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!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
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%
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%
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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.
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/).
Friday, March 20, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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!
Monday, March 16, 2009
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
Sunday, March 15, 2009
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)
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.
Friday, March 13, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)