5 raisons pour lesquelles...

  ©Shaun Best / Reuters (photo)       

5 raisons pour lesquelles... Stephen Harper voudrait proroger le Parlement pour la deuxième fois dans moins de deux ans:

5. Dans le but d'acquérir le contrôle des comités au Sénat (parce qu'au début janvier, Harper nommera 5 nouveaux sénateurs et le parti Conservateur aura, pour la première fois depuis l'ère Mulroney, la majorité au Sénat).

4. En vue de donner une semaine de vacance de plus aux Membres du Parlement afin qu'ils/elles pourront assister (ou regarder à la télévision) les Olympiques à Vancouver.

3.  Il a déjà réussi en décembre 2008 de proroger le Parlement donc... pourquoi pas compliquer les livres d'histoires et mettre à l'épreuve la précédente?

2. Démontrer à la population canadienne pourquoi qu'elle serait absolument cinglée de donner un gouvernement majoritaire au parti Conservateur. (une raison un peu sarcastique)

1. D'assurer que le comité parlementaire qui étudie l'affaire des prisonniers afghans soit éteint et que l'examination de cette histoire soit attardée encore une fois.

CFS AGM agenda leaked...

Canadian Federation of Students Agm November 2009 Agenda

Drop Fees campaign putting the SFUO in the RED?

Illustration by Maria Rondon ©2009 Fulcrum Publishing Society

When it comes to balancing the books, apparently the SFUO's VP finance Roxanne Dubois has a few problems. It has been reported, in yesterday's edition of the Fulcrum, that the SFUO is currently in red, having recorded a sizable deficit. The article entitled Looking over the books reported that the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa is facing a budget shortfall of about $162 147 compared to a surplus of $215 529 at this time last year.

Why is it that Ms. Dubois, the SFUO's VP finance (and apparently a member of CFS national executive as Francophone Students' Representative), hasn't been able to balance the books this year? Well, this is what she had to say:

Dubois further noted that part of the reason for the deficit is due to the Agora Bookstore and Internet Café bringing in less money this winter.

She also mentioned the fact that an $80 000 endowment (investment) has not done so well in the past year.

Alright, well that's fair given the worldwide recession we have been going through.

BUT, wait a second!?!? I read another interesting article pertaining to a certain Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) campaign that goes by the name of "Drop Fees" or if you would to get more specific, the "new and improved" campaign title: "Drop Fees for a Poverty-Free Ontario".

Apparently $20 000 (at the VERY LEAST) has been spent on this CFS-inspired campaign. Some might say that isn't a whole lot of money. But when you're running a deficit of over $160 000, that IS A LOT OF MONEY. Will any questions be asked about what Ms. Dubois is planning on doing in order to balance the books by the end of this fiscal year (April 30, 2010)? I sure hope so! Possibly more information about how and with whom this $80 000 endowment was invested should be another question that is asked, but this time directed to the Board of Administration of the SFUO (BOA) who approved such an investment.

This is OUR money and we have every right to know WHO is using it, WHAT it is being used for, WHERE it is kept/invested, WHY the SFUO has a budget deficit, and WHAT will be done to balance the SFUO's books by the end of this fiscal year.

IF YOU DON'T ASK, THEY WILL NOT TELL!

L'info pertinante au sujet de la grippe H1N1

L'Université d'Ottawa semble avoir un plan en place en cas d'une pandémie de la grippe H1N1. À vous de juger!

WHAT? NO FALL READING WEEK AT THE U OF O? Part 2

© Dmitriy Ystuyjanin; picture source: http://fr.fotolia.com/id/6809617

After having done a bit of research, here are the Colleges/University in Ontario who are lucky enough to have a FALL READING WEEK!

1) Trent University: October 26-November 2 2009
2) Laurentian University: October 26-October 30 2009
3) Nippissing University: October 12-October 16 2009
4) University of Windsor: October 13-October 16 2009
5) York University: October 10-October 16 2009
6) Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology: October 26-October 30 2009
7) St-Lawrence College of Applied Arts and Technology: October 26-October 30 2009 (Only BScN students)
8) Fleming College: October 26-October 30 2009
9) Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology: October 26-October 30 2009
10) George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology: October 26-October 30 2009
11) Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning: October 26-October 30 2009
12) Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology: October 26-October 30 2009

So, if students attending those post-secondary institutions get to enjoy a FALL READING WEEK, why can't the students at the University of Ottawa have that priviledge aswell?

College/University links: © All rights reserved

WHAT? NO FALL READING WEEK AT THE U OF O?

First of all, I will start by saying THANK GOD IT'S FRIDAY and HAPPY U OF O DAY to all! It's quite nice to have at least ONE day off since students at the U of O WON'T BE GETTING A FALL READING WEEK yet again!

That's right everybody! You've probably just recently found out that all your friends at other post-secondary institutions around Ontario will be getting a well deserved reading week in the coming days. But, WAIT! Not so fast! As a student at the University of Ottawa, forget about any such holiday because there's no such thing here. Frustrated...? Overworked...? Stressed to the MAX...? Don't worry, you're not the only one! You have every right to be pissed off at your university's administration!

Wait a minute!? Where could the SFUO fit into this conversation? Aren't the SFUO executive members supposed to represent the student population as a whole? Wouldn't you think that they should be lobbying U of O's administration in order to get a fall reading week for the student's it represents? Apparently, in past years, the SFUO DID talk about this very issue!

The other day, being the political junky that I am, I was browsing through the SFUO's constitution (the 2008-2009 version since that's the most updated version available on the SFUO's website; but it's not in plain view though, you have to know about this link if you ever want to find it! Oddly enough, there's no actual link on the SFUO's website) and found this very interesting section within the Policy Manuel:

35 – Fall reading week (Voted on November 12, 2006)
The SFUO is committed to the establishment of a fall reading week for the 2008-2009 academic year.

Well now, isn't that interesting? So, this was voted on before I personally arrived at the U of O and supposedly this "fall reading week" was supposed to happen last year. I think it would be fair to ask the question: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?

It's safe to say that this particular "commitment" within the SFUO constitution didn't exactly lead to any progress. I've felt the same way for 3 years now: It frustrates me that with all the midterm exams, the assignments, the papers, etc., etc., etc., that students at the University of Ottawa do not have the same opportunity as students attending other post-secondary institutions within the province to enjoy (or to catch up on school work) a fall reading week.

I hope this blog sparks some sort of healthy debate as to getting these important questions answered.

1) Why doesn't the University of Ottawa have a fall reading week?
2) If students are pissed off, then why don't they speak up and question the status quo?
3) What was accomplished between November 2006 and the 2008-2009 academic year by the SFUO in order to advance this particular cause?
4) Why was the SFUO unsuccessful in getting a fall reading week for the 2008-2009 academic year?
5) Has this been talked about during recent SFUO meetings...? Board of Administration meetings...? Senate meetings...? Board of Governors meetings...?
6) Why can't the University of Ottawa have a fall reading week for the 2010-2011 academic year?

If you actually care about this cause, maybe a simple email to the following could get the ball rolling: Allan Rock...? Your Student Associations...? The SFUO...? Your student senators...? The representatives on the Board of Administration...?

Think about it...

VOTE FOR ALEX CHAPUT

VOTEZ ALEX CHAPUT!

Aye! Lève toé l'cul pi va VOTER!

Supposément, la FÉUO a créé un site web pour l'élection particielle? Voici les INFORMATIONS ESSENTIELLES que vous DEVEZ SAVOIR!

Renseignements électoraux

Les électeurs peuvent voter à n’importe quel endroit.
Les électeurs on besoin d’identification pour voter.
Tous les lieux sont accessibles aux personnes handicapées.

LES LIEUX DE SCRUTIN:

Les lieux de scrutin suivants seront ouverts de 10h00 à 19h00 les 14 et 15 octobre:
Marion – Sous-sol, pièce commune
Lamoureux – Entrée principale, de Jean-Jacques Lussier
Montpetit – Deuxième étage, près du salon
Fauteux – Entrée principale, de Louis-Pasteur
Desmarais – Entrée principale
Simard – Sous-sol, Café Alt
Roger Guindon – Salon étudiant
ÉITI – Cafétéria
Centre universitaire – Premier étage, près du bureau d’aide financière
Centre universitaire – Sous-sol, près du bureau de la FÉUO
Complexe sportif – Entrée, près du gymnase

Tous droits réservés ©Droits d'auteur - Fédération étudiante de l'Université d'Ottawa

Get off your ass and VOTE!

Apparently, the SFUO has an elections website? Here's the information you HAVE TO KNOW (just in case you didn't know there was an election taking place).

Voting Information
- Voters may vote at any location.
- Voters must have identification in order to vote.
- All locations are accessible to people with disabilities.

POLLING STATION LOCATIONS
The following polling stations will be open on October 14 and 15 from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.:

Marion – Basement, common room
Lamoureux – Main entrance, from Jean-Jacques Lussier
Montpetit – Second floor, near the lounge
Fauteux – Main entrance, from Louis-Pasteur
Desmarais – Main entrance
Simard – Basement, Café Alt
Roger Guindon – In the student lounge
SITE – In the cafeteria
University Centre – First floor, near the Financial Aid Office
University Centre – Basement, outside the SFUO office
Sports Complex – In the entrance near the gym

All rights reserved ©Copyright - Student Federation of the University of Ottawa

Quelques commentaires à propos du débat des candidats pour le poste du Vice-président aux affaires sociales

Premièrement, j'aimerais féliciter les trois candidats pour leur performance: Iain Campbell, Bruce Landry et Alexandre Chaput. Le débat est encore frais dans ma mémoire donc voici quelques points dont je souhaite souligner.

J'ai eu la chance de poser la question suivante (dont j'ai composée personellement):

Si vous êtes élu au poste de Vice-président aux affaires sociales, qu'est-ce que
vous aller faire afin d'assurer que la communauté francophone participe aux
activités dont vous alliez organiser pendant cette année universitaires?

Maintenant, je ne peux me rappeller exactement des réponses dont j'ai reçu. Par contre, il y a eu plusieurs occassions dont la francophonie sur le campus a été traité.

Chaput a mentionné qu'il aimerait "expérimenter" en ayant des activités unilingues soient seulement anglophone ou francophone dans le but de mettre l'accent sur les communautés spécifiques.

Pour sa part, Campbell a mit beaucoup d'accent sur sa participation au sein de la L.I.E.U (la ligue d'improvisation étudiante universitaire) et a fait un lien avec sa capacité de pouvoir faire participer, à la vie sociale universitaire, les francophones du campus.

Enfin, Landry a souligné le fait qu'il a été le Vice-président aux affaires sociales francophone au sein de l'Association étudiante en communication et qu'il a eu des succès qu'il a eu en travaillant avec son co-Vice-président aux affaires sociales anglophone pendant les dernières quelques années en planifiant des activités bilingues.

Pendant que Chaput répondait à une question, il a mentionné Joël (Larose), un ancient V.P. aux affaires sociales de la FÉUO, et a complimenté son travail pendant qu'il avait ce poste. Je crois que cela démontre une personalité de coopération! Il a proposé de rapporter le Défis hivernal qui, selon lui, a eu beaucoup de succès dans le passé. De plus, il a divulgué que plusieurs personnes lui ont suggéré l'idée d'avoir une compétition de "Battle of the Bands" et qu'il était en faveur de cette idée.

Landry a mit beaucoup d'emphase sur le fait qu'il voulait travailler avec les autres corps fédérés de l'université afin de ne pas avoir de conflit d'horaire en ce qui concerne les activités de la FÉUO et les activités de ces derniers. Aussi, il a mentionné plusieurs fois qu'il voulait s'assurer d'avoir un horaire "relaxe". Il a justifié ce point en disant qu'il ne voulait pas bombarder la population étudiante avec trop d'activité parce que les horaires personnels incluaient aussi les travaux scolaires. Bien pensé Bruce! C'est important de prendre ça en considération! Bruce a aussi proposé de réintroduire des compétitions de dance à l'Université d'Ottawa car, selon lui, lorsque Joël Larose a organisé de tels évènements dans le passé, ils ont été de grands succès.

Campbell a parlé de la "nouvelle philosophie" qu'il apporterait à la FÉUO qui inclut les "grassroots" du campus. Il a proposé que l'Agora du Centre Universitaire ait un "méga calendrier" afin que n'importe quel groupe sur le campus puisse ajouter leur activité sur celui-ci. Des nouvelles idées apportées de son côté? Pas vraiment... Un "méga calendrier" et impliquer les "grassroots" ne sont pas des choses qui vont exciter la population étudiante.

En conclusion, voici mon opinion sur la performance de chacun des candidats:

Bruce Landry: B+
Iain Campbell: B-
Alexandre Chaput: A-

N'oubliez pas d'aller VOTER les 14 et 15 octobre 2009!
Bonne chance à tous les candidats!

I get by with a little help from my friends (or in the Conservative Party's case, Jack Layton and the NDP)

Oh! I finally understand why Stephen Harper was singing this famous Beatles song: He's singing about his newly found love for Jack Layton and the New Democrats! It all makes sense now! I mean, let's be honnest, Prime Minister Harper would never just sing and act all happy just for the Hell of it!

Michael Ignatieff: "(singing) What would you think if I sang out of tune...? (Spoken) He's (Stephen Harper) been out of tune for four years!"

Haha! Oh well, to his credit, at least he came prepared and well practiced to play the piano. Here's some food for thought: Might the Prime Minister consider a musical career once the Liberals oust him out of government? I wouldn't hold my breath! I have nothing left to say but this:

Please Mr. Harper, NEVER SING AGAIN!

Le respect est à la une à l'Université d'Ottawa

Aujourd'hui, l'Université d'Ottawa a dévoilé une nouvelle campagne qui s'intitule "Campagne Droit au respect". Cette campagne permanente a comme objectif:

1. "de changer en définitive les comportements sur le campus, le tout au moyen de messages positifs et de témoignages de porte-parole;"

2. "de sensibiliser davantage la communauté universitaire à la discrimination, au harcèlement et à la violence sexuelle pour inciter ses membres à dénoncer ces actes et à faire du campus un havre de respect pour tous et toutes;"

3. "de mieux faire connaître les ressources sur le campus et à l'extérieur de celui-ci, tant pour les victimes que pour les personnes qui veulent en savoir plus sur ces questions." (source: http://www.respect.uottawa.ca/fr/)

J'aimerais félicité ceux et celles qui ont initié cette campagne incroyablement importante qui concerne spécifiquement les étudiantes et les étudiants universitaires partout au Canada. Espérant que cette campagne aidera à promouvoir une valeur essentielle à la vie en société!

Tragedy overshadows uOttawa's successful 101 Week

It is with great sadness that the University announced on Saturday morning, September 12th 2009 that a student had passed away after an "incident at Thompson residence". Here's the first media coverage received that was published in the Ottawa Citizen. I would like to send my deepest condolences to Mike's family and friends.

SFUO's V.P. Social Resigns

We have confirmation from the Fulcrum that Jean Guillaume has resigned his position as Vice-President Social within the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa.

Unconfirmed resignation of SFUO's VP Social

There have been unconfirmed reports flying around that Jean Guillaume, the SFUO's Vice-President Social has resigned from his current position on the SFUO executive.

I'm still here... I'll have a few new blogs coming up soon! Stay tuned! Cheers!

Le changement climatique: Harper s'en lave les mains

La population canadienne n'est pas trop contente après avoir entendu ce que WWF avait à dire au sujet de notre pays. Le nouveau bulletin environnemental, publié la semaine passée par WWF, place le Canada en dernière place par rapport aux autres pays faisant parties du G8.

Le rapport cite les sables bitumineux (tar sands), situés en Alberta, comme la principale cause pour l'augmentation des émissions à effet de serre émises par le Canada. Est-ce une coïncidence que c'est la province la plus conservatrice au pays?

Ceci me rend particulièrement frustré parce que nous avions un gouvernement qui ne se préoccupe guère de ce type de rapport et qui refuse de suivre le reste (ou presque) de la planète en ce qui concerne les traités internationaux tels que le Protocol Kyoto qui avait été ratifié par le gouvernement libéral de Jean Chrétien en 2002.

Les politiques environnementales présentées par le gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper sont encore aujourd'hui très faibles comparées à celles d'autres pays. Il n'existe aucune cible ferme de réduction importante d'émissions à effet de serre dans le présent "plan" qui n'a même pas encore été implémenter.

Pour conclure, je suis désappointé du manque de leadership de la part du gouvernement Harper en ce qui concerne l'environnement. C'est un dossier prioritaire qui n'a pas encore eu l'attention nécessaire du gouvernement afin qu'il puisse avoir de vrais changements.

Even after this long, it still hurts to see her...

Well, since I haven't had a whole lot to write about lately, I thought that I'd share some really sappy quotes... So, this blog goes out to all those who have had their heart broken... and to those who have broken someone's heart.

“Love is when you shed a tear and still want her, it's when she ignores you and you still love her, it's when she loves another guy but you still smile and say I'm happy for you, when all you really do is cry.”

“It takes a minute to have a crush on someone, an hour to like someone and a day to love someone - but it takes a lifetime to forget someone.”

“You can close your eyes to the things you do not want to see, but you cannot close your heart to the things you do not want to feel.”

“You want me to act like we've never kissed, you want to forget; pretend we've never met , and I've tried and I've tried, but I haven't yet... You walk by, and I fall to pieces.” Patsy Cline

"My heart was taken by you... broken by you... and now it is in pieces because of you"

"People think it is holding on that makes you stronger, but sometimes it's letting go."

"So... from now on... when you think of me... just remember that I could've been the best thing you ever had"

"Sometimes all you need is a broken heart to realize that something even better is right in front of our eyes, just waiting to be found"

"Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation"
- Kahlil Gibran

"Nothing ends nicely, that's why it ends" - Henry David Thoreau

And there goes another year...

As I sit here, in my apartment, having just finished writing my last exam of the 2008-2009 university year, I still can't get over how fast this past year has gone by. I'm also somewhat shocked at the fact that I have just completed the second year of university career with no clear idea of how many total years I shall attend the University of Ottawa. So, what has the University of Ottawa done for me two years into my university career?

It's quite obvious that every single student's view of the world, once having begun post-secondary education, is (most often) drastically different than our narrow-sighted childhood years. We learn to critically analyse occurrences in our everyday world that (for many of us) were so very unimportant and insignificant before having arrived in university. I've also learned about many things that have aroused feelings of anger, confusion, sadness just to name a few.

I've always wanted to make the world around me a better place and that's one thing that hasn't changed. But, realistically, I'm obviously not the only one that wants to improve his or her surroundings. I've learned that bringing change isn't as easy as just saying you want to change something. Unfortunately, trying to bring any kind of change is usually a long and drawn out process, which leads to frustration and quite often abandonment. Also, change is often looked down upon because we seem to live in a world that is content with the status-quo and is too lazy and/or unwilling to improve upon what already exists.

Coming from a small town of roughly 5 000 people, where there was one African-American student in my high school, I have become more knowledgeable of different cultures from around the world.

My leadership skills, which became developed throughout my years in elementary and high school, have grown on a much broader level since arriving in Ottawa. I must say that I absolutely loved being apart of the 2008-2009 PIDSSA executive and am looking forward to the upcoming year within the new 2009-2010 executive. The knowledge and experience that I have gained during this past year will definitely be passed along to the new executive members and I look forward to working with all of them.

There is one thing that I am very happy about which has occurred since I left home: the bond that I share with my sister has grown very strong and I have learned to come to appreciate her more than I ever thought I would. Not to say that I didn't love my sister before I left home, but let's just say we definitely had our differences. Thankfully we have both grown past (most) of our brother-sister fighting and have become the best of friends. While I'm away at school, I think about her a lot. I worry a lot though too because she is a young high school teenager and having been there once myself, I'm well aware of the things that could happen to her. Particularly, being a guy, I know what some of the older guys in high school are looking for and I worry that she may fall into the wrong crowd or into the arms of the wrong guy. I often try to explain this her. But you know how teens always KNOW EVERYTHING.

Anyways, continuing on, my personal views and opinions have developed and I do have an opinion on pretty much anything. I have always been very stubborn when it comes to being right about something and have always been willing to debate until I prove whoever I am arguing with wrong. I have actually learned to be more open to others' opinions which is something that isn't easy to do and something that I'm quite proud of. When you firmly believe in something such as a religion or a political ideology, it can be very difficult at times to accept opinions that go against or contradict your own. Probably more so than in other areas of study, being a Political Science major, I'm quite literally surrounded by people with whom have very different opinions than my own. Sure, when it comes to politics, we will disagree a lot, but I always like to hear why the person with whom I am conversing takes the stance that he is defending. I'll also give my reasoning and we can usually end up agreeing that both stances have their pros and cons and then move on. It may sound very insignificant to be accepting of different views, thoughts, ideas, opinions. Although some people refuse to look beyond their own tunnel-visioned mindsets, it's an important aspect of life that everyone will eventually have to face in their lives. If you cannot at least accept the fact that people might not see things in the same way you do, your life will be one of seclusion and loneliness.

For now, I'll stop here because I'm pretty exhausted from my last exam that I wrote this morning. But, I will make sure to keep this blog updated throughout the summer even though I'm moving back home for the summer as I have locked down an amazing summer job! I'm already looking forward to 101 Week because it's going to be the biggest and best in the history of it's existence!

What makes a great leader?

It's been awhile since I last blogged my heart away. I'd have to blame exams for overwhelming my life leaving not much time for anything else. To be honest though, with the conclusion of the SAC appeal of the SFUO Elections' results, it seems like many bloggers from the U of O have taken somewhat of a blogger's hiatus. Anyhow, I'm glad that that is done and over with. Time to move on to bigger and better things and look forward to the bright future that lies ahead us.



On May 1st, most (if not all) mandates currently in effect for the federated bodies of the University of Ottawa will come to an end and the newly elected executives will begin their year-long journeys as student leaders. After being fortunate enough to have been elected last year to the PIDSSA executive, I have come to learn a lot about being a leader. I think that there are an endless amount of characteristics that student leaders can possess. As I personally embark on my renewed mandate as a member of the 2009-2010 PIDSSA executive, I wanted to share a list of top 10 characteristics that I find to be essential when it comes to being in the position of a leader.

1. A great leader never demands respect from others, he/she earns it.


2. A great leader, when surrounded by other leaders, recognizes when to lead and when to let others lead.


3. A great leader is easily approachable by others.


4. A great leader never says never.


5. A great leader accepts criticism and expects no praise.


6. A great leader learns from his mistakes.


7. A great leader is able to work with others when striving towards a common goal.
   
8. A great leader always takes into account the effect of his/her decision on those who he/she represents.
   
9. A great leader must be open to different opinions at the same time as having his/her own.
   
10. A great leader does not always say what he/she is thinking; he/she thinks before speaking.

I'm sure you all have your own favourite leadership charactiristics... therefore, I invite you to share by commenting bellow! Which ones are most important? Which ones can you get by without having? Which ones are hardest to acquire? Lets see what kind of dialogue we can create!

Quelques jours après... je prend l'temps d'y réfléchir un peu

Finalement, j'ai remis ma dernière dissertation ce matin et je peux prendre quelques minutes afin de réfléchir au sujet de la décision du CAÉ.

Si vous n'aviez pas encore eu la chance de lire le rapport au complet (oui, je comprends que c'est 31 pages...) cliquez ici! (Malheureusement, le rapport est seulement disponible en Anglais pour le moment. Aussitôt que le document sera traduit, je vais aussi la rendre disponible sur mon blogue. Dean Haldenby m'a assuré que la traduction serait faite par la semaine prochaine).

Laisse-moi premièrement dire que je suis content que ce processus a eu lieu que, maintenant que c'est fini, la semaine 101 commencera à se construire et que les perspectives de ne pas avoir d'exécutif en place pendant l'été n'existent plus.

Dans l'accusation "Kishek & McPhee against MacKay", je trouve très injuste le fait que le comité du CAÉ a présumé que la situation entre Brannigan et McPhee serait venu invalider le témoignage à McPhee. Le rapport dit : "the tense emotional state between McPhee and Brannigan have resulted in the SAC finding this matter to be inconclusive." (Rapport CAÉ : 11)

Lorsque j'ai lu la partie du rapport qui dit: "The SAC fines Dubois $20 for violating s. 4.1.7 of the SFUO constitution" (Rapport CAÉ : 16), je me suis demandé si cette sanction vaux même la peine. Si le CAÉ a conclu qu'elle a violé la Constitution de la FÉUO, n'est-ce pas une punition pénible? Est-ce que cette sanction va véritablement dissuader quelqu'un de violer la Constitution de la FÉUO dans le futur? La dissuasion n'était évidemment pas l'intention de cette sanction. C'est malheureux de voir qu'une amende monétaire est imposée pour la violation de la Constitution de la FÉUO (et puis-je ajouter une amende incroyablement minime). C'est un peu comme dire, "Tu es coupable d'avoir violé la Constitution de la FÉUO, mais c'est correct. Donne-moi 20$ et la question sera réglée." De même, je crois que cela envoie le mauvais message à la population étudiante et encourage même la violation future de la Constitution de la FÉUO. Si la seule sanction imposée par la CAÉ pour une violation de la Constitution de la FÉUO est une amende monétaire, c'est pas mal triste.

Ce qui m'a vraiment surpris c'est le manque de preuve quasi total du côté des appelants. De ce que j'ai entendu de plusieurs personnes c'est que la preuve démontrerait clairement la culpabilité des accusés. En lisant le rapport, il semble que la seule preuve que les appelants ont utilisée était des témoignages du type "mon mot contre le tient." Si les appelants n'avaient pas plus de preuve que cela, ils ne devraient pas être surpris avec le résultat de ce processus.

Finalement, je crois qu'il est important que les étudiants et les étudiantes de l'Université d'Ottawa aient confiance dans leur nouvel exécutif de la FÉUO. Malheureusement, je crois aussi que cette confiance a été mise en question avec les évènements qui ont eu lieu dans les derniers mois. Maintenant que cette question est réglée, je crois qu'il est important pour les membres du nouvel exécutif de la FÉUO d'affirmer que la population étudiante peut avoir confiance en eux afin de réparer l'aliénation causée par ces accusations.

What are the chances of a response...?

I'm sure by now everyone has had a chance to read about the letter that Renaud Garner recently sent to the new SAC arbitrators and if you haven't, well you view it by clicking here. Anyways, I'm taking these precious few minutes away from my 12 page project that is due on Thursday (which is sort of progressing, slowly but surely) to ask this question: What are the chances that the 5 newly appointed arbitrators will actually give Garner a response?

Frankly, I think that they would be crazy to answer that letter. In no way am I criticizing Garner for having written this letter because it raises many legitimate questions concerning the neutrality of the new arbitrators. In fact, I'd consider it an injustice if they weren't privileged to the same information that the accused are. But seriously, lets be realistic for a second. The accused somewhat have an advantage at the moment. Can you imagine if the SAC issued a response to Garner's letter? I think it would cause quite the crisis and once again stall the process from going forward.

Sadly, if they (the new SAC arbitrators) were to ignore the letter, it would seem like they have something to hide. And that would just make them look bad and further put into question their apparent non-partisan neutrality.

So, technically speaking, they should definitely answer this legitimate letter! But, realistically speaking, I think the chances are slim to none that they actually will. Just keep in mind that the accused have access to privileged information that the appellants don't... Is that fair? Probably not the best question to be asking at this point in time... because when you really think about it... HAS ANYTHING BEEN FAIR DURING THIS PROCESS?

What are your thoughts and/or opinions? Leave a comment and start some healthy dialogue!

Budget de l'Ontario 2009...

Hier, le jeudi 26 mars 2009, le gouvernement liberal de Dalton McGuinty a présenté son budget pour l'année fiscale 2009. Veillez-consulter le budget!

Résults des élections de l'AÉÉPID/ PIDSSA's Elections results

VP AUX AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES/VP FRANCOPHONE AFFAIRS
Brandon Clim
YES/OUI – 115/171 – 67.2%
NON/NO – 56/171 – 32.8%

VP AUX FINANCES/ VP OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
Peter Flynn
YES/OUI – 154/171 – 90.05%
NON/NO – 17/171 – 9.95%

VP AUX AFFAIRES EXTÉRIEURES/ VP OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Kyle Simunovic
YES/OUI – 116/132 – 87.9%
NON/NO – 16 – 12.1%

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (DVM)
Kevin W. Ng – 14/43 – 32.6%
Ethan Plato – 29/43 – 67.4%

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (EIL)
Christine Belley - 11/30 – 36.7%
Patrick Ciaschi 19/30 – 63.3%

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (PAP)
Samantha Dale 4/9 – 44.44%
James Johnston 5/9 – 56.56%

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (POL)
Cliff Hansen – 14/87 – 16.09%
Jesse Root – 12/87 – 13.79%
Greg Smith – 32/87 – 36.78%
Travis Weagant 29/87 -33.33%

VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES/ VP OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (ANGLOPHONE)
William Hadrian - 8/163 – 4.9%
Matt Johnny - 29/163 – 17.8%
Amanda Marochko 126/163 – 77.3%

VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES/VP OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (FRANCOPHONE)
Gabrielle Beauchemin 76/166 – 45.78%
Tristan Dénommée 90/166 – 54.21%

PRÉSIDENTE/ PRESIDENT
Tamar Friedman 75/173 – 43.35%
Amalia Savva 98/173 - 56.65%

Is the Base actively recruiting new members?

The Base is recruting new members ?!?!?!?! Nahhh, it couldn't be? Or could it? With the majority of the "Base" members in the final stage of their university careers, might they try to prolong their legacy by recruiting new, younger members?

And after having been named in Amy Kishek's recent blog amykishek.blogspot.com/2009/03/base-revealed-anecdotes-of-voiceless.html, some new names have come to my attention. It's again quite disappointing because although I already knew most of the "Base's" members, I was somewhat surprised when I recently found out that more names were to be added to this list. Much before Amy published her latest blog, I was well aware of such a "Base" and of it's workings. At first, I wasn't exactly sure what to think of it. It didn't seem wrong to share a commun idea or goal as a group of student leaders. It didn't seem wrong to have one of those student leaders be THE leader of this group.

Now that many more people have found out about this group, it's no big surprise to many of them. Will this recent discovery (of the "Base") discourage it's members to recruit new, younger members? I highly doubt it. It would seem highly unlikely that such a tight knit group would just let themselves shrivel up and disappear.

I for one do not support such a movement. After having recently read the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by Étienne La Boétie, I found a great similarity in what he explains and the way the "Base" functions and has functionned in the past. In this essay, La Boétie talks about absolute monarchy and tyranny. He says that slaves give up their liberty to the tyrants voluntarally thus serving one man for the rest of their lives without any attempt to change the way they live. La Boétie also mentions near the end of the essay that most tyrants were eventually killed by the ones who were the closest to him.

What is kind of ironic is that the author states at the beginning of this essay that LIBERTY is a natural caracteristic of man and so is his willingness to fight for it at all costs. What seems somewhat odd about this group of so called "student leaders" is that they don't seem to be fighting for their liberty. In fact, they seem to be fighting for the complete opposite thus preserving the Patriarch's position as the "Base's" leader. When he failed to be elected in last year's SFUO elections, he was quickly brought back into the inside by being hired by the SFUO executive to the position that he currently holds.

To get back to my initial subject, I am almost certain that they will secretly continue to recruit young, influencial student leaders into their group and that scares me. As a current sitting executive member for PIDSSA, it scares me to think of how easy it could be for any executive member of any federated body to be swept up by this group thus further corrupting student politics on the University of Ottawa's campus.

Let this be a warning to all of you student leaders out there who still cherish their integrety, who still believe in transparency, and who have always very well represented their student peers. Don't get yourself caught up in this group because, in the end, A LIAR WILL ALWAYS GET CAUGHT. Is it really worth the public humiliation, the risk of having people who looked up to you in the past quickly write you off as a sell out?

Think about it before you fall victim to the Patriarch.

Les nouveaux membres du CAÉ choisient...

Les cinq nouveaux membres qui devaient être choisient pour sièger sur le CAÉ ont été choisi dimanche après-midi, le 22 mars 2009, pendant la partie huis clos de la rencontre du CA de la FÉUO. Voici les cinq noms: Ali Abdourhaman (Sciences Sociales), Charles-Antoine Gosselin (Gestion), Christopeher Schulz (Common Law), Dave Davis (Droit Civil), Michelle Nadeau (Gestion) (source: http://larotonde.ca/2009/03/cae-et-constitution/).

SAC Appointments to be ratified but... are they impartial?

As some of you may or may not know, it was decided, after the unconstitutional decision made by the BOA Chair Federico Carvajal, that the current Student Arbitration Committee ("SAC") would be relieved of their duties and that five new student arbitrators would be chosen to preside over the appeal brought forward by Renaud Garner regarding the most recent SFUO elections' results.

Today is Friday, March 20 2009 which means that exactly seven days have gone by since the special BOA meeting that took place on Friday, March 13 2009 in the Senate Chambers in Tabaret Hall.

I can't help but wonder who might have possibly seen themselves willing to apply for a position on a committee (the SAC) that will be entrusted with the power to decide whether or not Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, Julie Séguin and Jean Guillaume (from now on known as "the accused") are guilty of having formed a slate during the last SFUO elections' campaign.

Also, another question comes to mind (which is the main reason for me writing this blog on this beautiful Friday afternoon): How will we know for sure whether or not these new SAC student arbitrators are in fact completely, one hundred percent impartial? Technically, it's a well known fact that it's almost an impossible task. It's also important to mention that Dean Haldenby, the current President of the SFUO, is a member of the selection committee that will be entrusted to select the five new student arbitrators. The selection committee will then forward its recommendations to the BOA which, during Sunday night's meeting, will be voting to ratify those recommendations.

First of all, I must say that it will be hard to see any decision made by the SAC as a legitimate decision due to the fact that the BOA Chair Federico Carjaval unilaterally decided to pass last Sunday's motion after at least 1/3 of BOA members abstained from voting not once, BUT TWICE. In a normal situation, such a motion would have failed and would have had to have been tabled at the next BOA meeting. But, as I said before, Carjaval UNILATERALLY decided that the motion would carry even though it seemed quite clear to everyone in that room that he was going against the SFUO Constitution.

Secondly, I think it was unfair that the current SAC student arbitrators were relieved from this case because these people (or most of them) have been the SAC's arbitrators throughout the year and have presided over a number of appeals during this academic year. If they are relieved from THIS particular case due to some apparent irregularities, how can students trust that the decisions they made in other cases were actually the right decisions? It's important to note here that these arbitrators were the ones to have declared that it was in fact constitutional to implement the electronic vote during the recent SFUO elections'. Should the legitimacy of that case be put into question? Might it be necessary to go through the whole voting process again without the electronic voting because we're not sure that the SAC's decision was the right one? The last scenario is absolutely crazy and is just an example I am giving to further demonstrate that the idea of choosing five new SAC student arbitrators that are completely impartial, within the time span of a week, is just as crazy.

Well, I guess we’ll have to just sit back and see what actually does take place at Sunday night’s BOA meeting.

La Semaine de la francophonie a lieu partout sur le campus CETTE SEMAINE!

Si vous n'aviez pas remarqué, les horaires pour la Semaine de la francophonie sont affichés un peu partout sur le campus! Eh oui, les activités ont débuté hier et continueront jusqu'au vendredi 20 mars 2009! Pour ceux et celles qui le cherchent, j'ai ajouté au bas de mon blogue (il s'agit de "scroller" jusqu'en bas) l'horaire des activités!

Élections de l'AÉÉPID

Et oui, c'est le temps des élections de l'Association étudiante des études politiques, internationales et de développement! La liste de candidat(e)s est sortie cette après-midi! Vous pouvez aussi accèder au site web officiel des élections de l'AÉÉPID en cliquant sur le titre de cette note! Voici la liste officielle des candidat(e)s:

La liste officielle des candidat(e)s

PRÉSIDENTE
Amalia Savva
Tamar Friedman

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (PAP)
James Johnston
Samantha Dale

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (POL)
Jesse Root
Travis Weagant
Cliff Hansen
Greg Smith

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (DVM)
Kevin W. Ng
Ethan Plato

VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (EIL)
Christine Belley
Patrick Ciaschi

VP AUX FINANCES
Peter Flynn

VP AUX AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES
Brandon Clim

VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES (ANGLOPHONE)
Amanda Marochko
Matt Johnny
William Hadrian

VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES (FRANCOPHONE)
Gabrielle Beauchemin
Tristan Dnomme

VP AUX AFFAIRES EXTÉRIEURES
Kyle Simunovic

Un précédent dangereux...?

C'est avec l'esprit calme et réfléchi que j'écris cette note ce dimanche après-midi. Après avoir eu du feedback de plusieurs personnes dans les dernières journées, il me semble que je réussis, la plupart du temps, à démontrer une certaine neutralité en ce qui concerne le processus. En fin de compte, c'était un de mes buts pour ce blogue.

En plus de ce dernier but, je voulais assurer aussi de pouvoir me prononcer sur certains sujets. Si vous aviez eu la chance de lire mes autres notes, vous aviez pu constater que c'est exactement ce que je fais aussi.

Je dois soulever un point qui me semble extrêmement dangereux concernant la décision à Fédérico Carjaval à la rencontre spéciale du CA de la FÉUO. Je vais citer la Constitution de la FÉUO:

3.1.10.8.8
Un vote est invalide si un tiers (1/3) des votes utilisés sont des abstentions. Dans un tel cas, le débat sur la proposition est repris. Lorsque le deuxième vote est pris, si un tiers (1/3) des votes utilisés sont toujours des abstentions, la proposition est renvoyée pour étude au comité dont elle relève et doit revenir à l’ordre du jour pour la prochaine réunion régulière du Conseil d’administration. (p. 44 de la Constitution de la FÉUO: http://sfuo.ca/pdf/constitution.pdf)

Par contre, Férérico Carjaval a été à l'encontre de ce règlement. Qu'est-ce qui lui donne ce droit exactement? Même s'il a présenté une lettre d'un avocat, qui était censé d'appuyer sa décision, Carjaval a évidemment brisé le règlement 3.1.10.8.8. Comment est-ce que cela est une décision légitime s'il n'a pas suivi les règlements de la Constitution de la FÉUO? N'est-ce pas une décision qui crée un PRÉCÉDENT DANGEREUX? Une telle décision donne ainsi le droit au président du Conseil d'administration d'aller à l'encontre de n'importe quel vote nul et prend donc la décision de façon unilatérale.

Pensez-y... Le président du Conseil d'administration est-il devenu un dictateur (qui n'est guère élue, mais plutôt sélectionné par les membres du CA) en se permettant de prendre des décisions unilatéralement? Est-ce que la démocratie au sein du CA de la FÉUO est en danger? Est-ce que le président du CA peut vraiment dire qu'il a pris une décision représentant la volonté majoritaire des étudiantes et des étudiants de l'Université d'Ottawa?

Voici seulement quelques questions dont la population étudiante devrait être en train de se poser.

BOA Chair ignores constitution from ZELY on Vimeo.

No words can describe my disgust

Having missed the SAC hearing on March 6th 2009, exactly one week ago, which turned out to be zoo anyways, I wasn't about to miss the chance to be present for today's special BOA meeting.

Although I'm happy that I was in attendance, I must say that I left the Senate chambers disgusted with this whole situation. I'm going to go from the start because, as I have just arrived from this meeting (that was still going as I exited the chambers), I am quite hot headed. But worry not; I refuse to start name calling but I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I THINK.

I'm first off disgusted with the fact that the SAC report WAS NOT presented to the SFUO's lawyer when he was supposedly reviewed documents pertaining to this case. It became quite obvious when Amy Kishek asked Dean Haldenby if he had indeed presented the SAC report, pertaining to the aftermath of last week's meeting, to the lawyer when he received legal opinion. The current president of the SFUO stuttered a few times said a few things but failed to answer her question. With the smile that was on Amy's face, it was clear that she had made her point known to the whole room and that Dean would be on record as having not answered the question.

Let me also voice my disgust with every single board member who decided to vote for the motion, whether it be for or against, when they damn well knew there was an obvious conflict of interest. SHAME ON YOU ALL. Instead of upholding the constitution, you all decided that your reputation was far more important.

I'd also like to congratulate the board members (the few honest souls left in the BOA) who declared on record that they abstained from voting because they recognized there was in fact a conflict of interest. You are the honest people that students entrusted to represent them.

Oh and I'm not done yet... I'm actually far from being done. Let me just inform whoever reads this blog that the motion that Dean Haldenby presented did pass with amendments.

I'd also like to congratulate Samuel Breault for having put forward an amendment (which unfortunately failed) that would have allowed the public to be in attendance during the appeal process hence eliminating the list of only a select few being allowed to attend (which was apart of the original motion). It was argued by Breault that it would be hypocritical for the BOA to decide to hold these proceedings behind closed doors when the BOA as a whole preaches transparency. Furthermore, many of those board members who have been highly critical of the U of O's Senate when that institution holds closed door meetings, voted against this Breault's motion.

Where is the evidence to show that the current SAC arbitrator is incapable of moving forward with this appeal process. Many board members asked repeatedly what these supposed "irregularities" were citing that they themselves were unaware of such information. Why has the SAC been put into question when, as an institution, it would be compared to the Supreme Court of Canada. Does this mean that every single decision rendered by this institution throughout the year is illegitimate and should be put into question?

Continuing with the original motion that suggests relieving the current SAC members from this case and appointing 5 new arbitrators, how will the process be viewed to be any more legitimate? What Dean proposed here is to try to find 5 qualified volunteers to seat on the SAC Committee, within the span of a week, to replace the current SAC members in rendering a final decision. Not only does this sounds unreasonable, it seems almost impossible. To make matters worst, it is a great lack of transparency. Not to mention that Dean himself admitted being apart of the committee who selects and appoints these arbitrators.

The current SAC members were appointed to their positions without prior knowledge of which cases they might be called upon to render a verdict on. That is to say that pretty much any student of this university who is "relatively informed" about what's going on around campus has some sort of knowledge about this specific case. How will it be determined that the chosen few who replace the current SAC members will be absolutely impartial when it comes to this case having (most likely) already known exactly which case they will be called upon to render a decision on (also not to mention the possibility that they might have already formed some sort of opinion on the matter).

I have one final thing that disgusted me far more than anything else during this meeting: Dean Haldenby calling the vote on this his own motion before anyone had the chance to request a role call vote. It was obvious that he made DAMN SURE THAT NOBODY WOULD EVEN HAVE THE CHANCE TO REQUEST IT.

Oh, and if you're wondering why the current SFUO president would make such a partisan move, look no further than Seamus Wolfe's Twitter comment made on March 11th 2009 at 8:30 pm: "ah. Dean Haldenby...my saviour....it's so great to have him on side....now, who do we appoint to the SAC....Federico? Is that allowed?8:30 PM Mar 11th from web" (in case Seamus may have tried to delete this from his comments you can look for yourself). (AND FYI just in case anyone didn't get my little sarcastic punch here at partisanship, this isn't Seamus' actual Twitter page).

In the end, with the number of abstentions, the Chair of the BOA, Federico Carvajal was called up to make the final decision. What wasn't exactly surprising is that he himself anticipated such an outcome and was ready; while he announced that the motion would pass, he was quick to pass around a letter that he had from the lawyer explaining why he was allowing the motion to pass ignoring the fact that many people abstained from the final vote.

Motion présentée...et maintenant... motion révisée

Je crois que ces changements démontrent qu'il y a eu des erreurs qui existaient (et qui existent encore) dans la motion initiale. C'est un bon signe que le CRÉ soit à nouveau en charge de présider le processus. C'est important que les étudiants et étudiantes de l'U d'O soient capables d'avoir la confiance dans ses propres institutions.

Ce qui est le plus décevant c'est le fait qu'il a fallu que plusieurs personnes se prononcent contre la motion initiale avant que ces premiers changements soient apportés (et je suis presque certain qu'il y en aura plus soit avant la rencontre ou pendant celle-ci).

Cela semble démontrer un manque de réflexion approfondie, avant même que cette motion initiale soit mise sur la table, par le présent président de la FÉUO Dean Haldenby. Est-ce qu'il n'a pas réfléchi avant de décider de scrapper le CRÉ? Est-ce que lui-même n'avait véritablement pas confiance dans le processus ou est-ce qu'il a un peu de politique qui entre en jeux ici? Je n'accuse aucunement Dean de jouer le jeu de partisanship. Par contre, je crois avoir raison en disant qu'il a travaillé avec Seamus, Julie et Roxanne au sein de la FÉUO cette année. Ainsi, c'est un peu difficile de voir comment qu'il ne pourrait pas y avoir un conflit d'intérêts?

En tout cas, j'attends patiemment la rencontre ce soir. Espérons que la situation du 6 mars 2009 ne se reproduise pas à nouveau ce soir.

À quoi est-ce qu'on peut s'attendre ce soir?

Aujourd'hui, le vendredi 13 mars, il y a aura une rencontre spéciale du Conseil Administratif de FÉUO. La raison d'être de cette rencontre est la suivante : une motion, proposée par le présent président de la FÉUO Dean Haldenby, sera présentée au Conseil afin de décider comment le processus d'appel (portant sur la question de la contestation des derniers résultats électoraux de la FÉUO) procèdera.

Cette rencontre découle malheureusement des évènements du 6 mars dernier lorsque la rencontre du Centre de recours étudiant ("CRÉ") a été annulée en raison du comportement absolument dégoûtant démontré par la foule partisane.

Je ne vais guère commenter plus loin à ce sujet, car, autre que ce que j'ai lu dans les médias universitaires et des vidéos affichés en ligne, je n'y étais pas. De cela, je veux expliquer l'origine de la rencontre du CA FÉUO ce soir.

Par contre, ces vrais que ce qui j'ai lu au sujet de la rencontre du 6 mars dernier, plus spécifiquement venant de la plus récente publication du Fulcrum m'a vraiment écoeuré au max: « The scene was fuelled by political agendas, allegiances, overpowering self-righteousness, and above all a complete disregard for decorum. In all of this, amid cries of "slate", "losers", "cheaters", and "kangaroo court" one idea upon which the SFUO's statement of principles is based was carelessly discarded : respect » (http://www.thefulcrum.ca/?q=oped/it%E2%80%99s-about-respect).

C'est exactement pour cette raison que la motion à Dean Haldenby, qui sera présentée ce soir pendant la rencontre du CA FÉUO, propose justement d'interdire la présence du public aux rencontres futures qui traiteront de l'appel en question. C'est une réaction assez attendue de vouloir éviter d'autre confrontation entre les deux camps, soit Renaud Garner et al. ("plaignants") contre Seamus Wolfe et al. ("défendants"). Par contre, c'est justement l'opposé qui devrait se passer : les étudiants et étudiantes de l'U d'O doivent pouvoir visionner avec leurs propres yeux le déroulement de ce processus.

Par contre, hier, j'admet que j'ai peut-être semblé un peu trop critique de la motion présentée par Dean. Je respecte Dean et ce que je veux faire clair c'est que je critique sa décision d'avoir choisi les deux premières options présentées par M. Lambrosse (La motion: http://d.scribd.com/docs/fh4vsnv9r364yflfia.pdf) au lieu du troisième. Je ne critique guère sa personne.

Donc, la raison pour laquelle j'écris cette note est la suivante: cette décision prise par Dean de vouloir interdire le public, d'assister aux rencontres futures concernant cet appel est le résultat d'une seule cause. En fin de compte, ce qui a véritablement mené à cette décision est l'affreux comportement des étudiants et étudiantes présents.es à la réunion du 6 mars dernier. Un tel comportement peut être caractérisé par les adjectifs suivants: épouvantable, dangereux, menaçant, déplaisant, détestable, insultant, déshonorable. Ces adjectifs représentent des comportements négatifs et n'ont AUCUNE PLACE SUR CE CAMPUS.

Pour conclure, si vous aviez l'intention d'être présent à la rencontre spéciale du CA de la FÉUO ce soir, demandez-vous pourquoi vous y aller. Si vous répondez que vous y allez afin de pouvoir supporter un des deux camps, de manière respectueuse, continuez avec vos plans d'y être. Par contre, si vous répondez que vous y aller afin de causer des problèmes, crier des bêtises, intimider l'un des deux camps, ou avec l'intention de faire annuler cette importante rencontre, restez chez-vous et informez-vous plutard ce soir ou demain au sujet de ce qui s'est passé à la rencontre.

Motion présentée... motion adopté? Regardez un peu plus prêt...

Si vous ne le savez pas déjà, les résultats dans les dernières élections de la FÉUO ont été contestées par un groupe d'étudiant qui croit avoir assez de preuve pour démontrer que Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, Julie Séguin et Jean Guillaume (« les défendants ») ont fait campagne ensemble ainsi allant à l'encontre des règlements incluent de la constitution de la FÉUO qui interdit une telle collaboration entre candidats/candidates. Pour résumer, les quatre candidats.es dont je viens de nommer font face à l'accusation qu'ils et elles ont formé une équipe et ont travaillé ensemble durant la campagne électorale.

Cependant, avant de commencer, j'aimerais souligner le fait que ces accusations n'ont aucunement été confirmées ou rejetées et donc je n'assume aucunement connaître l'innocence ou la culpabilité des défendants. Ces derniers ont soumis une lettre au journal The Fulcrum et ont énuméré les irrégularités qu'ils ont remarquées en ce qui concerne la procédure suivie par le Centre de recours étudiant (qui est en fait un service subventionné par la FÉUO elle-même). Ce n'est pas surprenant que la page couverture du journal The Fulcrum porte le titre de SHIT SHOW avec les photos respectives de Renaud Garner, un des plaignants, et du président élu Seamus Wolf côte à côte et en dessous, une autre photo démontrant le véritable SHIT SHOW qui a eu lieu le 6 mars dernier lors de la première session d'appel devant le Centre de recours étudiant. Durant cette session, les défendants ont tous chacun à leur tour, quitté la salle ne pouvant supposément guère poursuivre avec le présent processus qu'ils jugeaient comme étant corrompu.

Il y aura donc demain, le vendredi 13 mars 2009, une réunion spéciale du Conseil d'Administration de la FÉUO afin de décider sur la façon dont le processus devrait se dérouler. Une motion a été présentée par le président sortant Dean Haldenby en ce qui concerne le Centre de recours étudiant. Au sein de ce document, l'avocat de la FÉUO, M. Marc R. Labrosse a énuméré trois options possibles (voir le lien suivant : http://documents.scribd.com/docs/fh4vsnv9r364yflfia.pdf).

Premièrement, il me semble un peu bizarre que M. Haldenby ait décidé de suivre les deux premières recommandations au lieu de la troisième. Personnellement, je crois qu'en décidant d'enlever le CRÉ complètement du processus démontre premièrement que M. Haldenby ne fait aucunement confiance en ce service qui est subventionné par la FÉUO, dont lui-même est le présent président. Donc, en proposant d'enlever complètement le CRÉ, cela semble dire que ce service n'est pas légitime et devrait être scrappé complètement. Je crois que c'est une proposition qui annoncerait donc le début de la fin de ce service qui a servi, dans le passé, à beaucoup d'étudiant.

Deuxièmement, je vais dire que la troisième option qui est de « nommer un médiateur indépendant (qui a une formation judiciaire formelle) afin de présider le processus d'appel » serait la meilleure et le plus légitime des trois options présentées par M. Labrosse. De cette façon, la personne qui sera choisie ne connaîtra ni les défendants ni les plaignants ce qui rend déjà le processus plus juste et plus légitime.

Dernièrement, j'aimerais faire connaître ma frustration au sujet d'une autre proposition incluse dans cette motion. M. Haldenby propose l'interdiction d'une présence publique lors de ces rencontres. Ce processus devrait être vu comme étant légitime et juste et cette proposition va à l'encontre de ces deux principes importants. Il propose au lieu que ces rencontres soient filmées et qu'elles seront, par après, diffusées au public.

Il a évidemment pensé que la seule et meilleure manière d'avancer avec ce processus serait de tenir ces rencontres en cachette. Plusieurs se plaignent que le Sénat de l'Université d'Ottawa ne veut plus avoir d'étudiants ou d'étudiantes présents lors de ces rencontres.

Mais, maintenant, c'est exactement ce qui est proposé par M. Haldenby: ces rencontres seront tenues en cachette, sans la présence du public, sans la présence d'étudiants et d'étudiantes qui, en mon opinion, devraient être les premiers à avoir le droit de voir la manière dont se déroule le processus afin qu'ils et elles puissent en juger eux-mêmes, peu importe la décision finale, de l'innocence ou de la culpabilité des défendants.

Innocence or Guilt?: The Possibility of Various Scenarios

So we have this video come out yesterday morning of a young woman in second year who was an official volunteer for Seamus Wolfe while at the same time the official representative for Iain Brannigan. Renaud Garner interviews this young woman for roughly 20 minutes, asking her some very specific questions and luckily for him, receiving VERY EXPLICIT AND DAMNING TESTIMONY.

It has become evident that if this is found to be true, every single defendant that walked out on SAC appeal that took place on March 6th, walked out and even further incriminated themselves. And if the people who testified in fact lied during their testimonies, SHAME ON THEM. Many of these people worked very closely with the SFUO during the past year and are on the inside (for the most part).

Once again, I shall reiterate that the plaintiff's accusations are only to this point alleged accusations. This means that the defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, let me bring forward some possible scenarios, one assuming the defendants are found guilty and the other if they are cleared of all wrong doing.

Suppose the defendants are in fact found to be guilty; What would happen to the SFUO's legitimacy? What possible punishment (if any) would the defendants be given?

Let's be completely clear on one thing here: the voter turnout during past SFUO elections has clearly indicated that many students aren't convinced of the SFUO's legitimacy. So, if this scandal is found to be true, the effects could be catastrophic. The end of the SFUO? Highly unlikely. Could this year's voter turnout once again drop to an all-time low next year? Chances are pretty damn good.

When it comes to punishing the defendants, again if they were found guilty of these accusations, I can only see one option. If they all truly have the student's best interests in mind, they should all write up a resignation letter and give up their positions. This is the only legitimate punishment. It's the only way to regain the student's trust (which was arguably already in jeopardy in the first place).

Now, let's assume that the defendants were in fact acquitted of any wrongdoing. Then what? Are the elections legitimate? Well, if they're innocent, then I would have to say that the elections' results are legitimate. What about a punishment? Personally, I think that the defendants could still face a moral punishment from the electorate. If the student's trust, as I alluded to before, was arguably already questionnable, then it will definitely be shakier than it was before the elections took place.

As for the plaintiffs, no matter what happends, it's an unfortunately harsh reality that they will be (and have somewhat already been) labelled as "shit disturbers" and "power hungry" individuals who contested the election results for the sole reason of being in a position of power. They won't be liked by many and will be despised by those who were accused by them.

It's too bad that it has to be this way. It's also very disgusting that these people who, according to the SFUO constitution, have every right to contest election results, will now be treated like shit because they actually had the guts to speak out when they believed that rules were broken and that the SFUO constitution had been compremissed.

In conclusion, for those who already have a grudge against the plaintiffs, it might be good to take a moment and ask yourself why you hold this grudge. If your reason for holding this grudge is due to the fact that you think that the plaintiff's had no business contesting the election results, well just remind yourself that they had every right to do so. There's nothing illegal nor immoral about what they did. If on the other hand your reason for being pissed at the plaitiffs is the fact that you're friends with the defendants, you should also get over it.

I know very well that no matter what anybody says, some people will hold these grudges against the plaintiffs for many weeks, many months and even possibly, for a miniscule few, many years. If you are honnestly pissed at these people for having legitimately brought forward possible campaign corruption, then you might want to think over what you consider to actually be legitimate.

Are rules really made to be broken?

An SFUO executive in place on May 1st 2009 would be great wouldn't it? I for one would love to see an executive in place (and I truly do hope that it is). I must speak to the events that have occurred since the beginning of the appeal process; you know, the one that contests the most recent SFUO elections' results.

First of all, I do not agree with people who say that the plaintiffs are all "sore losers" or that "they're just looking for attention". I think that if there's a constitution in place (which there clearly is) and if there are explicit rules in this constitution, then it's only logical that ALL these rules should be followed. Let me be very clear here. Rules are rules; one rule isn't more important than another. You can't just say "Well I think that rule is there for nothing, therefore I'm going to break it". Like it or not, whether it be the slightest technicality, RULES ARE RULES.

Now, let me make myself very clear by stating that what is being brought forward against the defendants are still only alleged accusations. Therefore, in no way am I assuming their innocence nor their guilt. What I will say though is that when I read these allegations, I was extremely disappointed in all who were alleged to be involved. Although I have only been attending the University of Ottawa a little less than two years, I have had the pleasure to get to know (some more than others) the defendants.

Let me explain with an example exactly how I felt after learning about these accusations. It's always shocking when you hear that a person that you look up to, someone who is a role model to you, is found to be guilty of lying, cheating, misleading someone, somewhere, somehow and that he or she is now exposed to the whole world. Whether it be an athlete who took steroids, a singer who lip synced their whole live performance or anything else that is viewed to be illegal or that is simply wrong. It's normal to be in a state of denial. "What?! No, that can't be true" you tell yourself. Once reality sets in, you all of a sudden feel betrayed by that person, whether you know them personally or not. A sense of disappointment follows that feeling of betrayal. After having possibly purchased that athlete's team jersey or having bought that singer's new album, you feel like the loyalty that you showed towards that person was taken for granted. You feel like every word that has ever come out of that person's mouth now must be second guessed, scrutinized.

Well, let me tell you that if these alleged accusations are found to be true by whoever might replace the SAC, I will feel betrayed by the defendants. Not only will I have a very hard time accepting their legitimacy, I would also have a VERY hard time trusting them. Let me just finish by saying that, like I mentioned in my last blog, there are most likely many factors that are causing very low voter turnout when it comes to student elections. I also stated that, in the past, scandal probably wasn't one of those reasons. Unfortunately, if these allegations are proven to be true, you can be sure that students, whether they've voted in the past or not, will be thinking twice before voting for the next SFUO executive.

I got the SHIT SHOW on my mind...

Yes, I've got something on my mind that has been keeping me awake.

An important question that has been bothering me as of late: Why is it that, despite such a great publicity campaign promoting the recent SFUO elections (elections’ posters everywhere you looked) and a great, up-to-date elections' website, students still didn't vote?

As a current executive member of a student association, I am trying to answer this very question every day. And, although having tried to find the answer, this question still remains partially unanswered.

If I may, I will however explain why I say that this question remains partially unanswered. I’m fairly confident when I say that I have identified (as I’m sure others have as well) ONE MAJOR PROBLEM with many student associations on this campus. This problem can be summed up in one word: CLIQUES.

A clique can be defined as a small, exclusive group of friends or associates which in other words means that many people are excluded from these privileged groups.
But, yet many other questions arise: What is to be done about these cliques? Can anything be done? What about the prospects of mini-cliques within a a bigger clique?

Now, having partially answered my original question (Why is it that students don't vote?), I'm obviously still missing part of the answer.

When students say they are alienated by the process, why? May the reason lay behind these alleged accusations of fraud and cheating during the most recent SFUO elections? I would beg to differ. Past SFUO elections have had absolutely terrible voter turnout without anyone having contested the results.

Therefore, I think it would be safe to say that, with the absence of fraud, cheating, etc., that there are definitely other factors that are playing in to this downward spiral in the voter turnout that we have been witnessing.

Shouldn’t it be a priority, for all those involved in student politics, to focus on what these (most likely numerous) factors are? The very fact that there is something holding back 72.8% of the student population from voting is, in my opinion, very troublesome. Personally, not only do I think that there should be a greater focus on identifying these factors, I also think that it’s our duty, as elected representatives, to do so.

I shall conclude with a few more questions: Once these factors can be identified, would we not be in a better position to answer my original question: Why is it that students don’t vote? Also, would the identification of these factors not help us, as student representatives, to better serve those who elected us to represent them?