To the Graduating Class of 2024/2025,  

The Athletic Centre has been used as the inclement weather plan for many years. The  Committee claims that it fulfils all the requirements for the “pomp and circumstance” of a  graduation ceremony. However numerous alumni have expressed that them [sic] and their families had  negative experiences. The viewing rooms provided for family members who were not able to get  a seat in the Gym were barely full and did not mirror the atmosphere of celebration that they  attempted to create in the Gym.  

The Convocation Subcommittee meeting held over teams on March 12^th at 10:00 AM, where  a number of student representatives expressed their displeasure with the current arrangements. In  this meeting the students were repeatedly spoken over and dismissed by Sokolowiski, who  continued along their agenda. The decisions have already been made, and it was clear to all of the  students in attendance that they had no say. The alternatives that they proposed, and vetoed are as  follows; 

1) It is not possible to move convocation to September because firstly, students move on and  move out of Peterborough for a number of reasons. Secondly, international students have  to do a lot of pre-planning to have their families attend their graduation, and a change of  date would result in significant financial loss. Lastly, that time of the year is the busiest as  that is when the largest influx of new students is. It could not be sooner than September as  that is when the construction project is due for completion.  

2) The two large quads; Lady Eaton and Gzowski pose a number of financial issues and  mobility issues. The Committee does not have the budget to rent porta potty’s [sic], the  additional stage and generators for the 13 ceremonies needed this year. The Committee also  cited that the traffic around those areas would make it noisy, and they would have to find a  solution to stop traffic. They emphasized that the grass at those locations is detrimental to  having people with mobility issues attend the ceremonies. The Committee claims that these  options have been explored in the past but the porta potties would not be conducive with a “classy” convocation experience for the students and the attendees.  

3) The Justin Chiu Stadium would also pose a number of financial issues for the Committee  as they do not have the funds to buy turf protection, claiming that it could cost over $10,  000. They state that this would be highly detrimental to their budget. In their conversations  with the Athletics Centre, the turf allegedly has a weight limit, even though there are built in bleachers, few chairs would have to be brought in, and it is already wheel chair [sic] accessible. To our understanding, they did not do very much research about covering the  turf, and neither did the Athletic Centre. Speaking about turf protection, considering that  the Athletic Centre does not cover the turf during the winter months, we fail to understand  the need to further ‘protect’ the alleged multi-million dollar investment.  

4) The Peterborough Memorial Centre was proposed, but due scheduling conflicts, there  would only be two days available. Hence the number of students per ceremony would have  to be increase [sic] from 180 to 500-600 students. This would make the ceremonies much longer.  Whilst the Memorial Centre has a much larger capacity than the Athletic Centre Gym some  of the seats would be blocked by the stage. 

When the Committee was questioned on why these options were not brought to the students,  they claimed that they had surveyed students. When asked when, Sokolowiski was not able to  recall when the last time was that they sent a survey.  

Considering all of the above, the Committee (despite the displeasure of the students) is  choosing to move forwards with having the ceremonies in the Athletics Centre. They are hoping  to appease the students by adding some additional drapery, lights and décor and spending the  remainder of their budget on working with an RSVP system that specializes in name pronunciation.  They would be responsible for managing the tickets. The Committee is also considering sending  out a second round of invites and offering a small number of students, further increasing the  number of attendees at each of the ceremonies. The Committee did not do an in-depth evaluation  as to why the Gym is an appropriate place, rather choosing to focus on the reasons why the other  locations are not suitable. The pros and cons of using the Athletic Centre are as follows;  

• It is the existing plan, and it has worked for previous graduations. The protocols are  already in place.  

• In the event of an emergency, people with mobility issues will be at great risk because  the number of attendees is over the capacity of the building and two exits are blocked  by the curtains during the ceremonies.  

Other locations have been vetoed for less. 

The students raising these concerns understand that convocation will continue as planned. The  RSVPs are being sent on April 4^th. We feel that students have the right to know why these changes  are happening, and why the options that are being repeatedly spoken about will not be possible for  their convocations. We share in their frustrations; we share in their anger that the outdoor  graduation we were promised will not be possible.  

I, the author, cannot speak for the remainder of the students who support the statements made  in the letter, however, my experiences with Trent have yielded two conclusions. Trent has  consistently over-promised and grossly under-delivered. The services and facilities are spread thin  due to over-enrollment and under-funding. The actions that the current administration is taking is  only treating the symptoms, and not addressing the cause of the problem. Having an indoor  convocation is only a band-aid.  

Soon there will be no Green to Bleed. 

Best,  

Concerned Students