Issues raised internally and externally with AMS Clubs and Campus Affairs Commissions

This story has been updated as of April 10 at 6:45 p.m. to better reflect the interaction between Moreno and Tronsgard. The story was also updated to include an AMS statement on the concerns taken with the campus affairs commission, which was sent to The Journal after publication.

The commissions of campus affairs and clubs are under fire, with allegations ranging from a lack of communication to inappropriate language.

Concerns about the AMS Clubs Commission’s ratification process and conduct with external groups have surfaced, with an allegation of inappropriate language about the Clubs Commissioner. As for the Campus Affairs Commission, internal stakeholders say e-mails are going unanswered, and timelines are being rushed.

Clubs Commission issues

In an interview with The Journal, AMS Clubs Commissioner Xian Tronsgard said the commission oversees roughly 300 AMS-ratified clubs and is responsible for ratification, re-ratification, renewal, grants, and outreach events.

According to Tronsgard, prospective clubs must operate for two semesters before becoming eligible to apply. Applications are reviewed by the club advisory committee, which she said includes herself as a non-voting chair, the vice-president (university affairs), the social issues commissioner, and AMS Assembly members.

Clubs are assessed on whether their applications are complete, their mandates overlap with existing groups, their budgets are detailed, and whether they have established a strong enough identity to be sustainable long-term.

“We really want to feel that the club will be around for the next 10 years,” she said.

Rather than only telling clubs they didn’t meet eligibility requirements, she said the commission now cites “the specific policy that they didn’t meet to be a lot clearer.” Tronsgard added that clubs can book consultations to review their applications and receive feedback.

In an interview with The Journal, Marc Moreno of Queen’s Hispanic Organization for Pre-Medical Education alleged that his club experienced repeated delays, missed meetings, and unclear communication during the ratification process.

Moreno alleged that during a conversation at a club hiring fair in the ARC, Tronsgard said to him, “You’re such a f—king asshole.” He explained that they were engaging in a conversation as Moreno had booked a booth at the fair, and was told by Tronsgard over e-mail that they could have a discussion about the circumstances of the decision not to ratify his club at the event.

When asked about that interaction in The Journal’s interview, Tronsgard declined to comment beyond an AMS statement.

In a written statement to The Journal, the AMS said it was aware of the interaction.

“The interaction occurred during a public event where an individual, who was upset with the outcome of their club ratification process, engaged in verbally aggressive behaviour toward staff,” the statement said. “The individual was aware of the ratification process and appropriate avenues to raise concerns, but instead chose to use inappropriate methods in a public setting.”

Moreno denies acting verbally aggressively towards staff and said he remained respectful throughout. He added that after the interaction, he and his fellow club members no longer felt comfortable at the fair and opted to leave the event. He claimed that his intention was never to argue but to seek clarification about his club’s ratification circumstances.

The AMS said it’s committed to maintaining a respectful environment and that abuse toward staff will not be tolerated.

Tronsgard said the commission is in the process of restructuring how it supports prospective clubs. She also pointed to a proposed “procedural fairness clause,” which she said would make club-related rubrics public online.

In response to concerns about the ratification process, she said the commission recognizes student frustration and is working to address it through policy changes.

Campus Affairs Commission issues

Queen’s StuCons (QSC) Head Manager Kaiwen Tee, ArtSci ’26, said in an interview with The Journal that she’s been dealing with issues surrounding the AMS’s process for approving student events.

According to Tee, the system requires multiple approvals, including review from the AMS Campus Affairs Commission. However, Tee said delays and communication gaps have led to concerns from many clubs, concerns which have been brought to her.

Tee said clubs would submit forms but then not get responses, adding when she would reach out to Campus Affairs Commissioner Ali Hussein to address the issue, she also wouldn’t receive a response.

She explained Hussein would claim “’You can e-mail me at any time,’ but [when] we sent multiple emails and follow-ups, there was no response. […] In general, there was a lot of defensiveness going on.”

She said the issue was first raised with AMS leadership in September and October, but only limited changes were made to address the concerns. She added that “a lot” of meetings about the system occurred without QSC staff, despite the service playing a required role in approving events with more than 100 attendees or alcohol.

The sanctioning form itself has also confused, Tee said, noting that earlier versions included incorrect QSC pricing information and unclear instructions for clubs submitting requests.

In some cases, Tee said clubs received approval for events only a day before they were scheduled to take place.

Internal timelines were also rushed, according to Tee, who said she was only informed QSC was needed at an AMS awards show a week before the event. She said that by this time, her schedules were already sent out, as there’s a standard practice of two weeks’ notice.

“Last year, I remember the QSC head manager was getting [Microsoft] Teams’ messages from people at the AMS being like, ‘Can you book this in two days? You need to do this stuff.’ And that’s a lot of pressure, so I don’t know if it’s a broader trend within the AMS,” Tee said.

In a statement to The Journal, Vice-President (University Affairs) Alyssa Perisa, whose portfolio oversees the commissions, explained that this year’s event sanctioning process has remained “largely unchanged” aside from the adoption of Bounce.

“The challenges encountered this year are not fundamentally different from those in previous years. However, the transition to Bounce introduced additional issues associated with adopting a new system—an outcome that was anticipated and planned for. To mitigate these challenges, resources have been made available, including walkthroughs offered by the Campus Affairs Commission, Bounce office hours, and a dedicated Bounce help desk tailored to AMS and AMS clubs,” Perisa wrote.

She added that the procedure surrounding events needs to consider both AMS and University policy, adding to confusion, with the AMS Events Policy undergoing consultation in an effort to be improved. She added that some events require a certificate of insurance, which can delay the approval process as these requests require external approval by the insurance provider.

She added that approvals have been a “time-intensive, and historically under-supported process,” adding that a recent restructuring has allowed one of the commission’s employees to work increased hours, while also delegating some responsibilities to AMS permanent staff for greater support.