By Ed Veilleux
By the time all is said and done, SGA members will have paid roughly $168,500 of their money to renovate the Pub Down Under, at least.
The most recent figures released, at a Feb. 29 board meeting, show the SGA spent roughly $135,000 on Corriveau Contracting for the majority of the work.
“There wasn’t an open bidding process,” SGA President Charlie Andrews said. “I told the contractor the budget was $80,000 to $100,000, and we had to work within there, and that was on the contract.”
The contractor charged roughly $135,000, according to a report presented to the SGA board.
When asked about the total spent on contracting, Andrews said, “It wasn’t a surprise.” He then elaborated that the TVs and furniture purchased were expensive, although they don’t impact on the cost of the contractors’ services.
Andrews decided to go with the contractor because of their ties to Laurentian University, he said.
“The technician for the university is also the same as the contractor,” Andrews said. “So, the reason that is important is that (when) the power goes out, at least they can get access to the resources they need to resolve the issue.”
The power went out on Dec. 27 while the contractors were working on pub and it was quickly restored, according to Andrews.
Andrews said because of his contractor choice, the renovations were also completed over reading week, while the university was closed down. With an outside contractor, that might not have happened, the president said.
The renovations were paid for by the off-campus housing fund (which was collected from SGA members to pay for the now-defunct Off-campus housing office) which totaled $179,677 and was collected over a few years. It was transferred to the SGA from the administration this year, because the office the funds were supposed to be paying for was no longer operational.
The numbers for the pub renos, up to January 4, were presented to the board at the Feb. 29 board meeting.
When the decision was made to spend the off-campus housing fund on the pub (the first cheque to Corriveau was paid in September), it was during a time when the SGA executive had the power of the board, under SGA constitution bylaw 5.02. Having the power of the board, the executive had the power to spend the off-campus housing fund without board consultation.
At the time, the executive was made up of SGA President Charlie Andrews and VP Services Iain Park, as former VP Issues Tim Campbell had resigned from office. Having only two executive members to vote on actions such as this one, Andrews held the overruling vote in any tie-situation. The first cheque for the pub work was issued Sept. 27, the day before the first SGA board meeting of the year.
The renovations were brought up at the March 15 SGA elections debates, during the presidential audience question period, as Andrews was on stage, when an audience member asked how the candidates could justify spending $150,000 (or more) on pub renovations.
SGA presidential-candidate Steve Sutherland replied: “With $180,000, I could’ve given 1,800 students $100 dollars each. That would’ve given students, who are pretty much broke by the end of the year, $100 to buy groceries. I can’t justify spending that much (on the pub renovations). I love the Food Network and I’ve seen them do restaurant makeovers and spend $30,000 on spaces that are much larger than the pub downstairs.”
Andy Rollins, also vying for the SGA president job, followed suit: “I can’t justify spending that kind of money on pub renovations, no matter what. At the very least there should have been a fair bidding process. There are so many things that our school could have done with $180,000. We could’ve put a down payment on a house and threw a new pub in there.”
Rollins suggested the SGA could’ve given out some $500 bursaries to alleviate student debt, with the money. “We should’ve put the money back into students’ hands or at least down something more for the entire SGA.Andrews responded third on the question, saying: “Keep in mind, the pub gives students jobs and also it is an investment for the SGA because it’s the only resource that generates a revenue. The pub definitely needed renovations.”The current president said the pub needed to renovate using “durable and industrial materials” because of their durability.“We want something that will last long-term, like another 50 years or so,” he added.In the future, Andrews said, “There should be more of a supervision, or board protocol, involved with large expenditures within the SGA.”During an interview about the renovations, Andrews said, “(The pub renovations) could’ve waited, I suppose. (But), we need to live up to the times. The (former) lighting was really hot, it would generate heat and (use) a lot of electricity. Now that we have LED lighting, which is more sustainable, it doesn’t produce as much heat.”
In terms of where the money came from, Andrews noted: “I think students need to know where the budget came from. It doesn’t effect our year-to-year budget because this money was found.”
Presidential candidate Steve Sutherland concluded: “Clearly these decisions can’t be made unilaterally.”
Andrews said there will be detailed financial records released about the pub renovations at the March 28 SGA board meeting, at 5 p.m. on the eleventh floor of the parker building.
SGA Senator Mark Mancini said students were wronged in regards to the pub renovations project.
“This was a blatant misuse of student funds–no more, no less,” he said. “As a student association, we need to ensure that student money is well spent and well accounted for.”
Mancini said he is “ashamed” of the process behind the project.
“In any professional organization, there is a tendering process that occurs for capital projects. This allows the organization to get the lowest possible price; this is how we show respect for the students and their money. As it stands, it seems as if there was no planning, there was only one bidder. This is a boondoggle if I’ve ever seen one, one that I’m quite ashamed of. Students did not get value for their money in the pub, and they should be concerned over the flagrant disregard for their money that Mr. Andrews seemed to have. We can do better for SGA students.”
Current VP of Issues Michael Martino said he doesn’t feel right about the amount spent on the renovations or the process (although he wasn’t yet in power when the decisions were made).
“I apologize to my membership,” he said. “I work for you, but this year some things just didn’t work. Think of what we might have done with $150 000 (or more) to toss around. That’s a lot of bursaries, buses to Occupy Toronto, ping pong balls for the games room, free pizza and better food, funding for clubs, causes, and everything else we might have come up with.”
In terms of how the situation was handled, Martino added: “Our actions to remedy the situation were inadequate in hindsight… We were actually being too nice about something that we now realize required more aggressive action than we were willing and thought was necessary to take at the time.”
Senator Mancini said he was unnerved by the secrecy behind the project: “As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Andrews ran this project on his own. In this case, Mr. Andrews was quite secretive about the project in the pub, and he did not disclose information to the Board or to me on any one occasion. We, as an organization, were stripped of our ability to protect students and their money, despite our numerous requests to Mr. Andrews as to what was going on in the pub.”
eddy_veilleux@hotmail.com
1 comment
Really beneficial post. I will be planning by way of a few of these
problems likewise..