Lizzie Federico Arts Editor

In early 2026, concerned members of the student body approached The Mike team regarding St. Mike’s recent acquisition of a ‘Presentimental Home,’ “which will house the College President but will also be meeting/event space,” as explained in the public SMCSU minutes. This mention of the house in the minutes would be the only acknowledgement of this purchase, with information as to why and how this purchase took place, that is accessible to the student body.

While the choice to purchase a home to house the sitting president of an academic institution is not an uncommon one, this action struck a nerve with many already hurt members of the student body who had watched initiatives they valued thrown to the wayside, only bolstered by the conduct of SMC administration when questioned on this purchase.

On January 12th, 2026, the first, and unfortunately only, vaguely detailed mention of this house and its purpose was discussed, and seemingly questioned, at that day’s SMCSU meeting. It is from these minutes that the later information can be inferred. The topic was initially brought up during the then President’s update, the purchase coming up passively, but was quickly met with criticism and questioning from other members of the team. The former Financial VP acknowledged that student frustration was plausible and understandable, and later questioning was noted and said to be inquired about later. This inquiry, and the answers we can assume were given, unfortunately did not get revealed in later minutes.

In terms of specific information regarding the house itself, the minutes reveal only reactions and financial origins, though sometimes vaguely.

“[redacted] stresses importance of student knowledge for this decision, asked how BAPAC acquired the property. Sariha says that it is unclear due to the number of third-party members of the meeting. Will address in meeting with Irene.”

“[redacted] asks if funding would be pulled from the funding from Campus Landscape plan. Sariha says no that collegium approved long ago; funding comes from donors.”

These claims, particularly those regarding money, are unclear as they cannot be confirmed at this point due to how little is known about the purchase itself. This is the crux of the problem: no one knows anything.

I now turn to another instance of administrative decision-making where students felt like a lack of information was given to support said move: the shutting down of Mentorship and Commuter Coordinators. Although this happened a few years ago and information was provided at the time, the only long-term, accessible justification still available is SMCSU’s acknowledgment in the “Letters and Statements” section of their website. They, not the administration, acknowledged and tried to address how students felt and their frustrations. SMC, particularly the Dean’s Office, simply acknowledged their “dedication to continuous improvement and thoughtful program development” as a lacklustre solution.

It’s also critical to note that it was claimed this was simply a ‘pause’ to these programs; yet now, a year and six months later, no information has been given to students about any restart of these initiatives from an administrative standpoint.

While these two instances are drastically different, SMC’s lack of communication in both is constant and desperately needs to change. These are not the only areas where SMC struggles, whether it’s not having the means to run beloved initiatives, dismissing student demands, or dysfunctional utilities (ask somebody about the lights in The Mike’s office and who controls them). The way our college is using our money to benefit students, regardless of its origins, does not appear to be prioritized.

I feel the need to explicitly state that my criticism does not lie with any singular member of our administration, but rather with the collaborative decisions of, and the level of transparency St. Mike’s has regarding their financial moves.

While it is not necessary for the students to be aware of every little piece of the college’s spending, when it comes to purchases like a large-scale building that is questionable at best in its necessity, or things that do concern money coming from the students directly, an explicit acknowledgement or explanation is a best-case scenario for everybody involved. When the college does something that feels hidden, people believe that conduct is the result of something nefarious going on, and when the response to inquiry on these issues is further secrecy, these beliefs are only validated.

I’m writing this for change. It is our responsibility to discuss the affairs of SMC, for better or for worse. Change has never come from silence and passivity, and it’s on us, as people with a platform, to speak about what we’d like and discuss what needs to be said. While it might seem like my issues with SMC financials surround any individual action, multi-million-dollar real estate endeavours aside, this is a look back at a series of financial moves that have disappointed, confused, or angered students over the past few years, as an attempt to have the transparency the administration should’ve had this entire time, in hopes of receiving it on their end going forward.