes, though a later comment by Imtiaz describes one of the elements they discussed, that being a “perception that BUSU is paying using student dollars for vacations or trips or conferences.” This would be a major point of discussion in the next motion.
BUSU President Anusha Pahuja motioned for the board to fund BUSU VPUA Carleigh Charlton’s trip to Brisbane, Australia for the OE Global Conference and award ceremony in November, in which Charlton was the only student award winner. The amount requested was $1,900, this being additional to the $1,000 from Charlton’s pre-approved professional development funding and a $2,500 contribution from Brock.
Pahuja explained the importance of open education resources (OER) — teaching, learning and research materials in any medium that exists in the public domain or is released under open license copyright. She pointed to a survey in 2020, in which 667 Brock students said cost was the reason for not purchasing textbooks in both required and elective courses, and some went so far as to say that cost had led to them receiving lower grades or dropping courses outright.
She explained that Brock’s program is the first of its kind in Ontario and has been acknowledged as a model for mid- to large-scale universities. Sending Charlton to Australia, she said, would honour her contributions and yield a benefit for BUSU as they are writing a “Tech Enabled Learning” OUSA paper in the spring and Charlton’s experience at this conference would make for a better paper.
This, however, was not enough to convince board members.
Martin began the question period by speaking in favour of the motion, saying he felt this was a worthwhile cost and citing Brock’s funding of it as proof. He said the trip was “a good moment for BUSU as an organization to get OERs known more world-round [and] in the Brock community.”
But the rest of the board was apprehensive, asking if there was anywhere else the money could come from. Imtiaz requested a reminder of Charlton’s yearly salary, a $45,491 figure that has increased from last year due to the CPI.
Hilson put forth a concern relating to a discussion they had in-camera about Charlton’s absence from the office for an additional week on top of whatever future OUSA plans arise on top of the current General Assembly at Brock.
Kaminsky requested they have a further discussion before voting, beginning the conversation with her own opinion: “As an executive of BUSU, she’s already making a significant salary; I think the $1,900 should come directly from her since she’s already receiving funding for this conference from Brock.”
“Good for her that she’s going, but I don’t think that has to come out of more student dollars,” said Kaminsky.
Moreover, she agreed with Hilson that it would be better if Charlton remained at Brock to perform her roles as VPUA.
Imtiaz said that he was concerned with a proposed outsider’s perspective that this would appear as though BUSU was just using student money to send one of its members on a trip. Imtiaz’s clarification on the professional development fund led to a discussion wherein the board realized Charlton would need to request the $1,000 that had been guaranteed in the initial proposal on top of the additional $1,900.
The board also figured that this $1,000 couldn’t possibly be used in full, as there are costs associated with the then-ongoing OUSA General Assembly and any upcoming OUSA events which this professional development fund is already covering.
Imtiaz said that there are many conferences he would love to attend, but he wouldn’t consider using student dollars, a point he said is especially prescient considering Charlton is already paid using student funds.
The concern of Charlton’s time away from the office for a conference “halfway around the world” came up again, with someone worried about an increasing backlog of work should the funds be approved. Kaminsky went so far as to question if the board had the power to outright prohibit Charlton from going to Australia regardless of their decision on the requested funds.
Rossetto and Hilson said in that case, Charlton could request vacation time to go, something Pahuja has authorization over and not the board, though this would depend on how many vacation hours Charlton has already used.
Kaminsky asked if the professional development fund was used in full last year, to which Hilson responded yes, “by a lot, like a very lot,” with each executive using around $10,000. After further clarification on the subject and a re-phrasing of the motion to capture the dual request of $1,000 in professional development funds and $1,900 in additional funds, Kaminsky put forward the motion.
Martin was the mover, but with no seconder, the motion failed without going to a vote.
There was some additional conversation about whether the motion should have been split into two motions, with Hilson asking if the board wanted to approve the $1,000 request and Pahuja seemingly interested in a motion to reconsider, but after more clarification of intentions and specifics, the conversation fizzled out.
Hilson and Pahuja then provided their monthly reports.
Hilson described their fourth meeting with the architect for the new student centre. He said BUSU would present the plans to the Brock Board of Trustees on Dec. 4 and Dec. 5, and if approved, construction would begin as soon as the coming spring or summer.
He also provided some quick updates: the BUSU Instagram page has a blue checkmark and is approaching 17,300 followers; club ratification began on Oct. 21 — with clubs like the Brock Labour Studies Student Association and Brock Miniatures being BUSU-recognized — and will continue until Nov. 8; the President’s Advisory Committee on Human Rights, Equity and Decolonization (PACHRED) is looking for BUSU to run a referendum in February 2025 and have requested to meet with the board in November; BUSU will be recognizing both Remembrance Day and Indigenous Veteran’s Day; and the Night Market is coming on Nov. 20.
Pahuja got right into her report, saying that each executive wrote their own report this month, as requested by the board — unfortunately, these reports were restricted to the board members portal and are not visible to the public.
She highlighted the successful Fall Carnival, which saw around 5,000 attendees and a new arcade prize system; her and the executives’ meetings with local politicians; her email communications with Brad Clarke — Brock’s Associate VP, Students and Acting Associate VP, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion — on Oct. 2 regarding BUSU’s Food First program, to which she has not heard back from; her and Charlton’s invitation to the newly approved Strategic Plan’s launch on Nov. 7; her and Charlton’s planned meeting with the Provost; and the success of the Fall Convocation.
Pahuja’s most interesting note was that she and the executive team have been working to improve their communications with students. They’ve begun holding Instagram Live videos to update students on weekly events and initiatives, and they are working on setting up office hours where students can physically speak with executives.
With her report finished, the board moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
While this was an incredibly bulky meeting, it was a critical one, in which the board exercised their right to deny the use of student funding for reasons deemed unfit, and wherein Brock students got an in-depth look at where a large portion of their ancillary fees are being used.
These meetings may not be glamorous, but it is imperative that Brock students recognize the decisions their board is making on their behalf.
Any communications with the board can be directed to Board Chair Brielle Kaminsky at chair@brockbusu.ca.