Board of Administration of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa - Sunday July 25th 2010

Open publication - Free publishing - More meeting

Open publication - Free publishing - More structure

SFUO Services make a financial "contribution"

At the last Board of Administration meeting, that took place on Sunday June 20 2010, some interesting information was divulged during question period. Board members were made aware that 5 SFUO funded services, including the Pride Centre, Foot Patrol, the Student Appeal Centre, the Women's Resource Centre and one other service, pooled funds together to cover the cost of buses that transported student protesters from in and around the Ottawa area to Toronto to participate in the G20 protests.

Unfortunately, not all students who possibly would have wanted to attend the protests were made aware that such student-funded transportation was available to them. Why? Well, I sent this message to Amy Hammett, the SFUO Vice-President of Student Affairs and have yet to receive a response (but I will gladly add her response when she does reply):

Hello Amy,

First of all, I hope that you have settled in as the SFUO's new V.P. Student Affairs.

I am writing you concerning information that came to light at the last BOA meeting. Particularly, I am referring to student's money having been spent on buses that transported G20 protesters from Ottawa to Toronto. It has been said that this money came from student services: Foot Patrol, Pride Centre, Women's Resource Centre, Student Appeal Centre, and one other.

I would like for you to confirm that this is in fact true. Furthermore, if it is, I would like to know if this is a normal practice for student-funded SFUO services to donate money to such initiatives. I would also like to know how much money each specific service donated towards the cost of the buses and who would have had to approve such an expenditure I would also like to know if in fact these buses were publicized so that all students would have had the chance to take advantage of this transportation to Toronto. If not, why?


I am hoping that you will be able to answer these questions and clear up any discrepancies.

Looking forward to hearing back from you!

Cheers,

Brandon Clim

This message was sent on July 12th 2010 at approximately 9:05 am. It is now 9:16 am on July 21st 2010. I hope to be able to follow up soon on this issue.

UPDATE (July 23rd 2010): This article has been published in latest The Fulcrum.
Furthermore, this open letter to V.P. Student Affairs, Amy Hammett, also appeared in The Fulcrum.

Board of Administration of the SFUO - Sunday February 28th 2010

Note: I appologize about the audio at certain points in the video; my thumb was covering the microphone.

All these committees are making me dizzy!

Source: Photo

Thanks to some of my readers' comments, I've been able to clarify the role and current members that make up all these committees that have been referenced throughout the election campaign.

Disciplinary Committee members: Sarah Jayna King (president), Kyle Ryc, Marie-Ève Bérubé and Richard Mah (Bruno Gélinas-Faucher and Dennis Stark are the designated alternatives).

This committee only deals with complaints logged against current SFUO executive members when it comes to upholding the SFUO Constitution, particularly the articles pertaining to the rules dealing with current executive involvement in current candidates' election campaigns. (i.e. the complaint made against Roxanne Dubois accusing her of having been involved in Amalia Savva's election campaign). The members of this committee are determined by the BOA.

Elections Committee members: Seamus Wolfe, Laura Rashotte, and Khadija Kanji.

According to the SFUO Constitution, this committee is charged with selecting the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chief Returning Officer and in turn bringing their recommendations to the BOA. Once the recommendations have been received by the BOA, a 2/3 vote of present directors is necessary in order to ratify the recommended nominees. According to "Article 4.2.4" of the SFUO Constitution:

The Election Committee may, upon request of the Chief Electoral Officer or the Chief Returning Officer, provide advice on matters pertaining to the elections.

Elections office personnel: At the beginning of the elections, Julien de Bellefeuille held the position of Chief Electoral Officer (but has since resigned) and the current Chief Returning Officer position is held by Elizabeth Doneathy. These two elections' officers together compose the Executive of the Elections' office.

The powers and duties of these elections' officers are enumerated in the SFUO Constitution under articles 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.12.2, 4.12.3, 4.12.4 and 4.12.5. Furthermore, additional powers and duties are included in the SFUO Elections 2010 Electoral Regulations: articles 1.6, 2.2.2, 7.2, 8.1.2, 11.2.3, 11.4.9, 16.1.2, 16.1.3, 16.2.3, 17.3.2, 18.1.2, 18.2.2, 18.2.4, 18.3.5, 18.5, 19.1.3 and 19.2.5.

I must clarify what the Elections' Committee apparently suggested in their report during Monday night's BOA meeting. This report apparently suggested that Khadija Kanji, a current sitting member on the BOA, be appointed the new CEO of the SFUO elections. The constitutionality of this recommendation was supposedly put into question by some of the Board members and rightly so according to article 4.13.2 of the SFUO Constitution:

An outgoing faculty director cannot be hired as an election officer. 

So, now that that's straightened out, let's continue with what happened after the Elections' Committee's recommendation was turned down. Apparently, the Elections' Committee suggested that it should oversee the elections in the place of an actual CEO. This too was apparently turned down by the Board. At that point, the Elections' Committee apparently recommended the status quo (that it continue to oversee the elections) which was also turned down by the BOA due to the number of abstentions. Finally, the case was refered to the current SFUO Executive who then in turn decided that the status quo was to continue as recommended by the Elections' Committee.

Would the status quo not technically mean that all the powers and duties of the CEO would be transfered to the Elections' Committee? If that is the case, the status quo, according to the SFUO Constitution, (which, if I may add, always assumes that the Chief Electoral Officer position is filled) is unconstitutional; article 4.13.1 states:

A member of the outgoing Executive cannot be hired as an election officer […]

I understand that Seamus Wolfe is a legitimate member of the Elections' Committee. That's not the issue. If the Elections' Committee is overseeing the elections and its process, he is seemingly in a position of conflict of interest because he is obviously an outgoing Executive.

I'm not expecting anything to change with the currect elections but, for what it's worth, here is my suggestion for future elections:

Amend the SFUO Constitution to stipulate that the position of Chief Electoral Officer plays an essential role in overseeing the electoral process and MUST AT ALL TIMES be filled. In order to avoid a similar situation in the future, there should be a provision in the SFUO Constitution that stipulates that at least 2 CEOs (1 to fill the position and 1 as a backup) and 2 CROs (1 to fill the position and 1 as a backup) are to be hired using the same process as currently stipulated in the SFUO Constitution.

This is simply a suggestion, but it couldn't hurt to have a backup CEO and CRO in the case that a similar situation was to arise again in the future.

YOUR TURN: If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please feel free to post them as a comment. There has to be a better way, right?

BOA Special meeting... in an odd place

Seeing as some bureaucrat fucked up the paper work, the BOA meeting is not taking place in the Senate Chambers but rather in... wait for it... CAFÉ ALT! Stay tuned... It's live right now!

Amanda Iarusso - Board of administration of the SFUO (Social Sciences)
http://www.amandaiarusso.ca/

Campaign video 6

Peter Flynn - Candidate for a seat on the Board of administration (Social Sciences)
http://www.peterflynn.ca/

ATTENTION: The posting of any candidates' campaign video on this blog does not necessarily mean I support that particular candidate.

It getting more sketch by the day...

It's being reported that Julien de Bellefeuille, the SFUO Chief electoral officer, has resigned.

So now, I will make a comparison of what the situation looks like now with a CEO in the picture. In an email sent out by Seamus Wolfe to all the candidates, this sentence really scares me:

Since the constitution stipulates that the elections committee has the power to review all rulings made to the CEOs decisions, in the absence of a CEO, the committee will now be directly dealing with decisions normally made by the CEO.

So, let's think about this: Seamus Wolfe, president of the SFUO, sits on the elections' committee. The email sent out also says "We will also be assigning a liaison to the elections office who will receive complaints, appeals, and any other communications required." That's all fine and dandy. BUT Wolfe will now oversee the electoral process and address (if he feels like it) any complaints that (will most likely) arise.

The president of the SFUO is (obviously) on the SFUO executive and on the elections committee. That in itself is troubling enough. Now that the CEO has resigned and assuming there won't be an effort made to replace him, the elections committee will now oversee the electoral process.

I guess the only unbiased oversight of these elections is the Board of Administration of the SFUO. Oh wait, that doesn't seem to be much better because many candidates are SITTING on the BOA. So does Wolfe. Wow!?! How can this be legitimate? If I was a candidate right now, I'd be worried and questionning the decisions that have been and that will be taken in the next day concerning this fucked up scenario that has arised.

By the way, IT'S ONLY DAY 3 OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN!?!?!?!? FML!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.