Responding to Amy Hammett

At last month's Student Federation of the University of Ottawa Board of administration (SFUO BOA) meeting, I was asked by Brendan Andrews to sit in as his proxy. Since I had already planned on attending the meeting as a spectator, I gladly accepted his request.

Having blogged about a recent comment made by the SFUO's VP Communication, Paige Galette, on her personal Facebook page, I took the opportunity to ask her if she was prepared to publicly apologize to both The Fulcrum and LaRotonde for having used her position of influence in an attempt to influence the content of our independent, student-run newspapers. I also pointed out that she had made those comments on Thursday February 9, 2012. To give you a bit more context, on that very day, The Fulcrum published its second edition out of a total of three and LaRotonde had only published one out of a total of three editions during the month of February. Ms. Galette very much disagreed with the premise of my question and went as far as to suggest that it was the newspapers' staff who should apologize to the students who were, according to her, absolutely outraged that they had failed to cover Black History Month events up to that date (February 9, 2012) and in particular, the Black History Month Gala. To be clear, I'm not in any way attempting to defend neither The Fulcrum nor LaRotonde. However, I am saying that, as an elected official on the SFUO executive, one should not be using their position of influence in an attempt to dictate what the independent, student-run newspapers.

Now, as the title of this post suggests, the main reason for this post is to respond directly to remarks that the outgoing Vice-President Student Affairs, Ms. Amy Hammett made to me personally, after the meeting had concluded. My presence at yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting once again reminded me of what she had said to me. I am more than happy to address her remarks and to shed light on the behaviour of many of the board members during the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting.

But first, of course, context is important. At this time, it should be noted that journalists from both The Fulcrum and LaRotonde were present at the start of the February 26, 2012 meeting. Something occurred during the first part of the meeting that appeared to frustrate (and I'd even go as far to say enrage) many board members sitting around the table. Once question period period had concluded (after executive updates and before the beginning of consideration of new business), two journalists from LaRotonde, who were present in the gallery, made their way to the exit. Once they had exited the uOttawa Senate Chambers, the Chair was forced to bring the meeting to order as many board members seemed to be speaking amongst themselves. When the Chair asked what all the commotion was about, David Eaton responded that the two journalists from LaRotonde had distracted him as they exited the room. Many board members then began to question why the journalists from LaRotonde had left and, in particular, I recall Ms. Hammett asking aloud why the two journalists had left the meeting. Once the consideration of business continued, I recall Ms. Hammett asking me directly if I knew why the two journalists had left. Not having received my credentials as a professional psychic, I answered that I had no idea why they left and went on to suggest that she address such questions directly to the journalists themselves or that she speak with LaRotonde's editor-in-chief. Ms. Hammett then indicated that she had already in fact tweeted at LaRotonde and that she had not yet received a response. The following exchanges took place on Twitter (in the order in which they appear):

Alright, so you kind of get the idea. Along with this back on fourth on Twitter, many board members ensured to take every possible opportunity to voice their disappointment in LaRotonde throughout the meeting (in particular, I can recall Amalia Savva, Paige Galette (who referred to LaRotonde as a "tabloid" newspaper) and Adam Gilanni having made such comments along with numerous other board members going out of their way to point out LaRotonde's absence to the point of hostility). Some claimed that LaRotonde's journalists were ignoring the important motions that were being discussed. In particular, a motion dealing with accessibility and others bringing forward various amendments to Bylaw 13 (governance of 101 Week):

Section 13.3.3.7

Section 13.5.3.7.4

Section 13.7.9.2.1

Section 13.11

For readers who may not be familiar with the procedures of the SFUO BOA, I would now like to explain the process which each motion must go through in order for it to become official policy of the SFUO. Most importantly, I would like to point out that every motion presented to the SFUO BOA must be "read" twice before passing.

1) A motion is introduced by the board member who brought it to the board
2) The board member then motivates (giving reasons as to why the board should should support the policy)
3) Question period: board members who wish to ask questions about the motion are then allowed to do so;
4) Debate: Self-explanatory
5) Vote

Therefore, the above 5 steps must occur twice before any given motion becomes official SFUO policy.

As readers will notice in the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting agenda, all 5 motions were to be read a first time. Therefore, if all 5 motions passed first reading, they would be read a second time at yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting (Motion 13.11 did not pass first reading on February 26th and was sent back to committee which is why, on yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting agenda, it was once again at first reading stage).

Now that that has been explained to the best of my ability, I would now like to paraphrase the exchange between Ms. Hammett and I upon the conclusion of the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting: 

Amy: What are your thoughts on the fact that LaRotonde's journalists left early?

Brandon: I don't understand why so many board members appeared seemed to be disturbed by this.

Amy: Well, LaRotonde's journalists didn't bother staying to cover the discussions surrounding the important motions that we dealt with.

Brandon: I'm not attempting to defend them but maybe they had to leave because they had other commitments.

Amy: I really am starting to question your ability to think critically about organizations other than the SFUO.

That last line is the one that really caught my attention. Near the end of our short exchange, she said she looked forward to reading my criticism of the perceived issue on my blog. Upon completion, I will personally post a link to this post on Ms. Hammett's Facebook page to ensure that she knows that I didn't forget about her! In fact, I strongly encourage Ms. Hammett to forward me her response and I commit to publishing it as a standalone post.

First of all, I would like to say that I did not share the feelings of hostility that many board members appeared to have towards the early departure of LaRotonde's journalists. The assumptions that they appeared to be making as to the journalists' motivations were completely unfair and, in my opinion, unfounded. These board members were not in any position to know whether or not, for example, the journalists were ill or had if they had other obligations (such as homework, family, etc.).

Secondly, The Fulcrum and LaRotonde are independent from the SFUO. This means that their respective journalists are accountable to each newspapers' editor-in-chief, their respective teams of journalists and, most importantly, their readership. Thus, the SFUO executive has absolutely no say in what our student newspapers write about and rightly so.

Thirdly, as I have already pointed out, all 5 motions presented during the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting were at first reading. This means that they were to be discussed again, as they were, during yesterday's board meeting (March 18, 2012). Both The Fulcrum and LaRotonde journalists were present throughout yesterday's meeting thus covering the discussions surrounding those motions. Accordingly, students will be will have the opportunity to read about yesterday's meeting today in LaRotonde and on Thursday in The Fulcrum.

Lastly, and this isn't the first time I've said this, the SFUO executive has a responsibility to inform its membership that such meetings occur and that they are open to anybody who wish to attend. On February 26, 2012, the gallery consisted of one journalist from The Fulcrum and one or two other students. At yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting, other than myself, there were two journalists from LaRotonde and one journalist from The Fulcrum in the gallery. That in itself appears to be telling.

Accordingly, I strongly reject Ms. Hammett's suggestion that I somehow lack the ability to think critically simply because I refused to participate in the collective bashing of LaRotonde undertaken by board members throughout the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting. Read on...

So, why aren't students attending SFUO BOA meetings you ask? Take a look at the online calendar found on the SFUO website:

Sunday March 18, 2012: empty. Yesterday the SFUO BOA met at Roger-Guindon Campus for its second last meeting of the 2011-2012 mandate. It should be noted that the online calendar had been utilized initially to advertise the monthly BOA meetings (i.e.: months of January 2012, December 2011, November 2011, October 2011, September 2011). Kudos! If you happen to figure out where the SFUO BOA web page is, you WILL find this list of meeting dates:

Fair is fair: the meeting dates appear on the website. However, as I previously mentioned, yesterday's meeting took place at the Roger-Guindon Campus. Let's just say that someone did happen to notice that there was a meeting taking place yesterday. If that person also somehow knew that SFUO BOA meetings usually take place in the uOttawa Senate Chambers (Tabaret Hall, Room 083), that person still would have been out of luck. The tools that the SFUO should be using in order to inform its membership about such meeting are not and have rarely ever been used to publicize SFUO BOA meetings: The SFUO's Twitter account (@SFUO_FEUO) has been inactive since Friday March 16, 2012 (as of 11:30 am on March 19, 2012). The SFUO's Facebook page has also been inactive since Friday March 16, 2012 (again, as of 11:30 am on March 19, 2012). And finally, let us not forget the Ohhlala app which has been adopted by the SFUO as yet another way to connect with its membership. And again, this tool has not been utilized either.

Now, don't get me wrong, I completely agree that our student-run newspapers have a duty to inform uOttawa students about campus news and events. However, before elected members of the highest decision-making body of the SFUO start complaining about our independent, student-run newspapers, maybe they should have been questioning the current Vice-President Communications, Ms. Paige Galette, as to why the communication tools at her disposal have rarely been utilized to inform students about motions being introduced and debated during board meetings. But no, this year's board has not, in my opinion, asked the tough questions and HAS lacked the capacity to think critically about the organization that it purports to oversee. I say this having attended every board meeting with the exception of the January 15, 2012 meeting. Rarely has a board member ever questioned what such and such a motion may entail in terms of financial cost. Rarely has a board member asked about the U-Pass negotiations. And, while not hesitating to denounce the uOttawa administration for a lack of transparency, rarely has a board member ever asked that SFUO BOA documents and/or SFUO executive meeting minutes  be made available online in order to ensure that board members/executive members can be held accountable to their members and are as transparent as possible. I can only hope that the incoming board members will take a hard look at the opportunity that they have been given by their peers and will take their role as board members seriously.

I will conclude by once again strongly encouraging the outgoing Vice-President Student Affairs, Ms. Amy Hammett to forward me, in due time, a response to this post. I have gladly taken the time to answer her charge and would very much like to know what she thinks about what I have written in this post. And, as always, your comments are always welcome and encouraged!

My thoughts on the 2012 SFUO elections results and future reforms

Hey everyone! It's been awhile!

I've received a couple emails from readers pointing out that I've been noticeably absent throughout the past month or so. I apologize to my faithful readership but school has undoubtedly taken up nearly every waking moment of my time. Since I've been absent for an extended period of time, you can forgive me if this post is a little longer than usual! I've got A LOT on my mind!

My thoughts on the 2012 SFUO elections results

So, now that that's out of the way, let me start by saying I was extremely pleased with the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa's (SFUO) elections! What I will call the "pro-Canadian Federation of Students" (CFS) team was, by all accounts, OBLITERATED on elections' night. I say that because out of the four races in which there were two or more people running (President, VP Student Affairs, VP University Affairs and VP Social), only one of their team members was elected. The other two team members had it pretty easy as they ran unopposed. This team consisted of Presidential candidate Amalia Savva, VP Finance candidate Adam Gilani, VP Student Affairs candidate Tasha Peters, VP University Affairs candidate Elizabeth Kessler, VP Social candidate Marie-Claude Noël and VP Communications candidate Anne-Marie Roy. It just goes to show how allowing candidates to work together in teams doesn't always assure a swift victory for that said team. To be honest, I didn't think it would turn out the way it did. 

Before I go any further, I would like to share with you my election predictions (which I finalized on upon arriving at 1848 on Election results' night). 

Voter turnout: 17.6%

President: Savva by 1.2%

VP Social: Spiteri by 5%

VP University Affairs: Kessler by 30%

VP Student Affairs: Peters by 8%

VP Finance: 95% Yes

VP Communication: 98% Yes

U-Pass Referendum: 59% No

Photo Credits: La Rotonde © 2012 (Facebook Group link while it lasts)

I'm glad that Ethan Plato (2364 votes or 51%) and Jozef Spiteri (2218 votes or 55%) pulled off what I will characterize as an "upset" by winning the positions of president and VP Social respectively. It should also be noted that Plato and Spiteri ran as a team as well. Presidential candidates Amalia Savva (the leader of the pro-CFS team; 1778 votes or 38%) and Philippe Mulet (an independent; 538 votes or 11%) did not do as well as I thought they would. This was Savva's third election campaign in which she ran for the SFUO presidency. Her first kick at the can came in 2010 when Tyler Steeves was finally elected (after having himself ran twice before for the SFUO presidency unsuccessfully). Then, last year, Savva faced a formidable opponent in Nathan Boivin who, in the end, lost by only 53 votes. It's also worth noting that Savva received more votes this year (1778 votes) than she received in her successful bid last year (1676 votes). Spiteri's opponent and incumbent VP Social Marie-Claude Noël seemed to be out of ideas during the debates. She read from a prepared speech which was filled with nice, comforting words but had little substance.

I was even more shocked to learn that Kate Hudson had beat out the outright favourite, Tasha Peters for VP Student Affairs. I honestly expected Peters to win without much trouble. So, in the end, only 50% of the pro-CFS team was elected with two out of three candidates running unopposed: Anne-Marie Roy (3645 Yes votes) and Adam Gilani (3593 Yes votes) were elected to the positions of VP Communications and VP Finance respectively. Please note that I have communicated with Julia McDonald (SFUO Chief Electoral Officer) and Crystel Hajjar (SFUO Chief Returning Officer) requesting that the number of spoiled/disallowed votes for each position be made available as well as the number of No votes for the positions which were uncontested. These numbers have yet to be added (Friday March 2, 2012).

UPDATE (Wednesday March 7, 2012): Julia McDonald replied to my inquiry on Tuesday March 6, 2012:

Hi Brandon,

Below are the numbers you requested.

VP FINANCE
GILANI, Adam: Yes votes 3593; No votes 857

VP COMMUNICATIONS
ROY, Anne-Marie: Yes votes 3645; No votes 773

It is not possible for me to provide you with percentages as it would be far
too time consuming to determine the number of spoils for individual races.
This is because of the way the counting machines functioned.

And as an aside, in light of your previous email, I want to mention that I
will bring to the BOA's attention the option of putting my final elections
report online.

All the best,

Julia McDonald
Directrice Generale des Elections / Chief Electoral Officer
Fédération étudiante de l'Université d'Ottawa - Student Federation of the
University of Ottawa
309-85 University Pvt.
Ottawa, ON     K1N 8Z4
613-562-5800 x. 2625

Lastly, VP University Affairs incumbent Elizabeth Kessler managed to squeeze passed her opponent, Christopher Clarke, by a mere 198 votes. This year, Kessler, a member of the pro-CFS team and the SFUO's representative to the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, fumbled on a major issue which will likely leave uOttawa students with $70 less in their pockets. She was responsible for negotiating with the City of Ottawa council and OC Transpo with regards to the Universal Bus Pass (U-Pass). A group of students from uOttawa and Carleton University, which included Kessler, made a submission back in November 2011 (November 16 to be more precise) to the City of Ottawa's Transit Commission. During that meeting, the group of students presented a commissioned study (prepared by two PhD students from Carleton University) which refuted the City's numbers when it came to the price of a revenue neutral U-Pass (at the price of $145/semester, the City of Ottawa subsidizes the U-Pass to the tune of about $3 million). The City claimed that in order to eliminate this taxpayer subsidy, OC Transpo must charge $180/semester ($360 U-Pass; an increase of $70). To make a long story short, the students were asked some tough questions by some of the Commission's members and, in my opinion, demonstrated that they hadn't done their homework. Questions such as "Is this information that you've presented in the report based on empirical evidence?" were met with unclear answers from the student delegation. You can listen to this meeting via the City of Ottawa's website (jump to 42:22 for the student delegations' presentation).

When Kessler was asked during the elections' debate why she hadn't informed students about that meeting, she insisted that it was the student media's fault for not having covered the meeting. The "commissioned study" can be found here. I also covered that Transit Commission meeting in a post that can be found here. It should be noted that this report was never made available to students on the SFUO website. I finally found the document on the Carleton University Graduate Students' Association's website. Although Clarke brought some new ideas to the table, his spoken French wasn't where it needed to be. Add on the fact that he took a few long pauses during the debate and you begin to understand why he was ultimately defeated.

Future Reforms Possible?

I would now like to deal with some issues that, in my opinion, should be looked at in terms of reforming the SFUO and the SFUO board of administration (SFUO BOA) which could have become very contentious had there been any major complaints filed and later appealed. I'm referring to the composition of the Elections Committee (a three-person body which is tasked with hearing appeals of rulings made by Chief electoral officer. The Elections Committee members were Sarah Jayne King (current SFUO VP Finance, current CFS-O Treasurer, CFS-O Chairperson-Elect), Paige Galette (current SFUO VP Communications, current Francophone student representative on the CFS national executive) and Jesse Root (Amalia Savva's former campaign manager). Does anybody else see a problem here? Luckily, as far as I'm aware, no major issues have arose from the election campaign and the Elections Committee wasn't required to rule on any serious complaints. Regardless, there should be no way that people with such obvious biases should be allowed to sit on the Elections Committee in the future. When your only defense is "There is nothing in the SFUO Constitution that states that I'm not allowed to sit on the Elections Committee", you begin to wonder what this person's motives really are. This is a major problem which should be avoided at all costs in future elections. We have seen what could happen in 2011 (disqualification of Tristan Dénomée and instalment of Sarah Jayne King as VP Finance without a by-election) and in 2010 (resignation of SFUO Chief Electoral Officer, Julien de Bellefeuille; then-SFUO President Seamus Wolfe, also a member of the Elections Committee, became both judge and jury when it was decided that a replacement CEO would not be hired).

I do hope that Plato was sincere when he brought up the fact that he would be open to conducting a review into the way the SFUO is governed (i.e.: SFUO BOA, electoral administration, etc.). Now, for starters, the SFUO does not have a conflict of interest policy. Such a policy, if implemented correctly, could potentially alleviate many contentious issues which have arisen throughout the years (that I have been very critical of on this blog and at BOA meetings). Even though it should go without saying that elected officials should always act with the utmost integrity and be held to the highest standards of ethics and morality, this has sadly not always been the case, in my opinion, of the SFUO BOA nor of the SFUO executive in the past.
My recommendation: That the SFUO BOA task the Policy and By-laws Committee with reviewing various conflict of interest policies that have been implemented by other elected bodies (City of Ottawa, City of Toronto, other student unions, etc.) and present a report outlining its recommendations and that the SFUO BOA (finally) implement a conflict of interest policy. 

The SFUO is a member of the Canadian Federation of Students. This organization meets twice a year at the national level and twice a year at the provincial level for its respective general meetings. The SFUO executive and staff attend these meetings. If the reason for attending these conferences that members of the SFUO executive attend throughout the year is to bring various student unions together and learn from others' experiences, then the new SFUO executive should take the opportunity to learn from others and actually bring those ideas back to our campus. This would be much more beneficial to the student body at large than simply stating "I attended such and such a conference and it was great!" as was the case during the last SFUO BOA meeting on Sunday February 26, 2012.
My recommendation: I would strongly suggest that each executive member prepare a summary of their activities during the conferences that they attend as representatives of the SFUO and that they present a  comprehensive report to the BOA outlining the things they learnt. 

Another issue that has only recently been brought to my attention is the fact that the uOttawa Archives has in its possession a number of SFUO records. Documents from past executives have been collected and are easily accessible during regular business hours in the basement of the Campus Pharmacy building. It is my understanding that it has been difficult for the uOttawa Archives to obtain documents from the SFUO in the past few years. If true, this is both bizarre and troubling. The SFUO has very little available on its website in terms of institutional memory. For example, if I wanted to find out who the SFUO president was in 1990, I can't simply go onto the SFUO website to get this information. I must then search on Google to see if such information was ever documented on a blog or elsewhere on the World Wide Web. And if I do manage to find this information, it becomes a question of "How am I to verify that this information is actually correct?" I'm obviously not familiar with what kind of record keeping/archiving system the SFUO currently has in place, but it seems to me that the uOttawa Archives should be receiving certain documentation every year from the outgoing SFUO executive in order to keep at least some of the SFUO's fascinating institutional memory alive and accessible for years to come.
My recommendation: Add "She will, at the conclusion of each mandate, provide any and all relevant SFUO documentation produced throughout the year to the University of Ottawa Archives" under Section 3.3.1 (SFUO President Duties) of the SFUO Constitution. 

These are only some of the things that I've had on my mind and thought it would be useful to write them out in hopes that anyone who was elected this year might be inspired by these recommendations. Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the governance of the SFUO? Do you think my recommendations have merit...? are useless...? If you have any thoughts on this or on anything else which pertains to student politics, I want to hear from you! Leave you comments below!