Phase One: Council Refresh Project/CRP: GSA Report
Descripción
Phase One: Council Refresh Project/CRP: GSA Report Proposed Council Seat Re-allocation for the Graduate Students‟ Association (GSA) at Brock University
March 2016
Prepared by: Christopher Yendt Faculty of Education Representative Graduate Students‟ Association Brock University
Prepared for: Member Consideration GSA Council Graduate Students‟ Association Brock University
Acknowledgements: This paper would not have been possible without the ongoing support of the Graduate Students‟ Association at Brock University. Specifically, this paper would like to thank Barb Daly, Office Coordinator for acting as the ultimate resource for past and present knowledge within the GSA and therefore helping to guide its future practice. Her continued reservoir of knowledge has proved indispensable and without it this proposal would surely not have been possible. Additional thanks are due 2015-2016 GSA President Aiden Smyth and the entire 20152016 GSA Executive as well as Brock University for providing space and equipment for the late night research necessary to successfully complete this proposal. I would also like to thank my countless friends and colleagues who have supported me throughout this process, and who have given me the drive to stay motivated even when it seemed like this report would never end and, most importantly to the „Fab Four‟ in the Faculty of Education who have kept me sane through writing this report. Thank you for everything you continue to do to support my passionate and strange love affair with policy and governance. This report is the result of over six months of research and writing in order to achieve a level of information that was substantial enough that it warranted public release. The hope is that all of those of you who are reading this document have any and all of your questions answered and that the recommendations are consistent with the findings provided. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and understand this report, your willingness to engage in the discussions that this report will produce underscore the very reasons that student government is so important to the professional and personal lives of the students we represent. Your time and dedication are very much appreciated, so thank you for your continued efforts.
Yours in Good Governance,
Sincerely, Christopher P. Yendt
Page | 2
Contents Acknowledgements: ....................................................................................................... 2 Introduction: .................................................................................................................... 7 Glossary:............................................................................................................................ 8 Section 1: Report Rationale ........................................................................................ 10 Four Phase Approach: .............................................................................................. 10 Phase One: The Council Refresh Project ...................................................................... 10 Phase Two: Translating Theory into Practice .............................................................. 11 Phase Three: Determining Council’s Purpose .............................................................. 11 Phase Four: Solidifying Opportunities, Achieving Results ........................................... 11 Section 2: Comparators ................................................................................................ 12 Graph 1: List of Public Ontario Universities by Total Graduate Enrolment ................ 14 Graph 2: Ontario GSA‟s by Council Size (Representatives Only) ............................... 14 Graph 3: GSA Council Average Size vs. Brock University GSA Council Size........... 15 Table 2: Population of Ontario Public University Governing Boards .......................... 16 Table 3: The Council/Board Size Continuum ............................................................... 17 Graph 4: Ratio of Students to Representatives (RSR) .................................................. 18 Graph 5: RSR of Brock University‟s GSA versus Ontario Average ............................ 19 Graph 6: Breakdown of Ontario GSA Council‟s by Representation Type ................... 19 Graph 7: Number of Graduate Faculties at Brock University vs. Ontario Average ..... 21 Graph 8: Graduate Programs/Departments at Brock University vs. Ontario Average . 21 Section 3: Report Limitations ..................................................................................... 23 Section 4: Potential Governance Models .................................................................. 24 Overarching Election/Selection Model (Centralized vs. Decentralized vs. Hybrid) .... 24 Centralized Elections/Representative Selection ..................................................... 24 Decentralized Elections/Representative Selection ................................................. 24 Hybrid Elections/Representative Selection............................................................. 24 Graph 9: Graphical Representation of Centralized vs. Decentralized vs. Hybrid Council Election Structures in Ontario ....................................................................................... 25 Representation Breakdown ........................................................................................... 25 Representation determined by Program: ...................................................................... 25 Page | 3
Representation determined by Faculty: ...................................................................... 26 Methods not currently implemented: .......................................................................... 27 Section 5: Potential Governance Needs .................................................................... 28 Capped System vs. Expandable System ........................................................................ 28 Ground Up Model vs. Back-calculated Model: ............................................................ 28 Concepts behind the Recommended Model: ................................................................. 29 Representation by Population (Rep by Pop) Seats: ...................................................... 29 Overhang Seats: ............................................................................................................ 29 At-Large Seats ............................................................................................................... 30 Other Considerations: .................................................................................................. 30 Section 6: Recommended Governance Model (SRP) ................................................... 31 Table 4: Council Composition Calculator using 2014/2015 Enrollment ..................... 31 Table 5: Council Composition Calculator using 2015/2016 Enrollment ..................... 32 Why not the SCS model? ............................................................................................... 33 Section 7: Paths to Implementation .......................................................................... 35 Section 8: Process to Implementation ...................................................................... 36 Table 6: Phase One Proposed Timeline ........................................................................ 36 Section 9: Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................... 39 Section 10: Phase Two; Determining Council’s Purpose ............................................ 41 Section 11: Note on Appendices ..................................................................................... 42 List of Comparators: ..................................................................................................... 42 Appendix 1: Provincial Comparators ........................................................................ 44 Table 7: University Index Key...................................................................................... 44 Appendix 1.1 University Graduate Populations vs. Ratio of Students to Representatives (RSR) ................................................................................................ 44 Appendix 1.2: Number of Representatives per Program and Faculty .................... 45 Appendix 1.3: Centralized vs. Decentralized vs. Hybrid Council Election Styles ... 46 Appendix 1.4: Capped vs. Expandable and Bicameral vs. Hybrid Comparators .... 47 Appendix 2: Models of Council Using the Set Council Size Model (SCS) ............. 49 Appendix 2.01 Set Council Size at Five (5) ................................................................ 49 Appendix 2.02 Set Council Size at Ten (10) .............................................................. 49 Page | 4
Appendix 2.03 Set Council Size at Fifteen (15) ......................................................... 50 Appendix 2.04 Set Council Size at Twenty (20) ........................................................ 51 Appendix 2.05 Set Council Size at Twenty-Five (25) ............................................... 51 Appendix 2.06 Set Council Size at Thirty (30) .......................................................... 52 Appendix 2.07 Set Council Size at Thirty-Five (35) ................................................. 52 Appendix 2.08 Set Council Size at Forty (40) ........................................................... 53 Appendix 2.09 Set Council Size at Forty-Five (45) ................................................... 54 Appendix 2.10 Set Council Size at Fifty (50) ............................................................. 54 Appendix 2.11 Set Council Size at Fifty-Five (55) .................................................... 55 Appendix 2.12 Set Council Size at Sixty (60) ............................................................ 56 Appendix 2.13 Set Council Size at Sixty-Five (65) .................................................... 56 Appendix 2.14 Set Council Size at Seventy (70) ....................................................... 57 Appendix 2.15 Set Council Size at Seventy-Five (75) ............................................... 57 Appendix 2.16 Set Council Size at Eighty (80) .......................................................... 58 Appendix 2.17 Set Council Size at Eighty-Five (85) ................................................. 59 Appendix 2.18 Set Council Size at Ninety (90) ......................................................... 59 Appendix 2.19 Set Council Size at Ninety-Five (95) ................................................. 60 Appendix 2.20 Set Council Size at One-Hundred (100) ........................................... 61 Appendix 3: Models of Council Using the Set Representation by Population Model (SRP) .................................................................................................................... 62 Appendix 3.01: Set Representation by Population at Five (5) ................................ 62 Appendix 3.02: Set Representation by Population at Ten (10) ............................... 62 Appendix 3.03: Set Representation by Population at Fifteen (15) ......................... 63 Appendix 3.04: Set Representation by Population at Twenty (20) ........................ 64 Appendix 3.05: Set Representation by Population at Twenty-Five (25) ................ 64 Appendix 3.06: Set Representation by Population at Thirty (30) ........................... 65 Appendix 3.07: Set Representation by Population at Thirty-Five (35) .................. 66 Appendix 3.08: Set Representation by Population at Forty (40) ............................ 66 Appendix 3.09: Set Representation by Population at Forty-Five (45) ................... 67 Appendix 3.10: Set Representation by Population at Fifty (50) ............................. 67 Appendix 3.11: Set Representation by Population at Fifty-Five (55) ..................... 68 Page | 5
Appendix 3.12: Set Representation by Population at Sixty (60) ............................. 69 Appendix 3.13: Set Representation by Population at Sixty-Five (65) .................... 69 Appendix 3.14: Set Representation by Population at Seventy (70) ........................ 70 Appendix 3.15: Set Representation by Population at Seventy-Five (75) ............... 71 Appendix 3.16: Set Representation by Population at Eighty (80) .......................... 71 Appendix 3.17: Set Representation by Population at Eighty- Five (85) ................. 72 Appendix 3.18: Set Representation by Population at Ninety (90) .......................... 72 Appendix 3.19: Set Representation by Population at Ninety-Five (95) ................. 73 Appendix 3.20: Set Representation by Population at One Hundred (100) ............ 74
Page | 6
Introduction: Brock University‟s Graduate Students‟ Association is a relatively young organization, having only existed from sixteen or so years, and fewer as an officially incorporated notfor-profit in the Province of Ontario. This age provides positives and negatives, but also great opportunities for the organization both in terms of growth but also in terms of stakeholder engagement and interest. One of the major hindrances that the organization currently faces is an organizational structure which creates the appearance of a bicameral system, despite the fact that there is only one level of governance, which is clearly identified in the organization‟s constitution (also known as Bylaw One). The purpose of this proposal (called the Council Refresh Project/CRP), is to take a sector wide look at the different structures utilized by GSA‟s in the province of Ontario, and from that analysis pull elements of best practice in order to better engage more of the Brock GSA stakeholders. The analysis will also allow for an understanding of common problems and issues that are holding GSA‟s back collectively. Together, all of this information will be utilized in order to determine a new governance structure in line with the Four Phase Future structure.
Page | 7
Glossary: Terms are listed in alphabetical order.
Bicameral GSA:
This refers to a Graduate Students‟ Association which operates with a clear division of power between the general council and the executive of the organization (differentiating between officers and directors).
Director:
The term provided under the Corporations Act in Ontario as well as proposed ONCA legislation. The term director is interchangeable with Representative or Councillor in Bylaw One of the GSA. Directors are those persons who make up all positions on an organization’s board.
Ex-officio:
A position which holds another office or position as a result of that job title (i.e. most University Presidents are also exofficio members of their university‟s governing board).
Fiscal Year:
This refers to the Fiscal Year of the Brock University Graduate Students‟ Association, which runs from September 1st till August 31st the following year. Should this report make mention of any other fiscal year it shall be noted.
FTE:
Full-Time Equivalent, the number of courses required to qualify as one full-time student. If, for example, full-time is determined as needing to take five courses in F/W, and part-time is determined as taking courses in F/W then two and a half part-time students would make one full time student. (2 courses X 2.5 part-time students = 5 courses = 1 full-time student).
F/W:
Fall/Winter Semester(s), running from September 1-April 30 each year (With Fall being September 1-December 31 and Winter being January 1-April 30).
GSA:
This paper refers to all graduate student(s) associations as GSA‟s collectively, when specific reference is made to one GSA (for example the Brock University Graduate Students‟ Association) then all effort will be made to ensure that the correct name is used.
Head Count:
The number of actual students enrolled in specific faculties, programs or institutions. This will be a whole number.
Page | 8
Hybrid GSA:
Council and Board are one combined together without a clear or legislated division (also known as a unicameral system).
Officer:
The term provided under the Corporations Act in Ontario as well as proposed ONCA legislation. The term officer is interchangeable with Executive in Bylaw One of the GSA, these are directors that take on specific additional duties that are outlined.
ONCA:
Ontario Not-for-profit Corporations Act, 2010. This is a proposed piece of legislation which will provide additional stakeholder oversight with more power given to an organization’s membership. Currently this piece of legislation is awaiting royal ascent.
Operational Plan:
The lowest level of the three levels of organizational planning. Typically these run for a year and are laid out by incoming officers/executives of an organization. Such plans are generally focused on smaller initiatives that tie into the organizations tactical and strategic plans.
Strategic Plan:
The highest level of the three levels of organizational planning, these are long term grand plans of an organization, that focus on incorporating elements of regular SWOT analyses as well as the mission, vision and values of the organization. Typically are done every 3-5 years though they can be even longer term.
Tactical Plan:
The middle level of the three levels of organizational planning. Tactical plans are focused on integrating and linking Strategic Plans with Operational Plans to ensure that lower level tasks are aligned with the main mission of the organization.
The University of Hearst:
An exclusively francophone university which is a federated school of Laurentian University.
Operating Year:
The Calendar Year and organization operates (from January 1st to December 31st).
S/S:
Spring/Summer semester(s), at Brock University these occupy May, June and July.
SWOT Analysis:
Stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. These sorts of analyses are generally undertaking internally on an ongoing basis, they help to inform strategic decisions taken by the organization and ultimately what direction to take for the organization in the future.
Page | 9
Section 1: Report Rationale Governance for non-profit organizations, specifically within the Province of Ontario, is something that tends to fall into a pattern of routine over one of best practice. Over and over it seems that various NFP‟s lean towards what they know, and what they have done in the past over what could be supported as „good governance‟. These routines rarely provide organizations with good long term visioning or even the ability to assess their situation and determine the best course of action to take. Instead, they prove adept at achieving adequacy and making sure that the organization maintains its current course. Student Union‟s and Associations are certainly no stranger to this mentality; in fact their adherence to best practice usually falls by the wayside in favour of individual interest. Because student associations are intensely diverse in terms of their organizational membership, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve harmonious agreement when it comes to structural change. This only serves to further the problem of maintaining the status quo and means that organizations spent far too long mired in structure which does not provide the ability to move forward in a way that is beneficial for the membership. This report has taken that into consideration and makes an effort, wherever possible, to provide solutions that not only adhere to „good governance‟ and „best practice‟ but are also inclusive of the different needs and concerns of diverse student populations. This is why this report is one of a three part series aimed at addressing current concerns and pairing them with expectations of future needs.
Four Phase Approach: Given the kinds of concerns that are present with the governance model of the council at Brock University‟s GSA it is clear that no one report would be able to address all of these issues, at least not in a satisfactory way. This is why this proposal is taking a three phase approach. Liken each proposal to a step, in order to get to the second step you need to traverse the first, and the same is true of the third to the second. Much of what is proposed in this report will need to be tested in a „pilot‟ implementation. What this means is that in order to attempt the second phase the first phase must be proven effective and manageable. Again, the same is true of the third phase in relation to the second phase and so on.
Phase One: The Council Refresh Project The first phase is contained in this report. This phase outlines research done on all GSA‟s across Ontario and the findings that suggest alternatives to the current governance model employed by the organization. The report focuses on a redesigned council structure which that will allow for greater graduate student engagement as well as equitable faculty representation. The aim is to address issues of quorum in relation to provincial and federal legislation, as well as future provincial legislation (ONCA). This report will provide for a new electoral model as well and point to future directions to be contained in the following two reports.
Page | 10
Phase Two: Translating Theory into Practice The second phase of the approach will result in the creation of the first of a series of new Policy/Procedure documents for the GSA. While these documents will eventually become all-encompassing and deal with all areas of GSA operation that are currently not addressed, the first of these documents will deal specifically with providing policy that translates what is outlined in the Council Refresh Project into legislation that will be both easily accessible and enforceable. This phase will be very sensitive to the fact that most members of the GSA (be they general members or directors/officers) do not have a background in policy and governance, as such any proposed legislation will aim to have as much input from council members as possible in order to ensure that any new policies that are adopted provide necessary coverage while limiting the amount of interpretation necessary to see them upheld.
Phase Three: Determining Council’s Purpose If the first and second phases prove successful then the third phase will look at the ultimate purpose of council and the kind of responsibilities it should have to support its mandate. This report will compare the purpose of council of Brock‟s GSA to those of GSA‟s across the province, and seek to come to consensus around what council should be doing in relation to the officers (executives) of the organization. This is likely to look at everything from an independent chair of council to strategic planning to legislative governance and everything in between. Additional standing committees will also be considered for the purpose of greater council involvement and ultimately for a greater level of corporate responsibility for each council member. Committees will also provide additional leadership opportunities for council members and allow for a better distribution of workloads in order to achieve desired results.
Phase Four: Solidifying Opportunities, Achieving Results The fourth and final phase will examine workloads of the executive and address it in two ways. The first is a more equal distribution of responsibilities across all members of the executive and the second will be to determine any responsibilities that could more effectively be completed by council as a whole as opposed to an overburdened executive. Elements of this report may be included in the Phase Two report, and vice-versa as there is some degree of overlap. This report will likely consider everything from a constitutional referendum to address inconsistencies in GSA Bylaw One, to the creation of additional officers (executives), to the inclusion of the two GSA Senators as officers (executives) of the GSA. Depending on success and interest from GSA representatives a final conclusive report may be worthwhile in order to outline potential concerns moving forward and highlight the most effective elements in the new governance structure. Additionally the report will also highlight concerns that need to be addressed in order to meet proposed requirements of the new ONCA legislation which currently awaits royal assent.
Page | 11
Section 2: Comparators In the first appendix attached at the end of this report you will find a chart which provides the basic comparators which the GSA‟s council structure will be scaled against. These twenty universities encompass every public university in the Province of Ontario. As a first note four of the universities outlined did not have graduate level programs or did not have a formally constituted Graduate Students‟ Association at the time this proposal was written and as such they do not contribute to the overall averages. The data provided in this table will provide a couple of key base comparators for a new council governance model. As the chart indicates, Brock University falls below the provincial average for graduate student population size, in fact the graduate population at Brock is a little over half (approximately 1700 students) of what the provincial graduate population is (approximately 3000 students). This is one of the major contributors to the GSA Council‟s low Ratio of Students to Representatives (RSR) number. At 18.15 Brock‟s GSA has the lowest in the province, and initially this can appear to be a positive. While it is true that the lower a GSA‟s RSR number is the easier it is for each representative to speak for graduate students they represent. As they do not have to consult with very many in order to accurately reflect their opinions in the council chamber this enables representatives to do their job more effectively with less effort. However, a major concern is the size council needs to be in order to achieve this number. Currently the GSA Council sits at 100 members, broken down below. 1) Six (6) Executive Members 2) Two (2) Senators 3) Ninety-Two (92) Program Representatives (2 Representatives per Program, with one combined vote). As of the completion of this report there were 46 graduate programs at Brock University, with 1 currently pending implementation) A council with a full complement would be unwieldy, and would be very unlikely to ever actually get anything done due to simple inability for even the best Chairperson to manage the room and ensure the agenda moved along. Now the GSA Council has never had 100 members, not even close, which does solve the previous management concern, however it raises two additional concerns. The first is that the when passionate interest by persons in some programs and a lack of interest by students in others causes representation disparity. Some programs may go entirely unrepresented while others will have vocal representation, leading the focus and interest of the council to be swayed heavily in one direction or another, despite the ultimate goal of making sure the council represents all graduate students/programs/faculties equally. The second concern is that around the Corporations Act of Ontario, because the GSA is an incorporated not-for-profit there are certain rules that must be adhered to. As members of council are actually directors of the corporation, council requires 50%+1 of the council population in order to conduct any official business. Many organizations observe that the 50%+1 requirement is of the total seats filled (i.e. if you have a nine member board and only seven seats are filled you would only need four members present Page | 12
in order to reach quorum as 4/7>50%+1). However, this is not the case, the requirement is actually 50%+1 of the total number of director seats. In the case of Brock‟s GSA Council this means (92 x 50%) + 1 = 47. Ultimately this means that the GSA Council may not have had quorum for a great number of votes, if indeed any at all. These concerns are not unique to the GSA Council at Brock, in fact they exist throughout the not-for-profit sector in Ontario and across Canada. Board/Council management is a major concern for chairpersons given that they are usually volunteering their time and the board/council is also volunteer, meaning there is often a lot to discuss/vote on in a limited amount of meeting time. The solution to keeping discussions effective and meetings managed properly is making sure the size rests at an optimal threshold. An example of board/council reduction at the local level was the Board of Trustees at Brock University who reduced their total from 32 members to 25 members1. Again, this change was born out a desire to make the governing body more effective and efficient but also to ensure that meetings would always meet quorum and not be in danger of flouting provincial law. With this information in mind it is important to consider the RSR provincial average. Among the 17 institutions in the Province of Ontario that have GSA‟s (including Brock University) the average sits between 71.91 and 85.95 graduate students per council/board representative. This discrepancy is due to the inclusion versus exclusion of the RSR of the Board of McMaster University‟s Graduate Students Association, as it is a significant outlier. For the purposes of an ideal this report will use the low average of 71.91 students per representative. While 72 students per representative may not seem very high, especially in comparison to the kinds of ratios for municipal, provincial and federal governments, it is important to remember that students at the graduate level are very busy, and any representation they are willing to undertake is done so entirely of their own volition and is a volunteer role. As such it is critical that any governance model take this into account in order to make sure that the RSR number is as low as possible without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the Representation Model being used, (in this case the SRP Model). This report makes comparisons only to public universities across the province of Ontario, of which there are twenty-one, seventeen of which had formally organized GSA‟s at the time this report was compiled2. The first useful comparator, and perhaps the broadest, is to see where Brock University ranks in terms of overall graduate enrolment. This should provide a useful basis from which to embark on other comparisons and ultimately journey to potential alternatives to the current GSA Council governance model. Continue to make note of the fact that the larger a population base becomes the greater the strain that is placed on student representatives, which is one of the major reasons for the size of some of the council populations that this report will examine later. As can be seen in Graph 1, the University of Toronto is a major outlier in terms of total graduate enrolment. This is useful to note, as much of the data from the University of 1 2
https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/33770 Please Note: All of the data referenced in this section of the report can be found in Appendix One
Page | 13
Toronto will prove to be an outlier when comparing it to other institutions across the province. Graph 1 also helps to place into context the reasons for why some institutions have very large councils when it comes to their GSA‟s, which can be seen in the graph below.
Graph 1: List of Public Ontario Universities by Total Graduate Enrolment
6,604.00
5,929.00
5,640.00
4,348.00
3,812.00
3,341.00
2,633.00
2,546.00
2,060.50
1,670.00
1,431.00
832.00
817.00
480.00
295.00
190.00
5,000.00
676.00
10,000.00
5,216.00
15,000.00
16,284.00
20,000.00
0.00 Ontario University's by Graduate Faculty Population Nipissing University Trent University Lakehead University Wilfred Laurier University University of Guelph Ryerson University Carleton University University of Waterloo York University University of Toronto
OCAD University University of Ontario Institute of Technology Laurentian University Brock University University of Windsor Queen's University McMaster University Western University University of Ottawa
Graph 2 compares all GSA Councils simply by total size (representatives only) this does not factor in the additional ex-officio members, executives or others. This simply compares the number of representatives who function as program, department or faculty reps. Once the four universities that do not have formally organized GSA‟s are removed from the equation it is easy to see that the GSA at Brock University ranks among the upper quarter in terms of number of representatives. On the surface this may appear beneficial, and certainly will continue to appear so after examining the following two graphs, but the inherent problems afforded by such a size will become evident as well.
Graph 2: Ontario GSA’s by Council Size (Representatives Only)
Page | 14
160 140 120 100 80 60 40
20 0
As Graph 3 shows the GSA Council at Brock University is nearly double the provincial GSA Council average of 51.82. Additionally, it is important to note that current GSA rules at Brock University allow for up to two representatives per program, though they will only combine for one vote. Because there are currently forty-six programs at Brock University this allows for up to ninety-two representatives. This is just the base size of council, which does not factor in ex-officio seats for Executives, Senators and International Student Representatives.
Graph 3: GSA Council Average Size vs. Brock University GSA Council Size 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Brock University
Average
Page | 15
This is where the first problem with council structure arises. GSA Council‟s across the province are typically made up of the „directors‟ of the organization, while the executive members are the „officers‟. This means that for any organization which is also a registered not-for-profit corporation, (which many GSA‟s are) their „boards‟ have over fifty directors, which is well outside the common range of nine to eleven members 3 . Though this highlights a broader problem, and that is that is comparing student governance and governance in the for-profit sector is comparison two entirely different entities, so it is not very useful in this instance. A better comparison would then be to look for best practice in the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) sector, specifically on universities if possible, in order to determine if there is any consensus on board/council size. Table 2, as provided below provides a cross section of public universities in the province of Ontario, looking specifically at the sizes of the Boards that govern them. For this report the term Board of Directors will be used exclusively, though many universities uses different terms including; Governors, Trustees, Directors and Regents just to name a few.
Table 2: Population of Ontario Public University Governing Boards 4 University
Total Seats
Algoma University Brock University Carleton University The University of Guelph Lakehead University Laurentian University Wilfred Laurier University McMaster University Nipissing University OCAD University The University of Ottawa Queen's University Ryerson University The University of Toronto Trent University University of Ontario Institute of Technology Waterloo University Western University The University of Windsor York University Ontario Average
30 32 32 24 30 25 34 35 26 27 32 25 24 48 26 25 36 30 32 32 30.25
3
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/regulatory/us-2014-board-practicesreport-final-9274051-12122014.pdf (Page 7). 4 http://www.ousa.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Accountability-Fall-2014.pdf (Page 8).
Page | 16
As Table 2 clearly shows, there is a very common consensus around university governing boards in terms of their size. Even with the University of Toronto again being an outlier with nearly fifty members of the board, the average for public Ontario universities still sits at roughly thirty members. The reasons for this stem from best practice, from management and from general operation. From the perspective of a chair, councils/boards that grow to be much beyond thirty members tend to become unwieldy. It becomes increasingly difficult, as the group gets larger, to ensure that all members are given equal opportunity to voice their opinion and provide comment on the various topics of discussion. If a meeting is on average two hours in length and there are forty members, then each member would only have three minutes to speak. This of course does not include the time that the chair takes to facilitate the meeting, or any presentations or any other ongoing business. Fairly quickly the time that is afforded to each member to speak is reduced, effectively eliminating the purpose for additional members. There is one general purpose to a larger council or board, and this is to make it easier to for the general population to ensure their voices are being heard and that their opinions are being adequately represented. Though this purpose is nullified if the council/board becomes so large that the members themselves do not have enough time to speak or represent their constituents. Consider the table below:
Table 3: The Council/Board Size Continuum Council < 25
Positives Meetings become easier to manage and members have a greater opportunity to speak.
Council = 25-35
Council > 35
Negatives
Positives
Negatives
Positives
Negatives
Views/Opinions of various members of the population become too broad/different for each council member to effectively represent.
Council/Board members are able to effectively represent the views of their constituents, the size is manageable for the chair and members have enough time to speak.
Councils/Boards at this size have to constantly resist the urge to grow when calls for additional members appear.
As council grows larger the RSR becomes lower meaning each representative speaks for less people, making the job easier, and requiring less constituent consultation.
Councils/Boards become very difficult to manage by the chair, members become afraid to speak and a few voices tend to dominate the room. Conversely, should all members wish to talk there is simply not enough time
Generally speaking the further you deviate from this standard council/board size the greater the specific negatives/detractions to that size become. The graph provided below shows how each institution in Ontario with a Graduate Students‟ Association compares using the Ratio of Students to Reps (RSR). This ratio provides a basic idea of how many students each representative is required to „consult with‟ in order to vote effectively on propositions brought forward to the council/governing body. Page | 17
Graph 4: Ratio of Students to Representatives (RSR) 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00
It is clear based on this graph that there are a number of outliers from the average, both Brock and McMaster are in this category though for opposite reasons. At McMaster their RSR is above three hundred (310.57), which means that each representative on their board is expected to represent over three hundred graduate students. At Brock the GSA‟s council RSR is completely the opposite, in that it is so low, less than twenty (18.15), that there are simply too many representatives to make for an effective council meeting. Again all of the information provided in this graph is included in Appendix 1. If the two greatest outliers are removed (Brock University and McMaster University) there remain fifteen GSA‟s with which to base an average RSR on in the province of Ontario. Such a calculation results in an RSR of 75.49, and because there are generally no half people to represent, this is meaningfully represented as an RSR between 75 and 76. What this means is that any new governance model needs to take this into consideration, and that any proposal for the GSA at Brock University must have a RSR of 75 or less.
Page | 18
Graph 5: RSR of Brock University’s GSA versus Ontario Average 350 300 250 200
310.57
150 100 50 0
85.95
75.49 18.15 Brock University
McMaster University Ontario Average (Outliers)
Ontario Average
It is also critically important to understand what this number really means, 75.49 represents the number of students that each graduate representative must consult with in order to remain effective in their office. This is certainly an achievable number and both in terms of the expectations placed on the individual representative but also in terms of the council makeup that can be achieved.
Graph 6: Breakdown of Ontario GSA Council’s by Representation Type
6%
6%
6% Rep by Pop
12%
1 Group, 1 Vote Threshold
6%
1 Group, 1 Vote + Threshold All 64%
At Large
As Graph 6 illustrates, the vast majority of GSA‟s in Ontario operate using a 1 Group, 1 Vote model. This is the model that is currently employed by Brock‟s GSA and the reasons for this type model are very easy to accertain. Simply put it is the most basic model of representation, it requires no formulas or calculations for seat makeup. Rather it just dicates that each new group is given a seat, regardless of size, to save on Page | 19
administrative effort. The problem with this is that it undermines any attempts at Representation by Population, and equality for members. It means that those representatives in much larger programs have the impossible task of representing the voices of all their constituents. This becomes especially daunting when a faculty has a population in the hundreds. The additional concern it raises is the growth that a council may experience until it is no longer manageable. As can be seen in Graph 3, there are several councils for GSA‟s in Ontario which are well above a hundred members, which is a size that the GSA council is currently not far away from. This size goes well beyond the best governance practice of thirty members, and would yeild a group of representatives which would prove very difficult to manage, especially if the council chair is not well experienced in managing such a large body of officials. Those GSA‟s in Ontario that do not use a 1 Group, 1 Vote system are listed below 1) Wilfred Laurier University: Currently uses an „at-large‟ representation system, where members of their board may be a member of any faculty and any program. 2) Western University: Currently uses a „Representation by Population‟ model. 3) York University: Currently uses a threshold system, whereby 2 representatives are alloted to all programs over 200 students, and then another representative for every 100 students over that. 4) Carelton University and Lakehead University: Both use a 1 Group, 1 Vote combined with a Threshold model. This means that every group is provided with a representative provided that they reach a certain base faculty population. 5) Queen‟s University: Currently employs a hybrid model that incorporates certain elements from each of the above models. The graph provided below (Graph 7) shows the average number of faculties that each institution in Ontario has at the graduate level. This ultimately impacts the size of a representation by population model that an organization may choose to use simply because if there are too many faculties that need represenation it means that the council size needs to be much larger in order to ensure each faculty‟s share of seats in relatively close to their share of the graduate student population.
Page | 20
Graph 7: Number of Graduate Faculties at Brock University vs. Ontario Average 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
8.68
8.25
Average
Average (-University of Toronto)
6
2 1 0 Brock University
As Brock University currently sits below the Ontario average, at six graduate faculties, this ensures that the overall council size can be set at a relatively small size without the concern that a faculty‟s seat share may be drastically different than their share of the total graduate student population. This is the opposite if one intends to implement a representation by population model at the program level.
Graph 8: Graduate Programs/Departments at Brock University vs. Ontario Average 47 46 45 44 43
46
45.25
42 42.6
41 40 Brock University
Average
Average (-University of Toronto)
As Graph 8 demonstrates, such a high number of programs means that it is relatively difficult to institute a representation by population model at any size, let alone one that would meet the size as identified by institutional best practice. As a result this report will Page | 21
look exclusively at models which allow for representation by population at a size that is as close to thirty members as possible.
Page | 22
Section 3: Report Limitations Due to timelines and a desire to ensure this report was finished in a timely manner, as well as cost of consultation with organizations outside the province of Ontario this report does not include any national or international comparators. At a national comparator level the other limiting fact was the fact that there are few institutions within Canada that have graduate faculties in a relatively similar size to Brock. Through brief research this report identified that most institutions with graduate level studies had populations that were either considerably lower (below 1000 students) or considerably higher (above 3000 students) then Brock University it was determined that such comparisons may not prove ideal. This is chiefly due to the way that large GSA‟s represent students through their elected/selected representatives. The larger a GSA‟s membership the more students each representative will have to „represent‟, thus distorting the ideal ratio of students to representatives (councillors). The other major limitation that this report acknowledges is the fact that no comparisons were sought on an international level, and this was done for two deliberate reasons. 1) Collecting data from international GSA‟s is a relatively difficult task, most do not have well laid out websites, or have data posted that is many years out of date. With this in mind it was assumed to be more beneficial to exclude this data rather than risk including information that could be inaccurate or out of date. 2) Non-profit laws (of with the Brock GSA is currently registered at the provincial level) vary widely from country to country, and even from province to province, meaning that organizational requirements for directors/councils and executives/officers are very different from place to place. As such it was deemed unhelpful to include data from organizations that have very different legislative obligations.
Page | 23
Section 4: Potential Governance Models Overarching Election/Selection Model (Centralized vs. Decentralized vs. Hybrid) At its most basic, the election structure for a student council will fall into one of two groups. Either a centralized election process or a decentralized election process, fortunately both of these models are fairly easy to understand if we draw comparison to the governance structures in Canada. Consider the Federal government in Canada to be a lot like the GSA, and the provincial government to be like faculty specific graduate associations (Education Graduate Students‟ Society, Graduate Business Council). A centralized model would operate the same way the GSA currently does in that the Association manages all of the executive and council elections. In a decentralized model each of the faculty specific associations would manage the elections, the EGSS would select/elect student representatives just from the Faculty of Education to go sit on the GSA council, as would the GBC and so on and so forth. In Ontario GSA‟s are broken down as follows: Centralized Elections/Representative Selection a. Currently twelve of fifteen GSA‟s operate a centralized model where the overall Graduate Students‟ Association manages the election/selection process. In many cases this is due to a lack of formal organization at the faculty level, so there is no alternative. Decentralized Elections/Representative Selection b. Currently only McMaster‟s GSA operates a pure decentralized model, each faculty elects two directors to serve on their board. Hybrid Elections/Representative Selection c. Currently two GSA‟s operate a Hybrid model in which the faculty specific associations manage the election/selection process for representatives if they exist. If they do not then the process is managed by the larger GSA.
Page | 24
Graph 9: Graphical Representation of Centralized vs. Decentralized vs. Hybrid Council Election Structures in Ontario
13% 7% Centralized Decentralized Hybrid 80%
Please note: If you wish to know which GSA‟s operate under which model of election management please consult Appendix 1 as all this information is contained in there in chart form.
Representation Breakdown In reality, the options for different governance models are about as varied as the mind is willing to be creative. Even across the province of Ontario, looking exclusively at the councils/boards of Graduate Students Associations it is clear that there is no universal governance model. With that said this section of the report will first examine any model currently in use by a GSA in order to understand the benefits and limitations that are associated with them. The goal here is to determine whether or not any of these models would be an effective replacement to the current council structure of Brock‟s GSA. Full charts of the information presented below can be found in Appendix 1.
Representation determined by Program: 1) One Member/Group equals One Vote: a. This representation method is by far the most used in the province. This generally means one representative per program, which is both how the Brock GSA works but also how most GSA‟s in the province work. The reason for was identified previously, in that it is by far the easiest to administer and manage, especially on a year to year basis where turnover among student organizations is generally high. The biggest concern with this system is the lack of equal representation based on a groups population, ultimately burdening some representatives with the task of representing 400 students while others only represent 40. The other major concern is that council has no clear limit in size, which means it will keep Page | 25
growing to a size that is relatively unmanageable with no real check or balance.
Representation determined by Faculty: 1) Representatives determined by Faculty: a. This can be done in two ways, the first (which will be explored throughout this report) is in a Representation by Population model, because most institutions have fewer faculties it allows for a more effective model, keeping faculty seat distribution close to overall population without having a high council membership. b. The other model is currently implemented by the GSA at McMaster University, where each faculty is given two representatives, regardless of the number of students in each faculty. This ensures that their council or board will have a low number of members, but it does nothing to aid representatives in their interaction with the student population they are tasked with representing.
Representation determined by Population Threshold: 1) Representatives determined on a Threshold Basis: a. This model gets closer to a system of more suitable representation, because it allocates representatives based on the number of students in a faculty, but does so against a pre-established threshold. This would mean that council would set an arbitrary number (i.e. 50 students = 1 representative) and then each year the council would adjust seats based on these thresholds. The problem is that there is no way to pick this number without it being arbitrary, and it will likely exclude rather than include. What if a program has 49 students? Does this mean that they are not awarded a seat? b. The other concern is that a model such as this requires a lot of manual calculation each year by elections or office staff. With the limited staff that Brock‟s GSA has devoted to elections and election related issues this is a consideration that will be explored further in this report. c. The GSA at Western University currently utilizes a system for council elections based on the threshold model.
Representation determined at Large: 1) Representatives determined At-Large: a. These representatives are elected on behalf of the entire graduate population, not taking into effect specific faculties or other sub-groups. These are general referred to as campus wide elections. Most iterations of this type of representation benefits from simplicity in that the elections are very easy to administer, the ultimate drawback being a lack of diverse voices around the decision making table.
Page | 26
b. The GSA at Wilfred Laurier University currently operates with an at-large representation system, with nine (9) Representatives at-large with two executives.
Methods not currently implemented: An additional method that was not considered in this report was a Ward model, one that would look fairly similar to that used by a city council. This model was not explored because no iteration of this model is currently implemented in Ontario, and while there may be a series of reasons for this it was determined that such a model would not be explored for the reason that there was no working implementation to investigate. With that said, this model could look something like what is outlined below, though it would be open to significant interpretation. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)
Walker Complex: Welch Hall: Taro Hall: 573 Glenridge: Scotia Bank Hall & South Block: Cairns & MacKenzie Chown: Residences Admin Buildings Oakville & Hamilton
Applied Health Sciences Education Goodman School of Business Humanities Social Sciences Math & Science
In this model representatives would be elected from a specific area, and would be tasked with representing all of the interests associated with both the population and the buildings in that area.
Page | 27
Section 5: Potential Governance Needs Two different representation models are suggested in this report, and each as positives and negatives. In essence they can be understood as a Ground Up model, or a Back Calculated model. Before the can be examined, the report will consider the kind of limitations that are placed on the model based on previously identified systems of best practice and good governance.
Capped System vs. Expandable System 1) A Capped System is a system which has a hard limit on its size (consider Table 2 and University boards of governance). This means that if the council is set at 30 members it cannot grow beyond that number unless the legislation is revised. a. Positives: this means that council will not grow unexpectedly on a year to year basis, and that there is a clear mandate for all directors/councillors. A director limit is also a recommendation proposed under Ontario‟s new Non-profit legislation. It will also ensure that council can get work done efficiently and enable the council chairperson to manage the room without major difficulty. b. Negatives: Any and all changes on a year to year basis will need to be reviewed and approved; ultimately meaning council‟s ability to change to student wants/needs will be slower. This report recommends a capped system, based on what is seen as industry best practice and in terms of being effectively managed by organizational officials.
Ground Up Model vs. Back-calculated Model: 1) The Ground Up Model is created with the idea that the system starts with a set number of Representatives elected in a Rep by Pop model, and the number of the remaining positions is calculated based on that number. This model identifies the Rep by Pop component as being integral to the overall functioning of the governing body, and the total council makeup is therefore calculated based on this number. 2) The Back-calculated Model is created with the idea that you set the council at a specific size (say 30) and then divide the number of seats up from there for each of the different groups (Rep by Pop, Overhang, Remainder, etc). This model generally requires more mathematical calculation, and as can be seen in the Appendices of this report, has a much greater change to run into rounding errors as the council gets larger in terms of total population. One of the additional considerations of the recommendation provided in this report is that of staff power in the Brock GSA office. Any new model needs to require the same or few hours on behalf of both the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) and the Office Coordinator. As a result this report recommends the Ground Up Model because of the simpler calculations employed in the seat calculator. Additionally, the seat calculator (provided in as a supplemental Microsoft Excel document) has been created in such a way that the GSA CEO will only have to input the latest populations of each graduate faculty and it will auto calculate the number of seats open for each faculty . Page | 28
Concepts behind the Recommended Model: The main concept of the recommended model is to try to get the number of seats that a faculty has on the council to get as close as possible to that faculty‟s percentage of the overall graduate population (Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage). What does that mean exactly? Well it means that if a faculty has 23% of the graduate population, they should receive approximately 23% of the council seats. So how do we achieve that? Well the system is relatively simple, and it employs a council which would be divided into three main components; Representation by Population, Overhang and Remainder.
Representation by Population (Rep by Pop) Seats: As identified previously, this is the main component of the model, and will be the portion that is „set‟, allowing the other two components to be based off this pre-established number. These representatives will allocated simply by multiplying the number of Rep by Pop Seats (RPS) by a faculty‟s percentage of the graduate population, rounded up. a. For example: Assume that the number of RPS is set at 30, if a faculty had 23% of the population their number would equal the following: 30 seats X 23% = 6.9 seats (this would therefore round up to 7 seats) Another example could be a faculty that has 18% of the graduate population, which would look like this. 30 seats X 18% = 5.4 seats (this would therefore round down to 5 seats). However, there is a problem here, .4 represents a lot of the population in a given faculty which is not being represented. So what is the solution?
Overhang Seats: Overhang Seats (OS) are given to any faculty whose population becomes substantially under-represented by way of the Representation by Population (RPS) distribution. For the purpose of the recommended model this has been set as between 0.20 and 0.50. What this means is that for any faculty whose seat calculation results in a decimal ending in any number between 0.2 and 0.5 then they shall be given an additional seat calculated as an Overhang Seat (OS). Consider the problem of the calculation above and then examine below. b. 30 seats X 18% = 5.4 seats, (before this would have rounded down to 5 seats) because 0.4 is between 0.2 and 0.5 this faculty shall be given one additional seat in the form of an OS.
Page | 29
At-Large Seats These seats are determined as a percentage of the total number of Representation by Population Seats (RPS). For the purpose of this model they have been included as 10% of the RPS total, meaning in this example there would be three (3) At-Large Seats (ALS) open for the election period. These seats, as their name suggests, could be filled by any person from any program and any faculty. The idea here is to address any concern that a program could go unheard or unrepresented due to its size, this is therefore provided as a provision to address that concern.
Other Considerations: The other major consideration in this new model is how to accurately represent international students, any while there may be a current Vice-President, International, if a new system is to be based primarily on a representation by population model, this does not do enough to adequately address that populations concerns. Again, what is the solution? c. For all Faculties which have a ISP cohorts, the seats of those faculties will be divided, proportionally, based on faculty population, between domestic students and international students. Consider the following; If a faculty has approximately 23% of the graduate population, and 4% of it is international then the calculation would look like this; 30 Seats X 19% = 5.7 seats (rounded up to 6 seats) 30 Seats X 4% = 1.2 seats (rounded down to 1 seat), provided with one additional overhang seat because 0.2 is between 0.2 and 0.5. d. Additionally, the faculty with the largest number of allocated international seats shall have one (1) of the seats reserved as a general international student seat, open to any international graduate student.
Page | 30
Section 6: Recommended Governance Model (SRP) With the above recommendations in mind, this report recommends the Set Representation by Population Model, meaning that the number of Representation by Population seats are set at the beginning, in a Ground Up model, and the other seat calculations (Overhang Seats and At-Large Seats) are based off of this number. Additionally, as was mentioned previously in this report, the recommendation for any new governance/representation model is to have a total seat count of around thirty members, with a Ratio of Students to Representative (RSR) of no more than 76. With all that in mind the following table is the recommended model.
Table 4: Council Composition Calculator using 2014/2015 Enrollment AHS
BUS (DM5)
BUS (ISP6)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
24
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
20
Total (RFS)
1.701
2.323
4.000
3.581
0.743
0.838
1.880
4.934
20
Total (SCR)
2
2
4
4
1
1
2
5
21
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total (FSC)
2
3
4
4
1
1
2
5
22
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
9.5%
9.5%
19.0%
19.0%
4.8%
4.8%
9.5%
23.8%
100.0%
1.0%
-2.1%
-1.0%
1.1%
1.0%
0.6%
0.1%
-0.9%
0.0%
9.1%
13.6%
18.2%
18.2%
4.5%
4.5%
9.1%
22.7%
100.0%
0.6%
2.0%
-1.8%
0.3%
0.8%
0.4%
-0.3%
-1.9%
0.0%
32
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1 2 1
2
6
69.58
Please note that the composition provided in the table above has been tabulated based on the 2014-2015 Enrollment data publically provided by Brock University. Similarly this 5 6
DM: Domestic Students. ISP: International Students.
Page | 31
is the same data that has been used in all of the various scenarios captured in the Appendices attached to this report. An additional table is also provided in this section (Table 5) which uses the same council composition calculator but uses newly released 2015-2016 data made publicly available by Brock University. While all of the information and calculations that are provided within the table above are worth considering, there are two major achievements that should be addressed. The first is that the total seat count comes very close to the recommendation provided through good governance and the Ontario overage for university board‟s (30.25), which will provide for a manageable council size. Additionally, a population of approximately 30 members is beneficial because any smaller and it becomes significantly more difficult to represent each faculty effectively without the Percentage Difference noted above becoming incredibly high (in other words the smaller the council the greater the likelihood that the number of seats a faculty receives as a percentage of the total council membership will be significantly different then that faculty‟s percentage of the overall graduate student population. This can be further explored in the Appendices of this report. If the council population moves the other way, it becomes difficult to manage, especially in a two hour meeting where more than thirty persons makes it difficult for each person to have an opportunity to speak and provide input/feedback from the faculty they represent. The second number that is very positive is the number of students per representative (69.58). At 70 students per representative this is below the provincial average (76) and is a manageable number for each council member, in terms of the required engagement and interaction with other students in their faculty. The third and final numbers are those calculated as the Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage with and without the addition of Overhang Seats. While relatively close in both models, the model that includes overhang seats still keeps any single percentage difference from total population percentage lower than the model without. Simply put, the lower the different the closer the system will be to ensuring that the number of representatives a faculty receives is equal to the percentage of graduate students that that faculty has. Considering all of these requirements and comparators the Rep by Pop Model, with Overhang and At-Large seats not only meets them but also exceeds the levels set by other comparators.
Table 5: Council Composition Calculator using 2015/2016 Enrollment
7 8
AHS
BUS (DM7)
BUS (ISP8)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
148
246
247
281
48
77
156
446
8.98%
14.92 %
14.98 %
17.04 %
2.91%
4.67%
9.46%
27.05 %
Total Graduate Population 1649 100.0%
DM: Domestic Students. ISP: International Students.
Page | 32
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
20
Total (RFS)
2 2
SubTotal
24
1.795
2.984
2.996
3.408
0.582
0.934
1.892
5.409
20
Total (SCR)
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
5
20
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
Total (FSC)
2
3
3
4
1
1
2
6
22
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
10.0%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
5.0%
5.0%
10.0%
25.0%
100.0%
1.0%
0.1%
0.0%
-2.0%
2.1%
0.3%
0.5%
-2.0%
0.0%
9.1%
13.6%
13.6%
18.2%
4.5%
4.5%
9.1%
27.3%
100.0%
0.1%
-1.3%
-1.3%
1.1%
1.6%
-0.1%
-0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
32
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1
2
6
68.71
The table above is provided simply to show the ease at which the calculator creates the new council composition all that is required is inputting the new enrollment data, once a year, into the eight columns provided and the rest is instantly tabulated. The final element that determines success in the SRP model is that of scalability, basically the ability for any model to adapt to both demographic/population changes but also calls/needs to modify membership size. On both of these fronts the SRP model succeeds, as the Microsoft Excel document shows, any of the population inputs can be modified and the representation auto-calculates in accordance with these new population figures. This makes it incredibly easy to use for any and all persons in charge of managing the composition of council and the elections associated with it. For both of these models breakdowns from five (5) through one hundred (100) in total council size, through increments of five (5) have been provided in the Appendices of this document. Additionally, if approved, the GSA office will be provided with a working Microsoft Excel document for the new model which will have all algorithms pre-set so the only changes required on a year to year basis will be from changes in faculty populations.
Why not the SCS model? The model provided above is the Set Representation by Population Model (SRP), so what about the Set Council Size Model (SCS)? The biggest drawback of the SCS model is that it lacks effective scalability. What does this mean exactly? What this means is that as the size of council grows, (as outlined in Appendix 2) the two-thirds to one-third model becomes less and less effective. Page | 33
While it works well if you set the council size at 30 Faculty Representatives elected through Rep by Pop: 20 Seats Overhang Seats required: 3 Seats At-Large Seats available: 7 Seats Less so at 50 or more To the point where at 65 the breakdown becomes entirely ineffective Faculty Representatives elected through Rep by Pop: 43 Seats Overhang Seats required: 3 Seats At-Large Seats available: 19 Seats Remember of course that the calculated model goes all the way up to a council of 100 members. This is a serious issue in terms of scalability, because if the model is no longer effective at a set council size of fifty (50), then essentially half of the scale would not be implementable.
Page | 34
Section 7: Paths to Implementation Article Eleven of Bylaw One (The GSA Constitution) identifies that the Directors of the Corporation (all members of the GSA Council) “may enact rules and regulations respecting the election of Department Representatives by each Department‟s respective General members.” 9 In essence this means that council reserves the right to make changes to its structure and election as it sees fit, as Bylaw One does not provide any clear structure or outline for the composition of council. This allows council and the executive to consider improvements to their organization and operation which would benefit their overall operation. This should ultimately be considered under Article 6, Section 5 of Bylaw One which states that the directors of the GSA shall, “…develop and maintain a responsible graduate student government which will promote the interests of GSA members and provide a communication medium between membership and Brock University representatives.” 10 It is this new model which will serve to be far more responsible than the current iteration for several reasons. 1) It will represent graduate students proportionally, reducing the burden on their elected representatives and ensure their voices will be heard more effectively. 2) It follows a size model based on other responsible governance organizations in the for-profit and non-profit sectors. The reduced size also ensures that the GSA will meet quorum at meetings, and ensure that it properly fulfills its obligations as outlined in the current Corporations Act of Ontario as well as the proposed ONCA legislation. 3) It will allow council discussion to be managed effectively by any chairperson, regardless of how much formal training they have had in meeting management or Robert‟s Rules of Order. The real benefit to this method of implementation is the fact that it can be easily undone. Because there is no constitutional amendment, the Council Refresh Project could be modified or adjusted in the future. The reason behind this kind of approach comes from the understanding that this is a large undertaking in a dynamic new direction, it is not something that has been attempted before by the GSA at Brock University, and is fairly unheard of for any student government, either at the undergraduate or graduate levels. As we all know, even the best of research might yield an end product which looks great on paper but in practice proves to make little sense. There were/are a number of restrictive parameters that were present when compiling this report and determining a new course of governance action. With these limitations at play it is simply too difficult to determine with 100% percent accuracy that the new model will be effective. All of the indications are present to believe that it will, but the CRP has been approached in this way so as to ensure that the GSA would not be operationally tied to the new model until a referendum could be run to reverse it.
9 10
http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/17033 http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/17033
Page | 35
Section 8: Process to Implementation With all of that said, the question remains around what to do with this new model and how to implement it within as time period that provides the necessary amount of time for all parties to make complete their required components. With the understanding that the executive members of the Graduate Students‟ Association will be elected in March 2016, it makes sense to work back from this point to determine the next steps for this report.
Table 6: Phase One Proposed Timeline Date: March 14th , 2016
Proposed Action: An executive meeting is held in this week, and the report will be circulated prior to.
Proposed Agent: Aiden Smyth, Christopher Yendt, Barb Daly
March 15th, 2016
This report, with minor modifications, is distributed to council with information pertinent to the presentation included as an additional resource. A presentation is made to the council on the components of the report, highlighting the proposed changes to council‟s structure, why this is being proposed, and how it will take effect. Council will then vote on the proposal. A draft amendment/addition to Article 11.1 of the GSA Constitution will be compiled and distributed to the GSA Executive for input and feedback. Public/Council/Executive Consultation sessions for feedback on proposed legislation. Sessions will be run asking for feedback and not run through the legislation exhaustively. Any additions/modifications to the proposed legislation will be completed by this date so that legislation may
Barb Daly
March17th, 2016
March 25th, 2016
April 4th-14th, 2016
April 15th, 2016
Christopher Yendt, Aiden Smyth
Christopher Yendt
Christopher Yendt, Aiden Smyth
Christopher Yendt (compiler), Barb Daly (distribution) Page | 36
nd
April 22 , 2016
August 26th, 2016
September 1st- 23rd, 2016 September 27th-29th, 2016 October 20th, 2016
October 2016
November 2016
November 17th, 2016 March 1st-17th, 2017 March 21st-23rd, 2016
be circulated to council. Council Meeting to approve new legislation as a subsidiary document to Article 11.1 of the GSA Constitution. Final date to have nomination packages completed for the April 2016 Council elections. Packages to be based on criteria outlined in aforementioned new legislation. Proposed Nomination Period for Council Elections Proposed Online Voting Days for the first Council Election (As needed) Final Council Meeting of the 2015-2016 Academic Year. Council will ratify the report presented by the CEO (Chief Electoral Officer) and thereby the results of the March and April 2016 Executive and Council Elections. Consultations between CEO and Executive/Consultants, on potential changes (if necessary) to legislation based on experiences in the April Election Period. Additional Legislative Practices developed as process between consultants and executive committee to be prepared for September. Council provides approval for Phase Two of the BMC Report Proposed date period for a fall nomination period. Proposed Dates for a Fall Council By-Election period
Christopher Yendt, Aiden Smyth
CEO (TBD), Christopher Yendt
CEO (TBD) CEO (TBD)
CEO (TBD)
CEO (TBD), Christopher Yendt, Executive Committee
Christopher Yendt, Executive Committee.
Christopher Yendt
Executive Committee, Barb Daly, CEO (TBD) Executive Committee, Barb Daly, CEO (TBD)
Page | 37
While the proposed timeline is ambitious, it can be achieved and will allow for more time to develop the necessary legislation in order to support the proposed change. While all of the changes proposed in this report can be done so under the existing legislative structure, they will require extensive modifications to current practice and in many cases the creation of entirely new documents in order to fill these policy voids.
Page | 38
Section 9: Summary and Conclusion One of the major difficulties with organizational culture is that those within the organization tend to become very complacent very quickly, and as such there is little real incentive to continue following best practice is the sector. When building a representative model of governance, especially within student governance, we tend to pass by what is ideal in favour of what is easiest. This has become true not at the individual organizational level, but at a system level as well. The evidence provided in this report clearly shows that the whole of the sector in Ontario has become entrenched in a system of governance that is dramatically removed from the elements of best practice that have long been identified. There is of course an additional aspect to this calculation, and it is not simply a specific equation. Instead it focuses on the concept of culture, what kind of culture do we want to achieve? For a long time the GSA at Brock has been focused on the question of „How?‟, as in „How do we get more people interested in signing up for council and getting involved?‟, as an organization this type of thinking needs to be flipped on its head and instead ask the question of „Why?, „Why is it that more people aren‟t interested in what we do? Why do so many graduate students not even know that the GSA exists?‟ Make no mistake, there is no single answer to this question, the concept of the Council Refresh Project (CRP) will not provide it, nor will the entire Three Phase Approach, but both do encapsulate part of the problem. That problem is a limitation of access, which runs all the way from how meetings appear to be boring and useless on the surface to an outsider trying to learn more information from the GSA website and either getting lost or frustrated because they cannot locate the information that they want. The research provided by this report identifies very clearly that the problems the GSA at Brock faces are not unique, they are system wide. While many of the comparators highlight concerns or weaknesses, there is also a lot of information to suggest that there are great opportunities to take advantage of. If the GSA Council Meeting in February 2016 was any indication is it that students and council members are interested in substantive conversations around not only the future of the GSA at Brock University but also the future of Post-Secondary Education across the province of Ontario. With all of this in mind there is a clear opportunity to foster a reinvigoration inside Brock‟s GSA and in so doing develop a culture that is uniquely identifiable by students, faculty and staff at Brock University but also by those same groups at sister institutions across the province. A new council framework will provide an opportunity for graduate students to become more engaged with their GSA, and provide the support for more members to not only become elected but also to engage with roles and responsibilities that will not be meaningfully addressed any other way. If Bylaw One is serious in its meaning to suggest that every member on council is a director and equal in their role, then that should be viewed as a clear message to provide everyone with an opportunity to be actively involved in the decisions and actions of the GSA.
Page | 39
Graduate students at Brock University should not just be content with being a part of just another GSA in Ontario. Just because graduate students have come to play a more marginalized role in Post-Secondary Education issues because their voice is not as numerous or as financially lucrative as that of their undergraduate counterparts does not mean that this needs to remain so. The opportunity is here to not only make Brock‟s GSA better, but to make it the best GSA in Ontario, to create an organization that is constantly pushing for self-improvement and by so doing creating the motivation for other GSA‟s across Ontario to follow suit.
Page | 40
Section 10: Phase Two; Determining Council’s Purpose As noted at the beginning of this report, the Council Refresh Project is just Phase One of the Three Phase Approach to address organizational and governance issues within the GSA at Brock University. The second phase, titled „Determining Council‟s Purpose‟ will be compiled over the summer of 2016 and be presented at the first council meeting of the fall term, (Fall 2016). This report will again look at all GSA‟s across Ontario but focus instead on the roles and responsibilities held by their councils versus their boards, and what information can be taken from this and adapted to the GSA at Brock. At the outset this report will also include the recommendations for three to five separate committees underneath the newly proposed council, as well as the kinds of support/resources these committees would need in order to be successful and ultimately who will constitute the membership of each committee. Finally the report will examine the positives and negatives associated with council electing a separate chairperson for all council meetings (from amongst their membership or an external person) versus the status quo of having all meetings chaired/managed by the GSA President. All in all this report aims to provide councillors with a path toward greater organizational ownership and corporate responsibility. The ultimate goal is to determine ways to more evenly distribute workload amongst all representatives of the organization and create a greater sense of cultural identity and purpose for those attending monthly meetings.
Page | 41
Section 11: Note on Appendices While Appendices 2 and 3 (Inclusive) are fairly simple in terms of layout, Appendix 1 provides all of the comparators between different University‟s and their GSA‟s in the Province of Ontario. Given the sheer volume of different data that has been collected it was determined that it would be beneficial to set some sort of baseline comparator between each institution, one that would allow useful comparisons to be made to Brock‟s GSA without the difficulty for identifying a great system somewhere else, but one that could not be implemented due other mitigating factors (i.e. financial resources). Some comparators that were not used in this report were: debt load per institution, debt load per student, deficit spending, building construction cost spending, (as accumulated average over the previous 5 years) and deferred maintenance costs. The main basis for comparison was both total graduate population (at the entire institution, combining all Full-Time and Part-Time graduate students) as well as FTE (Full-Time Equivalent). Four Universities did not have registered Graduate populations, or a formally organized Graduate Students‟ Association. Additionally one institution does not provide public access to their institutional and enrolment data (Nipissing University). The list of comparators are provided below, additionally any comparator which requires further explanation is provided with a footnote.
List of Comparators: 1. University Name 2. Size of Graduate Population 3. Number of Graduate Faculties 4. Number of Graduate Departments 5. Number of Faculty Specific Societies or Councils11 (If any) 6. Elections Centralized12 or Decentralized13 7. Representation by Population 8. One Member14, One Vote 9. Threshold Based15 10. Number of Seats a. Hard Limit b. Expandable16 c. Additional Special Interest Group Seats17 11. Number of Executives 11
An association or group run by students in a particular faculty (i.e. Goodman Graduate Business Council (GBC) at Brock. 12 Centralized: Managed/Conducted by the institution‟s GSA. 13 Decentralized: Managed/Conducted by a specific faculty group/association. 14 Also called „One Group, One Vote‟ 15 A Faculty/Group must achieve a certain population threshold before any seats will be awarded. 16 Expandable: Means seats can be added by council/board at any time. 17 Special Interest Group Seats: defined loosely, most often these include seats for register club executives, international students or undergraduate council representatives.
Page | 42
a. Executives elected18 vs. appointed19 12. Is the Organization a registered NFP in Ontario20 13. Bi-cameral system21
18
Elected: elected by the graduate population at-large. Appointed: appointed or hired by the council or board, usually done only for Vice-Presidents. 20 NFP = Not-for-Profit, can be incorporated either provincially or federally or both, most GSA‟s are not public with this information so data for this comparator remains incomplete. 21 A Bi-Cameral system would have both an independent board and a council (i.e. Brock University between the Board of Trustees and the Senate). Such a system would provide clear roles and responsibilities for both governing bodies, and have little overlap. A Unicameral System would have a single governing body (i.e. Ontario Provincial Colleges) and a Hybrid System would have a single governing body or council and then an additional group or committee as a part of the council which would have some additional responsibilities. The GSA at Brock currently has a system nestled between a Unicameral and Hybrid. 19
Page | 43
Appendix 1: Provincial Comparators Please note for Appendix 1 (Inclusive) the following table is provided as a reference acronym sheet.
Table 7: University Index Key #
University Name
Name Short Form (Acronym)
1
Algoma University
ALG
2
Brock University
BRO
3
Carleton University
CAR
4
Lakehead University
LAK
5
Laurentian University
LAU
6
McMaster University
MAC
7
Nipissing University
NIP
8
OCAD University
OCA
9
Queen's University
QUE
10
Ryerson University
RYE
11
Trent University
TRE
12
University of Guelph
GUE
13
University of Hearst
HEA
14
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
OIT
15
University of Ottawa
OTT
16
University of Toronto
TOR
17
University of Waterloo
WAT
18
University of Windsor
WIN
19
Western University
WES
20
Wilfred Laurier University
WIL
21
York University
YOR Average Average (-University of Toronto)
Appendix 1.1 University Graduate Populations vs. Ratio of Students to Representatives (RSR) Provincial Comparators #
University Name
1
ALG
2
Location
Graduate Population Size Masters
Doctora l
FT Students
Sault Ste. Marie, ON
0.00
0.00
0.00
BRO
St. Catharines, ON
1,499.00
171.00
1,259.00
3
CAR
Ottawa, ON
2,711.00
1,101.00
3,291.00
4
LAK
Thunder Bay, ON
694.00
123.00
797.00
5
LAU
Sudbury, ON
666.00
166.00
449.00
RSR #
PT Stude nts 0.00
Total Pop
411.0 0 521.0 0 20.00
1,670.0 0 3,812.0 0 817.00
18.15
383.0 0
832.00
75.64
0.00
(of Total ) 0.00
92.98 20.43
Page | 44
6
MAC
Hamilton, ON
Does not distinguish
7
NIP
North Bay, ON
175.00
15.00
8
OCA
Toronto, ON
0.00
9
QUE
Kingston, ON
1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6
RYE
1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1
3,519.00 0.00
829.0 0 0.00
4,348.0 0 190.00
310.5 7 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
295.00
0.00
1,959.00
1,382.00
2,919.00
2,072.00
561.00
2,169.00
TRE
Peterborough, ON
338.00
142.00
417.00
3,341.0 0 2,633.0 0 480.00
53.03
Toronto, ON
422.0 0 464.0 0 63.00
GUE
Guelph, ON
1,370.90
689.60
2,017.00
43.50
32.20
HEA
Timmins, ON
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,060.5 0 0.00
OIT
Oshawa, ON
537.00
139.00
411.00
676.00
33.80
OTT
Ottawa, ON
5,215.00
1,389.00
5,327.00
TOR
10,153.00
6,131.00
14,754.0 0
6,604.0 0 16,284. 00
106.5 2 113.0 8
WAT
Toronto, Scarborough, Mississauga, ON Waterloo, ON
265.0 0 1,277. 00 1,456. 00
3,282.00
1,934.00
4,027.00
WIN
Windsor, ON
2,173.00
373.00
2,431.00
London, ON
3,470.00
2,170.00
5,221.00
WIL
Waterloo, ON
1,216.00
215.00
905.00
YOR
Toronto, ON
4,123.00
1,806.00
4,033.00
5,216.0 0 2,546.0 0 5,640.0 0 1,431.0 0 5,929.0 0
113.3 9 84.87
WES
1,191. 00 115.0 0 419.0 0 552.0 0 1,896. 00
Average
2,450.23
1,088.68
3,173.29
1,968.81
773.54
2,449.50
3,783.5 0 3,002.2 2
85.95
Average (-TOR)
607.5 0 554.4 7
Average (-MAC)
109.7 1 21.82
0.00
47.00 159.0 0 68.94
84.25 71.91
Appendix 1.2: Number of Representatives per Program and Faculty Provincial Comparators University Name
Location
Number of Graduate Departments Total Student Reps Number Per Department
Number of Faculty Groups
0.00
Number of Graduate Faculties Total Student Number Reps Per Faculty 0 0
1
ALG
2
BRO
3
CAR
Sault Ste. Marie, ON St. Catharines, ON Ottawa, ON
0
0
0
18.15
6
Varies
46
2
2
92.98
5
Varies
45
Up to 2
?
4
LAK
20.43
10
Varies
20
Up to 2
0
LAU
Thunder Bay, ON Sudbury, ON
5
75.64
10
Varies
16
Not Specified
0
6
MAC
Hamilton, ON
310.57
7
2
56
0
7
7
NIP
0.00
5
0
5
0
0
8
OCA
North Bay, ON Toronto, ON
0.00
6
0
0
0
0
9
QUE
Kingston, ON
53.03
7
Varies
63
1
0
#
RSR # (of Total)
Page | 45
1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6
RYE
Toronto, ON
109.71
8
Varies
40
1
16
TRE
Peterboroug h, ON
21.82
9
1
19
1
0
GUE
Guelph, ON
32.20
7
Varies
32
2
0
HEA
Timmins, ON
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
OIT
Oshawa, ON
33.80
7
Varies
37
1
15
OTT
Ottawa, ON
106.52
10
Varies
62
1
0
TOR
113.08
20
Varies
85
1+
85
1 7 1 8
WAT
Toronto, Scarborough, Mississauga, ON Waterloo, ON
113.39
6
Varies
101
1
30
WIN
Windsor, ON
84.87
10
30
1
?
1 9 2 0 2 1
WES
London, ON
47.00
13
30 (all from Fac of Grad Studies) Varies
62
Rep by Pop
0
WIL
Waterloo, ON
159.00
9
Varies
40+
0
0
YOR
Toronto, ON
68.94
10
Varies
61
2
35
Average
85.95
8.68
0.50
45.25
Average (-Outliers: Brock & McMaster)
75.49
8.25
0.50
42.60
1.08
6.93
22
Appendix 1.3: Centralized vs. Decentralized vs. Hybrid Council Election Styles Provincial Comparato rs
Number of Graduate Faculties
Number of Graduate Departments
#
University Name
Tota l#
#Reps Per Faculty
Total #
Student Reps Per Departme nt
1
ALG
0
0
0
0
2
BRO
6
Varies
46
2
3
CAR
5
Varies
45
4
LAK
10
Varies
5
LAU
10
6
MAC
7
NIP
8
# of Facult y Groups
Council Elections
Representation Method
Total Seats
Central
Decentr al
RBP
1 Group/ 1 Vote
Thres -hold
Just Reps
Total
0
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
1
Y
X
X
Y
X
92
100
Up to 2
?
Y
Y
X
Y
Y
41
20
Up to 2
0
Y
X
X
Y
Y
40
Varies
16
0
Y
X
X
Y
X
11
7
2
56
Not Specifie d 0
7
X
Y
X
Y
X
14
5
0
5
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
OCA
6
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
9
QUE
7
Varies
63
1
0
Y
X
Y
Y
Y
63
75
1 0
RYE
8
Varies
40
1
16
Y
X
X
Y
X
24
22
43
This average is calculated with the University of Toronto included but McMaster University excluded.
Page | 46
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8
TRE
9
1
19
1
0
Y
X
X
Y
X
22
GUE
7
Varies
32
2
0
Y
X
X
Y
X
64
HEA
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
OIT
7
Varies
37
1
15
Y
X
X
Y
X
20
20
OTT
10
Varies
62
1
0
N/A
N/A
X
Y
X
62
78
TOR
20
Varies
85
1+
85
Y
X
X
Y
X
144
150
WAT
6
Varies
101
1
30
N/A
N/A
X
Y
X
46
62
WIN
10
30
1
?
Y
X
X
Y
X
30
33
1 9
WES
13
30 (all from Fac of Grad Studies ) Varies
62
Rep by Pop
0
Y
X
X
120
121
2 0 2 1
WIL
9
Varies
40+
0
0
Hybrid (If Assoc exists it does it, if not SOGS does it) Y X
X
X
X
9
11
YOR
10
Varies
61
2
35
Y
X
X
Y
79
86
Average
8.6 8 8.25
0.50
45.2 5 42.6 0
1.08
6.93
45.1 9
57.1 8
Average(UofT)
0.5 0
X
Appendix 1.4: Capped vs. Expandable and Bicameral vs. Hybrid Comparators Number of Seats (Current)
Executive Positions
Cap ped
Expand able
Spec Interest Group Additions
Numbe r
1
Univers ity Name ALG
X
X
X
2
BRO
No
Yes
3
CAR
Yes
4
LAK
No
5
LAU
6
#
Reg NF P
Bicam eral
Hyb rid
Chaired by Pres
X
In(depen dent) of Council X
Boa rd
Cou ncil
X
X
X
X
X
No
6
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
5
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
6
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes, all spec interest
4
MAC
Yes
No
No
5
Independent (+2 social conveners, ) Yes No
No
Yes
?
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
NIP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
OCA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
QUE
No
Yes
5
Yes
N/A
Yes
No
No
No
1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4
RYE
No
Yes
Yes, 4 (http://www.sgps.ca/info/do wnloads/bylaws-policies.pdf) No
5
Yes
N/A
No
Yes
No
No
TRE
No
Yes
6
Yes
N/A
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
GUE
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
HEA
X
X
Yes, 4 (CUPE, Commissoners, International) No (4 execs are part of board) X
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OIT
No
Yes
No (5 execs are added to council)
5
Yes
N/A
Yes
No
Yes
No
Page | 47
1 5 1 6 1 7
OTT
No
Yes
Yes, 3
5
No
TOR
No
Yes
N/A
7
In Yes
WAT
No
Yes
6
1 8 1 9 2 0
WIN
Yes
No
plus 8+2 Board and 6 officers (3 for at-large councillors) non-voting Yes,
WES
No
Yes
WIL
Yes
2 1
YOR
No
Aver age
Yes
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
5
Yes
No
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
No, but Pres included
5
Yes
No
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
No
No (But Pres & VP get 2 seats, non-voting)
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes, 2 Senators, 1 BoT (2 seats for every 200 students)
7
Yes
Yes (19 87) Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
5.14
Page | 48
Appendix 2: Models of Council Using the Set Council Size Model (SCS) Appendix 2.01 Set Council Size at Five (5) Specifics per Council Size
C S
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
5
1.04 3 1
0.71 3 1
0.13 8 0
0.31 0 0
0.81 4 1
3
Total (SCR)
0.28 1 0
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
0
1
2
1
1
1
6
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total
0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0% % % % 1.7 11.7 8.5 % % 4.2% % 0.0 16.7 33.3 16.7 % % % % 11.7 12.5 8.5 15.0 % % % % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
0.0%
33.3 % 8.7 %
100.0%
16.7 % 8.0 %
100.0%
Total Graduate Population 1670
Set Council Size (SCS)
Total Graduate Population 1670
5
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
3
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
0
Ex-officio - Senators
2
2 3 -1
6
Total (RFS)
Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
13
0.31
9.4% 16.7 % 7.3%
3
0.0%
0.0% 355.32
Appendix 2.02 Set Council Size at Ten (10) Specifics per Council Size
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
10
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
SubTota l
10
100.0%
7 3 3 0
Page | 49
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
1
ISP Raw
0.63
Ex-officio - Senators
2 2.08 7 2
1.42 7 1
0.27 7 0
0.62 0 1
1.62 8 2
7
Total (SCR)
0.56 1 1
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
1
2
2
1
2
2
10
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS)
14.3 % 5.8 % 10.0 % 1.5 %
6
Total (RFS)
Total Council Size
28.6 14.3 0.0% 14.3 28.6 % % % % 4.9 3.9% 3.0% 7.3% 4.2% % 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 % % % % % 5.8% 10.6 11.6 1.6% % 4.7% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
19
7
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 167.00
Appendix 2.03 Set Council Size at Fifteen (15) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.503 %
31.61 7%
21.61 7%
4.192 %
9.401 %
24.67 1%
100.0%
SubTotal ISP Raw
14
Total (RFS)
0.842
3.130
2.140
0.415
0.931
2.442
10
Total (SCR)
1
3
2
0
1
2
9
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
1
3
3
1
2
2
12
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
11.1 % 2.6%
33.3%
22.2%
0.0%
22.2%
100.0%
1.7%
0.6%
-2.4%
0.0%
8.3%
25.0%
25.0%
4.2% 8.3%
11.1 % 1.7% 16.7 % 7.3%
16.7%
100.0%
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
15
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council SizeFaculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s)) International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
10
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total Graduate Population 1670
5 3 2 1
0.94
6
23
-6.6% 3.4% 4.1% -8.0% 0.2% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
0.0% 118.44
Page | 50
Appendix 2.04 Set Council Size at Twenty (20) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
20
4.17 3 4
2.85 3 3
0.55 3 1
1.24 1 1
3.25 7 3
13
Total (SCR)
1.12 2 1
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
1
4
4
2
2
3
16
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
7.7 30.8 23.1 7.7% 7.7 23.1 % % % % % 1.5% 3.5% 0.8 0.8% 1.7 1.6% % % 6.3 25.0 25.0 12.5 12.5 18.8 % % % % % % 3.4% 8.3% 3.1 2.3 6.6% % 5.9% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
Total Graduate Population 1670
20
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
13
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
1
Ex-officio - Senators
2
7 3 4
6
Total (RFS)
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
29
1.25
13
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 84.34
Appendix 2.05 Set Council Size at Twenty-Five (25) Specifics per Council Size
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
25
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
SubTota l ISP Raw
26
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
17
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
2
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
9 3 6
6
1.57
Page | 51
Total (RFS)
5.21 7 5
3.56 7 4
0.69 2 1
1.55 1 2
4.07 1 4
17
Total (SCR)
1.40 3 1
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
1
5
5
2
3
4
20
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
5.9 29.4 23.5 5.9% 11.8 23.5 % % % % % 1.9% 1.7% 2.4 2.6 2.2% % 1.1% % 5.0 25.0 25.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 % % % % % % 3.4% 5.8% 5.6 3.5 6.6% % 4.7% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
36
17
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 65.49
Appendix 2.06 Set Council Size at Thirty (30) Specifics per Council Size
CS
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
30
6.26 0 6
4.28 0 4
0.83 0 1
1.86 1 2
4.88 5 5
20
Total (SCR)
1.68 4 2
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
2
6
5
2
3
5
23
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
10.0 30.0 20.0 5.0% 10.0 25.0 % % % % % 1.5 0.8% 0.6 0.3% % 1.6% 1.6% % 8.7 26.1 21.7 8.7% 13.0 21.7 % % % % % 0.2 0.1% 4.5% 3.6 % 5.5% % 2.9% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
Set Council Size (SCS)
30
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
20
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
2
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total Graduate Population 1670
10 3 7
6
Total (RFS)
40
1.88
20
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 55.30
Appendix 2.07 Set Council Size at Thirty-Five (35) Specifics per Council Size
CS
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
Total Graduate Population 1670
18.9
8.50
31.6
21.6
4.19
9.40
24.6
100.0%
Page | 52
8%
3%
17%
17%
2%
1%
71%
SubTota l ISP Raw
35
Total (SCR)
1.96 4 2
7.30 3 7
4.99 3 5
0.96 8 1
2.17 2 2
5.69 9 6
23
Total (OSC) Total (FSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
2
7
6
2
3
6
26
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
8.7 % 0.2 %
30.4 % 1.2%
21.7 % 0.1%
4.3%
26.1 % 1.4%
100.0%
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS)
8.7 % 0.7 % 11.5 % 2.1 %
7.7 26.9 23.1 7.7% 23.1 % % % % 1.5% 3.5% 0.8 4.7% 1.6% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
100.0%
Set Council Size (SCS)
35
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
23
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
2
Ex-officio - Senators
2
12 3 9
6
Total (RFS)
Total Council Size
45
2.19
0.2%
23
0.0%
0.0% 47.85
Appendix 2.08 Set Council Size at Forty (40) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.98 %
8.503 %
31.61 7%
21.61 7%
4.192 %
9.401 %
24.67 1%
100.0%
SubTotal ISP Raw
40
Total (RFS)
2.245
8.347
5.707
1.107
2.482
6.513
26
Total (SCR)
2
8
6
1
2
7
26
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
2
8
7
2
3
7
29
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
40
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council SizeFaculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s)) International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
26
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total Graduate Population 1670
14 3 11 3
2.51
6
Page | 53
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
7.7%
30.8%
23.1%
3.8%
7.7%
26.9%
100.0%
0.8% 6.9%
-0.8%
1.5%
0.0%
24.1%
1.7% 10.3 % 0.9%
2.3%
27.6%
0.3% 6.9%
24.1%
100.0%
-4.0% 2.5% 2.7% -0.5% 1.6% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
51
0.0% 42.17
Appendix 2.09 Set Council Size at Forty-Five (45) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
44
9.39 0 9
6.42 0 6
1.24 5 1
2.79 2 3
7.32 7 7
30
Total (SCR)
2.52 5 3
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
3
9
7
2
4
7
32
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
10.3 31.0 20.7 3.4% 10.3 24.1 % % % % % 1.8 0.9 % 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% % 0.5% 9.4 28.1 21.9 6.3% 12.5 21.9 % % % % % 0.9 0.3% 2.1% 3.1 % 3.5% % 2.8% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
45
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
30
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
3
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total Graduate Population 1670
15 3 12
6
Total (RFS)
55
2.82
29
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 37.70
Appendix 2.10 Set Council Size at Fifty (50) Specifics per Council Size
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
50
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat)
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
33 17 3
Page | 54
At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
14
SubTota l ISP Raw
49
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
3
Ex-officio - Senators
2 10.4 34 10
7.13 4 7
1.38 3 1
3.10 2 3
8.14 1 8
33
Total (SCR)
2.80 6 3
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
3
10
8
2
4
8
35
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
9.4 31.3 21.9 3.1% 9.4 25.0 % % % % % 0.9 0.3% 0.0 0.3% % 0.4% 1.1% % 8.6 28.6 22.9 5.7% 11.4 22.9 % % % % % 0.1 1.2% 1.5% 2.0 % 3.0% % 1.8% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
6
Total (RFS)
60
3.13
32
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 34.08
Appendix 2.11 Set Council Size at Fifty-Five (55) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
55
11.4 77 11
7.84 7 8
1.52 2 2
3.41 3 3
8.95 5 9
36
Total (SCR)
3.08 7 3
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
3
11
9
3
4
9
39
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
8.3 30.6 22.2 5.6% 8.3 25.0 % % % % % 0.6% 1.4% 0.3% 0.2 1.1% 1.1 % % 7.7 28.2 23.1 7.7% 10.3 23.1 % % % % % 1.5% 3.5% 0.9 0.8 3.4% % 1.6% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
55
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
36
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
3
Ex-officio - Senators
2
19 3 16
6
Total (RFS)
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
Total Graduate Population 1670
66
3.45
36
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 30.53
Page | 55
Appendix 2.12 Set Council Size at Sixty (60) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.98 %
8.503 %
31.61 7%
21.61 7%
4.192 %
9.401 %
24.67 1%
100.0%
SubTotal ISP Raw
61
Total (RFS)
3.367
8.560
1.660
3.723
9.770
40
Total (SCR)
3
12.52 0 13
9
2
4
10
41
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
3
13
10
3
5
10
44
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
7.3%
31.7%
22.0%
4.9%
9.8%
24.4%
100.0%
1.2% 6.8%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.4%
-0.3%
0.0%
29.5%
22.7%
6.8%
11.4 % 2.0%
22.7%
100.0%
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
Total Graduate Population 1670
60
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council SizeFaculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s)) International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
40
Ex-officio - Senators
2
20 3 17 4
3.76
6
-2.1% 1.1% 2.6% -1.9% 1.7% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
73
0.0% 27.20
Appendix 2.13 Set Council Size at Sixty-Five (65) Specifics per Council Size
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
65
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
66
3.64 8
13.5 64
9.27 4
1.79 8
4.03 3
10.5 84
43
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
43
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
4
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total (RFS)
Total Graduate Population 1670
22 3 19
6
4.07
Page | 56
Total (SCR)
4
14
9
2
4
11
44
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
4
14
10
3
5
11
47
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
9.1 % 0.6 %
31.8 % 0.2%
20.5 % 1.2%
4.5%
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
78
9.1 25.0 % % 0.4% 0.3% 0.3 % 8.5 29.8 21.3 6.4% 10.6 23.4 % % % % % 0.0 2.2% 1.2 % 1.8% 0.3% % 1.3% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 25.26
Appendix 2.14 Set Council Size at Seventy (70) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
70
14.6 07 15
9.98 7 10
1.93 7 2
4.34 3 4
11.3 98 11
46
Total (SCR)
3.92 8 4
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
4
15
11
3
5
11
49
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
8.7 % 0.2 %
32.6 % 1.0%
21.7 % 0.1%
4.3%
23.9 % 0.8%
100.0%
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS)
8.7 % 0.7 % 10.2 % 0.8 %
8.2 30.6 22.4 6.1% 22.4 % % % % 0.8% 1.9% 0.3 1.0% 2.2% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
100.0%
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
70
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
46
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
4
Ex-officio - Senators
2
24 3 21
4.38
6
Total (RFS)
Total Council Size
Total Graduate Population 1670
82
0.2%
46
0.0%
0.0% 23.93
Appendix 2.15 Set Council Size at Seventy-Five (75) Specifics per Council Size
CS
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
Page | 57
Set Council Size (SCS)
75
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
50
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
5
Ex-officio - Senators
2
26 3 23
SubTota l ISP Raw
76
15.6 50 16
10.7 00 11
2.07 5 2
4.65 4 5
12.2 12 12
50
Total (SCR)
4.20 9 4
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
4
16
12
3
6
12
53
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
8.0 32.0 22.0 4.0% 10.0 24.0 % % % % % 0.4% 0.4% 0.6 0.5 0.2% % 0.7% % 7.5 30.2 22.6 5.7% 11.3 22.6 % % % % % 1.0% 1.5% 1.9 1.0 1.4% % 2.0% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
6
Total (RFS)
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
4.70
89
50
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 22.12
Appendix 2.16 Set Council Size at Eighty (80) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
79
16.6 94 17
11.4 14 11
2.21 3 2
4.96 4 5
13.0 26 13
53
Total (SCR)
4.49 0 4
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
4
17
12
3
6
13
55
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total
7.7 %
32.7 %
21.2 %
3.8%
9.6 %
25.0 %
100.0%
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
80
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
53
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
5
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total (RFS)
Total Graduate Population 1670
27 3 24
6
5.01
52
Page | 58
Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
92
1.1% 0.2 0.3% 0.8 0.5% 0.3% % % 7.3 30.9 21.8 5.5% 10.9 23.6 % % % % % 0.2% 1.3% 1.5 1.2 0.7% % 1.0% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 21.09
Appendix 2.17 Set Council Size at Eighty-Five (85) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
85
17.7 37 18
12.1 27 12
2.35 1 2
5.27 4 5
13.8 40 14
56
Total (SCR)
4.77 0 5
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
5
18
13
3
6
14
59
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
8.9 % 0.4 %
32.1 % 0.5%
21.4 % 0.2%
3.6%
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
85
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
56
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
5
Ex-officio - Senators
2
29 3 26
6
Total (RFS)
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
Total Graduate Population 1670
98
5.32
8.9 25.0 % % 0.3% 0.6% 0.5 % 8.5 30.5 22.0 5.1% 10.2 23.7 % % % % % 0.0 0.4% 0.9% 0.8 % 1.1% % 0.9% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
56
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 19.67
Appendix 2.18 Set Council Size at Ninety (90) Specifics per Council Size
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
90
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
59 31 3
Page | 59
Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
28
SubTota l ISP Raw
91
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
6
Ex-officio - Senators
2 18.7 80 19
12.8 40 13
2.49 0 2
5.58 4 6
14.6 54 15
59
Total (SCR)
5.05 1 5
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
5
19
14
3
7
15
63
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
8.3 31.7 21.7 3.3% 10.0 25.0 % % % % % 0.0% 0.0% 0.6 0.3% 0.2 0.9% % % 7.9 30.2 22.2 4.8% 11.1 23.8 % % % % % 0.6% 0.6% 1.7 0.6 1.5% % 0.9% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
6
Total (RFS)
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
5.64
105
60
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 18.43
Appendix 2.19 Set Council Size at Ninety-Five (95) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
95
19.8 24 20
13.5 54 14
2.62 8 3
5.89 5 6
15.4 69 15
63
Total (SCR)
5.33 1 5
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
5
20
15
4
7
15
66
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
7.9 % 0.6 % 7.6 %
31.7 % 0.1%
22.2 % 0.6%
4.8%
9.5 % 0.1 %
23.8 % 0.9%
100.0%
30.3 %
22.7 %
6.1%
10.6 %
22.7 %
100.0%
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
95
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
63
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
6
Ex-officio - Senators
2
Total (RFS)
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang)
Total Graduate Population 1670
32 3 29
6
5.95
0.6%
63
0.0%
Page | 60
Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
109
1.1% 1.9% 1.2 0.9 1.3% % 1.9% % Total Graduate Students Per Representative
0.0% 17.52
Appendix 2.20 Set Council Size at One-Hundred (100) Specifics per Council Size
ISP
AHS
BUS
EDU
HUM
M&S
SOC
317
142
528
361
70
157
412
18.9 8%
8.50 3%
31.6 17%
21.6 17%
4.19 2%
9.40 1%
24.6 71%
100.0%
SubTota l ISP Raw
100
20.8 67 21
14.2 67 14
2.76 6 3
6.20 5 6
16.2 83 16
66
Total (SCR)
5.61 2 6
Total (OSC)
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
Total (FSC)
6
21
15
4
7
16
69
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
9.1 % 0.6 %
31.8 % 0.2%
21.2 % 0.4%
4.5%
Set Council Size (SCS)
CS
100
Faculty Seats (2/3rds of the Total) (rounded up) Remaining Seats (Council Size-Faculty Seats) Overhang Seats (20% required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Seat Total - (Faculty Seat(s)+Overhang Seat(s))
66
International Students (Total Number of Seats x International Population /2) Ex-officio - Executive
6
Ex-officio - Senators
2
34 3 31
6
Total (RFS)
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Council Size
Total Graduate Population 1670
114
6.26
9.1 24.2 % % 0.4% 0.3 0.4% % 8.7 30.4 21.7 5.8% 10.1 23.2 % % % % % 0.2 0.1% 1.6% 0.7 % 1.2% % 1.5% Total Graduate Students Per Representative
66
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 16.70
Page | 61
Appendix 3: Models of Council Using the Set Representation by Population Model (SRP) Listed below are the matrixes using the Brock University 2014-2015 Graduate enrolment figures and how the base population number of 1670 graduate students translates into various seat counts depending on the Set seat count in the Representation by Population (SRP), model. They are given in order beginning with an SRP of five and increasing by increments of five till an SRP of one hundred.
Appendix 3.01: Set Representation by Population at Five (5) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Populatio n 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40%
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
9
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Ex-Officio Senators Council Seats GSA Executives Total (RFS)
5
0.425
0.581
1.000
0.895
0.186
0.210
0.470
1.234
5
Total (SCR)
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
4
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
4
Total (FSC)
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
8
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
0.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
100.0%
-8.5%
13.4%
5.0%
7.1%
-3.7%
-4.2%
-9.4%
0.3%
0.0%
12.5 % 4.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
100.0%
0.9%
-7.5%
-5.4%
-3.7%
12.5 % 8.3%
3.1%
0.3%
0.0%
17
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
4 1 1 2 6
196.47
Appendix 3.02: Set Representation by Population at Ten (10) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40%
24.67 %
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
Page | 62
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
10
Total (RFS) Total (SCR)
3 1
SubTotal
13
0.850
1.162
2.000
1.790
0.371
0.419
0.940
2.467
10
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
2
9
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
Total (FSC)
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
12
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
11.1 % 2.6%
11.1%
22.2%
22.2%
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
22.2%
100.0%
-0.5%
2.2%
4.3%
-3.7%
-4.2%
1.7%
-2.4%
0.0%
8.3%
8.3%
16.7%
16.7%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
25.0%
100.0%
-0.2%
-3.3%
-3.3%
-1.2%
4.6%
4.1%
-1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
21
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1
2
6
128.46
Appendix 3.03: Set Representation by Population at Fifteen (15) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
20
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
15
Total (RFS)
1.275
1.743
3.000
2.686
0.557
0.629
1.410
3.701
15
Total (SCR)
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
4
16
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
Total (FSC)
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
4
18
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP)
6.3%
12.5%
18.8%
18.8%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
25.0%
100.0%
-2.3%
0.9%
-1.3%
0.8%
2.5%
2.1%
-3.2%
0.3%
0.0%
2 2 1
2
6
Page | 63
Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
11.1 % 2.6%
11.1%
16.7%
16.7%
5.6%
5.6%
-0.5%
-3.3%
-1.2%
1.8%
1.4%
28
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
11.1 % 1.7%
22.2%
100.0%
-2.4%
0.0%
85.64
Appendix 3.04: Set Representation by Population at Twenty (20) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62%
20.00 %
17.90%
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
24
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
20
Total (RFS)
1.701
2.323
4.000
3.581
0.743
0.838
1.880
4.934
20
Total (SCR)
2
2
4
4
1
1
2
5
21
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total (FSC)
2
3
4
4
1
1
2
5
22
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
9.5%
9.5%
19.0%
19.0%
4.8%
4.8%
9.5%
23.8%
100.0%
1.0%
-2.1%
-1.0%
1.1%
1.0%
0.6%
0.1%
-0.9%
0.0%
9.1%
13.6%
18.2%
18.2%
4.5%
4.5%
9.1%
22.7%
100.0%
0.6%
2.0%
-1.8%
0.3%
0.8%
0.4%
-0.3%
-1.9%
0.0%
32
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1 2 1
2
6
69.58
Appendix 3.05: Set Representation by Population at Twenty-Five (25)
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of
AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
SubTotal
29
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
25 2 3 1
Page | 64
ISP seats) Ex-Officio Council Seats
Senators
2
GSA Executives
6
Total (RFS)
2.126
2.904
5.000
4.476
0.928
1.048
2.350
6.168
25
Total (SCR)
2
3
5
4
1
1
2
6
24
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
Total (FSC)
2
3
5
5
1
1
3
6
26
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.3%
12.5%
20.8%
16.7%
4.2%
4.2%
8.3%
25.0%
100.0%
-0.2%
0.9%
0.8%
-1.2%
0.5%
0.0%
-1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
7.7%
11.5%
19.2%
19.2%
3.8%
3.8%
23.1%
100.0%
-0.8%
-0.1%
-0.8%
1.3%
0.1%
-0.3%
11.5 % 2.1%
-1.6%
0.0%
37
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
58.60
Appendix 3.06: Set Representation by Population at Thirty (30) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
36
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
30
Total (RFS)
2.551
3.485
6.000
5.371
1.114
1.257
2.820
7.401
30
Total (SCR)
3
3
6
5
1
1
3
7
29
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
4
Total (FSC)
3
4
6
6
1
2
3
8
33
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
10.3 % 1.8%
10.3%
20.7%
17.2%
3.4%
3.4%
24.1%
100.0%
-1.3%
0.7%
-0.7%
-0.3%
-0.7%
10.3 % 0.9%
-0.5%
0.0%
9.1%
12.1%
18.2%
18.2%
3.0%
6.1%
9.1%
24.2%
100.0%
0.6%
0.5%
-1.8%
0.3%
-0.7%
1.9%
-0.3%
-0.4%
0.0%
44
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
4 3 1
2
6
46.39
Page | 65
Appendix 3.07: Set Representation by Population at Thirty-Five (35) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Populatio n 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
42
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Ex-Officio Senators Council Seats GSA Executives
35
Total (RFS)
2.976
4.066
7.000
6.266
1.299
1.467
3.290
8.635
35
Total (SCR)
3
4
7
6
1
1
3
9
34
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
4
Total (FSC)
3
4
7
7
2
2
4
9
38
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.8%
11.8%
20.6%
17.6%
2.9%
2.9%
8.8%
26.5%
100.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.6%
-0.3%
-0.8%
-1.3%
-0.6%
1.8%
0.0%
7.9%
10.5%
18.4%
18.4%
5.3%
5.3%
23.7%
100.0%
-0.6%
-1.1%
-1.6%
0.5%
1.6%
1.1%
10.5 % 1.1%
-1.0%
0.0%
50
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
4 4 1 2 6
40.24
Appendix 3.08: Set Representation by Population at Forty (40)
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats
AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
SubTotal
46
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
40 2 4 1
2
Page | 66
GSA Executives
6
Total (RFS)
3.401
4.647
8.000
7.162
1.485
1.677
3.760
9.868
40
Total (SCR)
3
5
8
7
1
2
4
10
40
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
Total (FSC)
4
5
8
7
2
2
4
10
42
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
7.5%
12.5%
20.0%
17.5%
2.5%
5.0%
25.0%
100.0%
-1.0%
0.9%
0.0%
-0.4%
-1.2%
0.8%
10.0 % 0.6%
0.3%
0.0%
9.5%
11.9%
19.0%
16.7%
4.8%
4.8%
9.5%
23.8%
100.0%
1.0%
0.3%
-1.0%
-1.2%
1.0%
0.6%
0.1%
-0.9%
0.0%
54
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
36.30
Appendix 3.09: Set Representation by Population at Forty-Five (45) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
52
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
45
Total (RFS)
3.826
5.228
9.000
8.057
1.671
1.886
4.231
11.102
45
Total (SCR)
4
5
9
8
2
2
4
11
45
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
Total (FSC)
4
6
9
8
2
2
5
11
47
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.9%
11.1%
20.0%
17.8%
4.4%
4.4%
8.9%
24.4%
100.0%
0.4%
-0.5%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.7%
0.3%
-0.5%
-0.2%
0.0%
8.5%
12.8%
19.1%
17.0%
4.3%
4.3%
23.4%
100.0%
0.0%
1.1%
-0.9%
-0.9%
0.5%
0.1%
10.6 % 1.2%
-1.3%
0.0%
60
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
2 5 1
2
6
32.43
Appendix 3.10: Set Representation by Population at Fifty (50) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population
Page | 67
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
1670
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
57
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
50
Total (RFS)
4.251
5.808
10.000
8.952
1.856
2.096
4.701
12.335
50
Total (SCR)
4
6
10
9
2
2
5
12
50
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Total (FSC)
5
6
10
9
2
2
5
13
52
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.0%
12.0%
20.0%
18.0%
4.0%
4.0%
24.0%
100.0%
-0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
-0.2%
10.0 % 0.6%
-0.7%
0.0%
9.6%
11.5%
19.2%
17.3%
3.8%
3.8%
9.6%
25.0%
100.0%
1.1%
-0.1%
-0.8%
-0.6%
0.1%
-0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
65
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
2 5 1
2
6
29.30
Appendix 3.11: Set Representation by Population at Fifty-Five (55) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
63
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
55
Total (RFS)
4.677
6.389
11.000
9.847
2.042
2.305
5.171
13.569
55
Total (SCR)
5
6
11
10
2
2
5
14
55
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
Total (FSC)
5
7
11
10
2
3
5
14
57
2 6 1
2
6
Page | 68
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
9.1%
10.9%
20.0%
18.2%
3.6%
3.6%
9.1%
25.5%
100.0%
0.6%
-0.7%
0.0%
0.3%
-0.1%
-0.6%
-0.3%
0.8%
0.0%
8.8%
12.3%
19.3%
17.5%
3.5%
5.3%
8.8%
24.6%
100.0%
0.3%
0.7%
-0.7%
-0.4%
-0.2%
1.1%
-0.6%
-0.1%
0.0%
71
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
26.72
Appendix 3.12: Set Representation by Population at Sixty (60) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71%
4.19 %
9.40%
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
68
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
60
Total (RFS)
5.102
6.970
12.000
10.743
2.228
2.515
5.641
14.802
60
Total (SCR)
5
7
12
11
2
3
6
15
61
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Total (FSC)
5
7
12
11
3
3
6
15
62
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.2%
11.5%
19.7%
18.0%
3.3%
4.9%
9.8%
24.6%
100.0%
-0.3%
-0.1%
-0.3%
0.1%
-0.4%
0.7%
0.4%
-0.1%
0.0%
8.1%
11.3%
19.4%
17.7%
4.8%
4.8%
9.7%
24.2%
100.0%
-0.4%
-0.3%
-0.6%
-0.2%
1.1%
0.6%
0.3%
-0.5%
0.0%
76
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1 6 1
2
6
24.56
Appendix 3.13: Set Representation by Population at Sixty-Five (65)
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of
AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50%
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19%
9.40 %
24.67 %
Sub-
74
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
65 1 7
Page | 69
Total
Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
1
Total (RFS)
5.527
7.551
13.000
11.638
2.413
2.725
6.111
16.036
65
Total (SCR)
6
8
13
12
2
3
6
16
66
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Total (FSC)
6
8
13
12
3
3
6
16
67
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
9.1%
12.1%
19.7%
18.2%
3.0%
4.5%
9.1%
24.2%
100.0%
0.6%
0.5%
-0.3%
0.3%
-0.7%
0.4%
-0.3%
-0.4%
0.0%
9.0%
11.9%
19.4%
17.9%
4.5%
4.5%
9.0%
23.9%
100.0%
0.5%
0.3%
-0.6%
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
-0.4%
-0.8%
0.0%
82
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
2 6
22.72
Appendix 3.14: Set Representation by Population at Seventy (70) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19%
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
79
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
70
Total (RFS)
5.952
8.132
14.000
12.533
2.599
2.934
6.581
17.269
70
Total (SCR)
6
8
14
13
3
3
7
17
71
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Total (FSC)
6
8
14
13
3
3
7
18
72
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.5%
11.3%
19.7%
18.3%
4.2%
4.2%
9.9%
23.9%
100.0%
-0.1%
-0.3%
-0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
-0.7%
0.0%
8.3%
11.1%
19.4%
18.1%
4.2%
4.2%
9.7%
25.0%
100.0%
-0.2%
-0.5%
-0.6%
0.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
87
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1 7 1
2
6
21.14
Page | 70
Appendix 3.15: Set Representation by Population at Seventy-Five (75) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50 %
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40%
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
85
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
75
Total (RFS)
6.377
8.713
15.000
13.428
2.784
3.144
7.051
18.503
75
Total (SCR)
6
9
15
13
3
3
7
19
75
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
Total (FSC)
7
9
15
14
3
3
7
19
77
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.0%
12.0%
20.0%
17.3%
4.0%
4.0%
9.3%
25.3%
100.0%
-0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
-0.6%
0.3%
-0.2%
-0.1%
0.7%
0.0%
9.1%
11.7%
19.5%
18.2%
3.9%
3.9%
9.1%
24.7%
100.0%
0.6%
0.1%
-0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
-0.3%
-0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
93
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
2 8 1
2
6
19.76
Appendix 3.16: Set Representation by Population at Eighty (80) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50%
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19%
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
91
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
80
Total (RFS)
6.802
9.293
16.000
14.323
2.970
3.353
7.521
19.737
80
Total (SCR)
7
9
16
14
3
3
8
20
80
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
3 8 1
2 6
Page | 71
Total (FSC)
7
10
16
15
3
4
8
20
83
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.8%
11.3%
20.0%
17.5%
3.8%
3.8%
25.0%
100.0%
0.2%
-0.4%
0.0%
-0.4%
0.0%
-0.4%
10.0 % 0.6%
0.3%
0.0%
8.4%
12.0%
19.3%
18.1%
3.6%
4.8%
9.6%
24.1%
100.0%
-0.1%
0.4%
-0.7%
0.2%
-0.1%
0.6%
0.2%
-0.6%
0.0%
99
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
18.35
Appendix 3.17: Set Representation by Population at Eighty- Five (85) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50%
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19 %
9.40%
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
96
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives Total (RFS)
85
7.228
9.874
17.000
15.219
3.156
3.563
7.991
20.970
85
Total (SCR)
7
10
17
15
3
4
8
21
85
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
Total (FSC)
8
10
17
16
3
4
8
21
87
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.2%
11.8%
20.0%
17.6%
3.5%
4.7%
9.4%
24.7%
100.0%
-0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
-0.3%
-0.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.2%
11.5%
19.5%
18.4%
3.4%
4.6%
9.2%
24.1%
100.0%
0.7%
-0.1%
-0.5%
0.5%
-0.3%
0.4%
-0.2%
-0.5%
0.0%
104
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
2 9 1
2 6
17.49
Appendix 3.18: Set Representation by Population at Ninety (90)
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired)
AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50%
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19%
9.40 %
24.67 %
Total Graduate Population 1670 100.0%
90
Page | 72
Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
4
Total (RFS)
9
SubTotal
102
7.653
10.455
18.000
16.114
3.341
3.772
8.461
22.204
90
Total (SCR)
8
10
18
16
3
4
8
22
89
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
4
Total (FSC)
8
11
18
16
4
4
9
23
93
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
9.0%
11.2%
20.2%
18.0%
3.4%
4.5%
9.0%
24.7%
100.0%
0.5%
-0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
-0.3%
0.3%
-0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
8.6%
11.8%
19.4%
17.2%
4.3%
4.3%
9.7%
24.7%
100.0%
0.1%
0.2%
-0.6%
-0.7%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
110
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1
2 6
16.37
Appendix 3.19: Set Representation by Population at Ninety-Five (95) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50%
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19%
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
106
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
95
Total (RFS)
8.078
11.036
19.000
17.009
3.527
3.982
8.931
23.437
95
Total (SCR)
8
11
19
17
4
4
9
23
95
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Total (FSC)
8
11
19
17
4
4
9
24
96
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS)
8.4%
11.6%
20.0%
17.9%
4.2%
4.2%
9.5%
24.2%
100.0%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
-0.5%
0.0%
8.3%
11.5%
19.8%
17.7%
4.2%
4.2%
9.4%
25.0%
100.0%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
1 10 1
2 6
Page | 73
Total Seat Count
114
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
15.83
Appendix 3.20: Set Representation by Population at One Hundred (100) AHS
BUS (DM)
BUS (ISP)
EDU (DM)
EDU (ISP)
HUM
M&S
SOC
Total Graduate Population 1670
142
194
334
299
62
70
157
412
8.50%
11.62 %
20.00 %
17.90 %
3.71 %
4.19%
9.40 %
24.67 %
100.0%
SubTotal
112
Faculty Seats (Set at whatever base number desired) Overhang Seats (0.20-0.49 required to get +1 Seat) At-Large Seat(s) (Set at 10% of Faculty Seats, Rounded Up) At-Large International Seat (subtract from largest number of ISP seats) Senators Ex-Officio Council Seats GSA Executives
100
Total (RFS)
8.503
11.617
20.000
17.904
3.713
4.192
9.401
24.671
100
Total (SCR)
9
12
20
18
4
4
9
25
101
Total (OSC) (0.2-0.5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Total (FSC)
9
12
20
18
4
4
10
25
102
Percentage of Council Size (CS) Raw Total Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (RBP) Percentage of Council Size (CS) (With Overhang) Percentage Difference from Total Population Percentage (WOS) Total Seat Count
8.9%
11.9%
19.8%
17.8%
4.0%
4.0%
8.9%
24.8%
100.0%
0.4%
0.3%
-0.2%
-0.1%
0.2%
-0.2%
-0.5%
0.1%
0.0%
8.8%
11.8%
19.6%
17.6%
3.9%
3.9%
9.8%
24.5%
100.0%
0.3%
0.1%
-0.4%
-0.3%
0.2%
-0.3%
0.4%
-0.2%
0.0%
120
Total Graduate Students Per Representative
1 10 1
2 6
14.91
Page | 74
Lihat lebih banyak...
Comentarios
