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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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