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.

Innocence or Guilt?: The Possibility of Various Scenarios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are rules really made to be broken?

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

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

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

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

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