Les corps fédérés: la fondation de la FÉUO / Federated Bodies: the SFUO's foundation

Plusieurs corps fédérés du campus ont, au cours de la présente année scolaire, démontré leur frustration et leur mécontentement collectifs envers le Conseil d'Administration de la FÉUO (CA) en raison de la façon dont certaines décisions étaient prises et le manque de communication entre les représentants siégeant sur le CA et les corps fédérés. En réponse à la frustration ressentie par de nombreux corps fédérés, des représentants ont décidé de prendre l'initiative et tenter de réformer le CA. Le résultat? Bien, pour tout dire, pas grand-chose ne semble avoir changé.

Lorsque les membres des corps fédérés se présentent à une réunion du CA pour se faire entendre et que la sécurité est appelée à intervenir, cela ne favorise guère l'accessibilité des réunions du CA. En réalité, cela semble vouloir dire : on n'a pas le temps de vous écouter, sortez d'ici avant qu'on ne vous jette dehors. Quelle belle relation! 

Sans les corps fédérés, la FÉUO ne pourrait exister. Voici pourquoi je m'engage à travailler avec les corps fédérés de la Faculté des sciences sociales afin d'améliorer la communication entre eux et le CA. Par contre, si les membres du CA veulent améliorer les politiques de la FÉUO, ils doivent être capables d'ÉCOUTER ce que les corps fédérés ont à dire et, par après, AGIR dans le but de rectifier la situation. EXIGEONS MIEUX ENSEMBLE!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout this academic year, a number of Fed bodies have demonstrated their frustration and collective disapproval towards the SFUO Board of Administration. This letter appeared in the 21 October 2010 edition of The Fulcrum:

Because I could not speak to the BOA

BECAUSE I COULD not speak to the BOA— They kindly spoke for me— The Senate held but just Ourselves— And Illegitimacy. They slowly debated—They knew no haste And I had put away My twitter and my facebook too, For my laptop lacked battery— We talked of the School, where students strove At midterms—in the Rooms— We debated the fields of fair-traded goods— We debated the tie-break dooms— Or rather—They debated Us— The Dews drew quivering and chill— For only the BOA, did Frown— My feeling—only fools— We paused before a motion that seemed A Swelling of Contempt— The BOA was quick to speak— The students—in contempt— Since then—’tis days—and yet Feels longer than the Month I first surmised these Horses’ Asses Do not speak for me—

Not quite Emily Dickinson

When members of fed bodies take the time to attend BOA meetings in order to have their voices heard and that security is then called to have them thrown out, this demonstrates a major disconnect. Furthermore, instead of promoting the accessibility of these meetings, it is hindered. It seems as though members of the BOA are saying: “we don’t have time to listen to your whining, get out before you are thrown out.” What a great relationship!

Without fed bodies, the SFUO would not exist. This is why I am committed to working closely with the fed bodies within the Faculty of Social Sciences in order to open up the lines of communication between them and the BOA. However, if members of the BOA want to improve upon the existing policies of the SFUO, communicating is simply not enough! Members of the BOA must be able to LISTEN to what fed bodies are saying and then TAKE ACTION in attempting to address their concerns. LET'S DEMAND BETTER TOGETHER!

Parlons du laissez-passer universel! / Let's talk U-Pass!



Photo source: http://trashysworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/1166525bin.jpg

Même si, personnellement, je n'utilise pas très souvent mon laissez-passer O.C. Transpo, je crois fortement que les étudiants devraient avoir accès à un mode de transport abordable. Par contre, je comprends aussi que plusieurs étudiant(e)s se sentent comme s'ils ne devraient pas être obligés de payer pour quelque chose qu'ils n'utilisent pas. Un groupe d'étudiant a même décidé d'aller plus loin en initiant une contestation légale contre la FÉUO.

Voici pourquoi, si le laissez-passer devient un programme permanent, je supporterais de mettre en place un système « d'opt out » qui donnerait aux étudiantes et aux étudiants le choix de ne pas payer le 290 $ s'ils n'utilisent guère ce laissez-passer qui est, présentement, obligatoire et fait partie des frais de scolarité. Croyez-vous que c'est une bonne idée?

--------------------------------

Personally, I do not use my U-Pass very often. At least not enough to justify an extra $290 added to my tuition bill. With that said, I do think that students should have access to affordable transportation and that many students have greatly benefited from their U-Pass. It should also be noted, however, that there does exist, among the student population, a feeling of discontent towards the U-Pass. At the beginning of December 2010, students took their frustration to next level by filing a legal challenge aganst the SFUO.

Therefore, if the U-Pass becomes a permanent program, I would support an initiative that would allow students who do not want/need a bus pass the option to opt out. Under the current pilot project, students were not given this option and thus had an extra $290 added onto their tuition bills. What are your thoughts?

Votez Brandon Clim: C.A. 2011-2012 (Faculté des sciences sociales) - Vote Brandon: 2011-2012 B.O.A. (Faculty of Social Sciences)

Bienvenue! Je m'appelle Brandon Clim, j'ai 22 ans et j'étudis présentement en science politique, 4e année. Je me présente pour un des six sièges réservés pour la Faculté des sciences sociales au sein du Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO.

Merci pour l'intérêt que vous démontré pour ma campagne! Je voulais partager ma plateforme électorale avec vous. De plus, si vous aviez des questions, n'hesitez pas à m'envoyer un courriel: climbrandon@gmail.com

Enfin, je vous encourage à visiter le site web officiel des élections afin de pouvoir rencontrer les autres candidats.es et de lire leurs plateformes électorales.

N'oubliez pas que les 15, 16, et 17 février 2011 sont les journées réservées pour voter!

LA PLATEFORME ÉLECTORALE DE BRANDON CLIM

Je proposerais d’introduire une politique de LIBRE ACCÈS qui assurerait que TOUS documents se rapportant à l’administration des affaires de la FÉUO soient facilement accessibles à la population étudiante soit sur le site web de la FÉUO ou sur demande au bureau de la FÉUO (ex. : manuels de politiques, rapport de comité, budget, etc.). Cette politique encouragerait la transparence et assurerait que la FÉUO pourrait être tenue redevable par la population étudiante. N.B. Les documents qui seraient accessibles ne devraient guère contenir des informations confidentielles ni contrevenir à aucune obligation légale.

Je proposerais des changements aux règlements électoraux gouvernant les élections de la FÉUO qui tenteraient d’adresser les graves défaillances qui existent présentement au sein de ces derniers (ex. surveillance électorale – Directeur général des élections, directeur général du scrutin, membres du Comité des élections, etc.).

Enfin, je proposerais un CODE D’ÉTHIQUE pour les membres du Conseil d’Administration de la FÉUO qui apporterait des améliorations par rapport à des sujets tels que le conflit d’intérêt

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings! My name is Brandon Clim, I am 22 years old and am a 4th year political science student. I am currently running in the SFUO Elections for 1 of 6 seats on the SFUO Board of Administration reserved for the Faculty of Social Sciences.

Thanks for showing interest in my campaign! I wanted to share my electoral platform with you. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to send me an email: climbrandon@gmail.com

Finally, I encourage everyone to visit the official SFUO Elections' web site to meet the other candidates and in order to make an informed decision when you cast your ballot.

Don't forget that voting days are scheduled for February 15th, 16th and 17th 2011!

BRANDON CLIM’S ELECTORAL PLATFORM

I would propose to introduce an OPEN ACCESS policy which would ensure that ALL documents pertaining to the administration of the SFUO’s business are made available to the student population via both the SFUO website and upon request at the SFUO office (i.e. policy manuals, committee reports, budget, etc.) This policy would thus encourage a more open and transparent SFUO executive which can also be held accountable by the student population. NOTE: Documents to be made available must not contain sensitive information or contravene any and all legal obligations.

I would propose changes to the current rules governing SFUO elections which would attempt to improve on the grave insufficiencies that currently exist within them (i.e. elections oversight Chief Executive Officer, Chief Returning Officer, members of elections committee, etc.).

Finally, I would propose a CODE OF ETHICS for the members of the SFUO’s Board of Administration which would, among other additions, bring forward improvements to existing constitutional clauses: i.e. conflict of interest.

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?

Get your ass out and vote! / Sortez et votez 'stie!

VOICI COMMENT VOTER!
Pour voter en ligne, verifier votre courriel @uottawa.ca pour obtenir votre NIP. Ensuite visitez live.everyonecounts.com/app/733/1325 pour voter. Votre numéro d’étudiant est requis pour voter. Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas de communiquer avec le bureau des élections à elections@feuo.ca ou au 613-562-5800 x 2625.

Bureaux de vote le 9, 10, 11 février :
Tabaret  9h-17h 
Desmarais  9-19h 
Simard 2ième étage 9h-17h
UCU Tim Horton's 9h-17h 
UCU à l'extérieur du Caféteria 9h-17h 
UCU bureau de la FÉUO 9h-19h
Montpetit 2ième étage  9h-17h
Fauteux  9h-17h 
Marion sous-sol 9h-17h 
Colonel By sous-sol 9h-17h
SITE Caféteria 9h-19h 
Sports Complex  9h-17h 
Roger Guindon 9h-17h

HERE'S HOW TO VOTE!
To vote online, check your @uOttawa.ca email to acquire your PIN number (Personal Identification Number). Then login to live.everyonecounts.com/app/733/1325 to cast your vote. Your Student Number is required to vote. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to communicate with the Elections office at elections@sfuo.ca or 613-562-5800 x 2625.

Polling Stations for Feb. 9, 10, 11:
Tabaret  9-5 
Desmarais  9-7 
Simard 2nd floor 9-7
UCU Tim Horton's 9-5
UCU outside Cafeteria 9-5 
UCU SFUO office 9-7 
Montpetit 2nd floor 9-5 
Fauteux 9-5
Marion basement 9-5 
Colonel By basement 9-5
SITE Cafeteria 9-7
Sports Complex 9-5 
Roger Guindon 9-5

"I'm not making a joke of these elections, these elections ARE a joke"

I honestly don't know where to begin after tonight's second and last session of debates in this fourth day of the SFUO elections campaign.


VP SOCIAL

Alexandre Chaput: He didn't have that much to say other than he would benefit from having more time to organise Winter Challenge and that he would like to plan the complete social calendar for the whole academic year throughout the summer.

Winner?: Well, obviously Chaput is the lone candidate for this position. Although, I was somewhat disappointed with his lack of new ideas. I know he'll do a great job, but would have liked a little bit of innovation.

VP STUDENT AFFAIRS

Amy Hammett: Alright so she brought up the fact that, according to her, Chartwells throws out a ton of good food every day. She was also asked about the legality of Chartwells donating that food to the SFUO's Food Bank. Hammett made reference to a "Good Faith" law that ensures that companies who donate food cannot be held liable in the case that someone who ate that food became sick. So, I decided to look further into this apparent law. There is in fact a provincial law in Ontario entitled "Donation of Food Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. 19". This law reads as follows:

Liability of donor

1. (1) A person who donates food or who distributes donated food to another person is not liable for damages resulting from injuries or death caused by the consumption of the food unless,

(a) the food was adulterated, rotten or otherwise unfit for human consumption; and

(b) in donating or distributing the food, the person intended to injure or to cause the death of the recipient of the food or acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. 1994, c. 19, s. 1 (1).

So I can only guess that if food is being thrown out by Chartwells, it obviously must not meet article 1.a. On other issues, Hammett said she would be in favour of holding francophone-only events for the 11 000 francophone students studying at the University of Ottawa.

Nicole Tishler: In answering to Hammett's claims, Tishler said that she spoke with one of the heads of Chartwells and was told that the company receives daily shipments of fresh food. Tishler continued on to say that she was told that it was very uncommon for there to be any food left over at the end of the day. This is why I tend to think that Tishler won the debate. She also put forward an interesting idea: to put in place a Committee of carbon neutrality at the University of Ottawa which would work towards diminishing our carbon footprint.

Winner?: Nicole Tishler was prepared, had spoken to the right people (head of Chartwells), and completely shot down Hammett's claim that Chartwells throws out enormous amounts of good food daily. Although having had a bit of trouble with her spoken French, she was prepared, confident and open to many of the suggestions that came from the floor.

VP FINANCE

Saryah Jayne King: I will begin by saying I'm not quite sure how King passed the bilinguism test. I say this because almost every time she spoke in French, I had a very hard time following what she was saying. I understand nerves might have been a factor. She said she was very much into transparency, budgetary consultations with students and making course packs available online. King said in the case of a budgetary surplus, she would like to ensure that students were consulted on how that money was spent. She also said that she didn't want to move too fast with plans for expanding 1848. She also added that she would not eliminate the $180,80 fee for renting 1848, but would like to see that fee brought down.

Sydney Loko: His message was simple: students are poor, the price of food is extremely expensive and the SFUO must ensure, first and foremost, that students are able to get by. He said the SFUO must be prudent with students' money. He also brought up how he'd like to see students getting paid if they successfully promote events: i.e. events held at 1848. He ensured that if he was elected, the budget would be made available on the SFUO website for all to see. He has extensive experience in this field but I won't get into that here. When asked if he would be willing, if needed, to close an SFUO business, he answered he absolutely wouldn't hesitate to shut down Café Alt. Loko also said he would eliminate the $180,80 1848 rental fee. He was very confident throughout the debate and had a "simple fix" answer for every question. Loko concluded with a "left-right" blow at the CFS saying he thinks that the "Drop Fees" campaign was a waste of students' money and that it produced little to no results.

Maureen Hasinoff: Although not being as bad as King, Hasinoff had a little trouble with her french. On numerous occasions, she spoke of her extensive experience that easily set her apart from her opponents. She put forward an innovative idea about managing the SFUO businesses: 5 year business plans. Seems like a very prudent way to start recovering SFUO deficit-ridden businesses. She also said she would ensure that she presented a budgetary update at every BOA meeting. Hasinoff was not in favour of completely eliminating the 1848 rental fee, although she did say she would like to make it cheaper to rent the student bar.

Winner?: Loko would have won this one mainly because of the confidence he demonstrated in elaborating on his somewhat unrealistic, redistributive platform. In this case, I would have to give the victory to Hasinoff. Substance-wise, the 5 year business plan for all SFUO businesses is a great idea; her experience speaks for itself and the emphasis she put on ensuring the SFUO implement a contingency fund shows prudent management.

Note: At this point of the debate, I stopped taking notes.

PRESIDENT

Tyler Steeves: He was very "Obamalike" in the way he spoke confidently. Also, taking another page from the Obama playbook, when answering after another candidate, he often would compliment him or her on their idea and how he would build off of it. He made a point to say he wanted to unite the faculties in a "Faculty Showdown". He acknowledged that SFUO wasn't accessible to all students and he pledged to ensure that this changes.

Bruno Gélinas-Faucher: He is the candidate that surprised me the most. Most of the time, he spoke in French, which will ensure him a good chunk of the Francophone vote. His major platform point is the decentralization of power from the SFUO executive to the federated bodies. This is a refreshing idea but will most likely be difficult and might even go against the SFUO constitution (although I haven't had time to look into the constitutionality of decentralization of power). Gélinas-Faucher also took a stab at the CFS saying that the organisation is unorganised and at the moment is wasting students' money. He went even further calling out the current SFUO executive by saying they live in an "ivory tower" and are very much so disconnected from the students.

Amalia Savva: The current president of PIDSSA seemed to be on the offensive for most of the debate. When asked if she thought the current SFUO executive was disconnected from students, she defended the SFUO executive's record. Even Steeves admitted that it would be insane to say that the SFUO executive WASN'T disconnected from students. She reiterated that her past experiences were what influenced her decision to run for the SFUO presidency. Savva said she would like to partner up with Greyhound Bus lines and VIA Rail in order to sell tickets directly at the SFUO office. Working with the University of Ottawa administration and Ottawa city hall councillors in working towards a student housing policy was another key part of her platform (A little bit off subject and slightly critical but WTF is up with her wardrobe selection for her Zoom Production's campaign video?)

Sébastien St-Amour: I don't want to waste your time (or mine in fact) in explaining what a complete fool he made of himself last night. I will say that the introduction brought me to my feet but it was all downhill after that. He took a big blow at Roxanne Dubois saying he called her so she could help him with his debate speech but that she hadn't returned his call. He is also the one who said "I'm not making a joke of these elections, these elections are a joke" hence my post's title. A little bit before half-way through the debate, he began to embarrassed not only himself, but other candidates and people with whom he has worked with before.

Winner?: I would have to say it was Gélinas-Faucher followed by Steeves in a very close second. I think Savva demonstrated that SHE HERSELF was disconnected from students in trying to defend the current SFUO executive which I predict will be a turning point for the worst in her campaign.   

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.

SFUO Campaign Videos brought to you by Zoom Productions via Youtube

I searched on Youtube and finaly found the campaign videos that were produced by Zoom Productions. For some reason, these video are not yet posted on the SFUO elections' website. Enjoy!

UPDATE: All campaign videos are now available on the SFUO elections' website; click on the respective candidates name and voilà!

Campaign video 5

Tyler Steeves - candidate for the position of president
http://www.tylersteeves.ca/

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

Campaign video 4

Sydney Loko - candidate for the position of VP finance
http://www.sidneyloko.com/

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

Campaign video 3

Osama Berrada - candidat pour le poste de VP aux affaires universitaires
http://www.osamaberrada.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!!!!!!!!!!!

What are their ideas for the SFUO? Let's debate!

Debates are today! Get your asses out to the SITE Cafeteria and ask the tough questions to your future student leaders. Make your vote an informed one! Here's today's schedule:

In the SITE Cafeteria


11:00-11:30 – UPass

11:30-12:00 – Environment

12:00-12:30 – VP Communications

12:30-1:15 – VP University Affairs

Why do campaign rules exist? pt. 2

Here's what the SFUO Constitution 2008-2009 has to say about slates:

4.7 Slates

4.7.1
No candidate for a position on the executive or the Board of Administration may form a slate with one or more other candidates running for positions on the executive or the Board of Administration. To that effect, no candidate may:

a. spend money together with one or more other candidates; or

b. participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates.

So, if I may direct your attention to the above screen shot of Sameena Topan's BOA campaign website and then to article 4.7.1.b. Is it fair then to say that Topan having Hammett's campaign video on her website (even though when you try to play the video, a black screen appears and says "This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender's friend request" would contravene article 4.7.1.b?

Oddly similar?

Is it just me, or do these posters look very similar? Hmmmm...?


I really hope this won't amount to "Slategate v 2.0"!

Oh, and by the way, that's Amanda Iarusso's poster that's somewhat cut out on the top, right hand corner of the picture! Just sayin'...

Apparently candidates aren't reading these blogs because my last post entitled "La tendance inquiétante continuera-t-elle?". I go back in time, about one year ago, and talk about the little "Slategate v 1.0" that hit this campus and summarise the SAC's decision. Wouldn't current candidates, who obviously followed that appeal process last year, want to avoid any sort of signs of "collaboration"?

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.

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.

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?