WLUSU board year-end review
The 2009-10 year for the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union board of directors has seen little accomplished, especially in the second semester.
Although they passed a market research project at the June budget meeting, they have not done much since then.
Debate over issues has been minimal during the past few meetings, and although new ends have been passed, great changes to improve the union have not been made.
Under the guidance of chair Saad Aslam, the board seems to have given up and is trying to rush through the second semester of their term, which is disappointing as directors generally take months to actually learn their roles and how to operate effectively as a board.
Even directors such as Andrew Fryer, who was once very outspoken, has contributed little recently, and incoming chair Kyle Hocking has done little to demonstrate his leadership abilities this term.
With little passion and not much to show for the year, the board has failed to represent the student body with the confidence in which they were elected.
Best director: Jordan Hyde
Hyde has performed consistently well throughout the course of his term, right through the last meeting.
He displays a genuine passion for student politics and is always willing to question management, the chair and the board, while remaining respectful.
Hyde is well-prepared for meetings, having read the documents ahead of time, which gives him the proper knowledge needed to engage in discussion. His inquisitive nature and interest in finances has made him a valuable director; he often brings up issues that other directors are not willing to discuss.
Disclosure: Hyde is chair of the Wilfrid Laurier University Student Publications’ board of directors.
Most improved director: Laura Allen
During second semester it seems that Allen has found her voice in the boardroom, which was her biggest weakness in first semester. She asks important and logical questions and brings up valid discussion points.
Allen also does not seem afraid to ask questions regarding issues that are confusing, concerns that other directors often share but do not voice. She appears to be prepared for meetings, following agenda items closely and displaying an overall engagement in the issues being discussed.
Most disappointing director: Jackie Dobson
As one of the few returning directors, Jackie Dobson had great potential to be a resource for other board members; unfortunately, Dobson did little in her term. She was rarely vocal in the boardroom – something that was her strength in the past – and appeared to lose interest in issues as the term progressed.
As a senior director she should have not only been engaged, but also encouraged her peers to do the same. Although she sat on the ends committee, which did not meet until well into the second semester, the degree of her participation has been unclear.
–Laura Carlson, Lauren Millet and Linda Givetash