I'm sure by now everyone has had a chance to read about the letter that Renaud Garner recently sent to the new SAC arbitrators and if you haven't, well you view it by clicking here. Anyways, I'm taking these precious few minutes away from my 12 page project that is due on Thursday (which is sort of progressing, slowly but surely) to ask this question: What are the chances that the 5 newly appointed arbitrators will actually give Garner a response?
Frankly, I think that they would be crazy to answer that letter. In no way am I criticizing Garner for having written this letter because it raises many legitimate questions concerning the neutrality of the new arbitrators. In fact, I'd consider it an injustice if they weren't privileged to the same information that the accused are. But seriously, lets be realistic for a second. The accused somewhat have an advantage at the moment. Can you imagine if the SAC issued a response to Garner's letter? I think it would cause quite the crisis and once again stall the process from going forward.
Sadly, if they (the new SAC arbitrators) were to ignore the letter, it would seem like they have something to hide. And that would just make them look bad and further put into question their apparent non-partisan neutrality.
So, technically speaking, they should definitely answer this legitimate letter! But, realistically speaking, I think the chances are slim to none that they actually will. Just keep in mind that the accused have access to privileged information that the appellants don't... Is that fair? Probably not the best question to be asking at this point in time... because when you really think about it... HAS ANYTHING BEEN FAIR DURING THIS PROCESS?
What are your thoughts and/or opinions? Leave a comment and start some healthy dialogue!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Budget de l'Ontario 2009...
Hier, le jeudi 26 mars 2009, le gouvernement liberal de Dalton McGuinty a présenté son budget pour l'année fiscale 2009. Veillez-consulter le budget!
Résults des élections de l'AÉÉPID/ PIDSSA's Elections results
VP AUX AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES/VP FRANCOPHONE AFFAIRS
Brandon Clim
YES/OUI – 115/171 – 67.2%
NON/NO – 56/171 – 32.8%
VP AUX FINANCES/ VP OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
Peter Flynn
YES/OUI – 154/171 – 90.05%
NON/NO – 17/171 – 9.95%
VP AUX AFFAIRES EXTÉRIEURES/ VP OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Kyle Simunovic
YES/OUI – 116/132 – 87.9%
NON/NO – 16 – 12.1%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (DVM)
Kevin W. Ng – 14/43 – 32.6%
Ethan Plato – 29/43 – 67.4%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (EIL)
Christine Belley - 11/30 – 36.7%
Patrick Ciaschi 19/30 – 63.3%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (PAP)
Samantha Dale 4/9 – 44.44%
James Johnston 5/9 – 56.56%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (POL)
Cliff Hansen – 14/87 – 16.09%
Jesse Root – 12/87 – 13.79%
Greg Smith – 32/87 – 36.78%
Travis Weagant 29/87 -33.33%
VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES/ VP OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (ANGLOPHONE)
William Hadrian - 8/163 – 4.9%
Matt Johnny - 29/163 – 17.8%
Amanda Marochko 126/163 – 77.3%
VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES/VP OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (FRANCOPHONE)
Gabrielle Beauchemin 76/166 – 45.78%
Tristan Dénommée 90/166 – 54.21%
PRÉSIDENTE/ PRESIDENT
Tamar Friedman 75/173 – 43.35%
Amalia Savva 98/173 - 56.65%
Brandon Clim
YES/OUI – 115/171 – 67.2%
NON/NO – 56/171 – 32.8%
VP AUX FINANCES/ VP OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
Peter Flynn
YES/OUI – 154/171 – 90.05%
NON/NO – 17/171 – 9.95%
VP AUX AFFAIRES EXTÉRIEURES/ VP OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Kyle Simunovic
YES/OUI – 116/132 – 87.9%
NON/NO – 16 – 12.1%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (DVM)
Kevin W. Ng – 14/43 – 32.6%
Ethan Plato – 29/43 – 67.4%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (EIL)
Christine Belley - 11/30 – 36.7%
Patrick Ciaschi 19/30 – 63.3%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (PAP)
Samantha Dale 4/9 – 44.44%
James Johnston 5/9 – 56.56%
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES/VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (POL)
Cliff Hansen – 14/87 – 16.09%
Jesse Root – 12/87 – 13.79%
Greg Smith – 32/87 – 36.78%
Travis Weagant 29/87 -33.33%
VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES/ VP OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (ANGLOPHONE)
William Hadrian - 8/163 – 4.9%
Matt Johnny - 29/163 – 17.8%
Amanda Marochko 126/163 – 77.3%
VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES/VP OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (FRANCOPHONE)
Gabrielle Beauchemin 76/166 – 45.78%
Tristan Dénommée 90/166 – 54.21%
PRÉSIDENTE/ PRESIDENT
Tamar Friedman 75/173 – 43.35%
Amalia Savva 98/173 - 56.65%
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Is the Base actively recruiting new members?
The Base is recruting new members ?!?!?!?! Nahhh, it couldn't be? Or could it? With the majority of the "Base" members in the final stage of their university careers, might they try to prolong their legacy by recruiting new, younger members?
And after having been named in Amy Kishek's recent blog amykishek.blogspot.com/2009/03/base-revealed-anecdotes-of-voiceless.html, some new names have come to my attention. It's again quite disappointing because although I already knew most of the "Base's" members, I was somewhat surprised when I recently found out that more names were to be added to this list. Much before Amy published her latest blog, I was well aware of such a "Base" and of it's workings. At first, I wasn't exactly sure what to think of it. It didn't seem wrong to share a commun idea or goal as a group of student leaders. It didn't seem wrong to have one of those student leaders be THE leader of this group.
Now that many more people have found out about this group, it's no big surprise to many of them. Will this recent discovery (of the "Base") discourage it's members to recruit new, younger members? I highly doubt it. It would seem highly unlikely that such a tight knit group would just let themselves shrivel up and disappear.
I for one do not support such a movement. After having recently read the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by Étienne La Boétie, I found a great similarity in what he explains and the way the "Base" functions and has functionned in the past. In this essay, La Boétie talks about absolute monarchy and tyranny. He says that slaves give up their liberty to the tyrants voluntarally thus serving one man for the rest of their lives without any attempt to change the way they live. La Boétie also mentions near the end of the essay that most tyrants were eventually killed by the ones who were the closest to him.
What is kind of ironic is that the author states at the beginning of this essay that LIBERTY is a natural caracteristic of man and so is his willingness to fight for it at all costs. What seems somewhat odd about this group of so called "student leaders" is that they don't seem to be fighting for their liberty. In fact, they seem to be fighting for the complete opposite thus preserving the Patriarch's position as the "Base's" leader. When he failed to be elected in last year's SFUO elections, he was quickly brought back into the inside by being hired by the SFUO executive to the position that he currently holds.
To get back to my initial subject, I am almost certain that they will secretly continue to recruit young, influencial student leaders into their group and that scares me. As a current sitting executive member for PIDSSA, it scares me to think of how easy it could be for any executive member of any federated body to be swept up by this group thus further corrupting student politics on the University of Ottawa's campus.
Let this be a warning to all of you student leaders out there who still cherish their integrety, who still believe in transparency, and who have always very well represented their student peers. Don't get yourself caught up in this group because, in the end, A LIAR WILL ALWAYS GET CAUGHT. Is it really worth the public humiliation, the risk of having people who looked up to you in the past quickly write you off as a sell out?
Think about it before you fall victim to the Patriarch.
And after having been named in Amy Kishek's recent blog amykishek.blogspot.com/2009/03/base-revealed-anecdotes-of-voiceless.html, some new names have come to my attention. It's again quite disappointing because although I already knew most of the "Base's" members, I was somewhat surprised when I recently found out that more names were to be added to this list. Much before Amy published her latest blog, I was well aware of such a "Base" and of it's workings. At first, I wasn't exactly sure what to think of it. It didn't seem wrong to share a commun idea or goal as a group of student leaders. It didn't seem wrong to have one of those student leaders be THE leader of this group.
Now that many more people have found out about this group, it's no big surprise to many of them. Will this recent discovery (of the "Base") discourage it's members to recruit new, younger members? I highly doubt it. It would seem highly unlikely that such a tight knit group would just let themselves shrivel up and disappear.
I for one do not support such a movement. After having recently read the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by Étienne La Boétie, I found a great similarity in what he explains and the way the "Base" functions and has functionned in the past. In this essay, La Boétie talks about absolute monarchy and tyranny. He says that slaves give up their liberty to the tyrants voluntarally thus serving one man for the rest of their lives without any attempt to change the way they live. La Boétie also mentions near the end of the essay that most tyrants were eventually killed by the ones who were the closest to him.
What is kind of ironic is that the author states at the beginning of this essay that LIBERTY is a natural caracteristic of man and so is his willingness to fight for it at all costs. What seems somewhat odd about this group of so called "student leaders" is that they don't seem to be fighting for their liberty. In fact, they seem to be fighting for the complete opposite thus preserving the Patriarch's position as the "Base's" leader. When he failed to be elected in last year's SFUO elections, he was quickly brought back into the inside by being hired by the SFUO executive to the position that he currently holds.
To get back to my initial subject, I am almost certain that they will secretly continue to recruit young, influencial student leaders into their group and that scares me. As a current sitting executive member for PIDSSA, it scares me to think of how easy it could be for any executive member of any federated body to be swept up by this group thus further corrupting student politics on the University of Ottawa's campus.
Let this be a warning to all of you student leaders out there who still cherish their integrety, who still believe in transparency, and who have always very well represented their student peers. Don't get yourself caught up in this group because, in the end, A LIAR WILL ALWAYS GET CAUGHT. Is it really worth the public humiliation, the risk of having people who looked up to you in the past quickly write you off as a sell out?
Think about it before you fall victim to the Patriarch.
Les nouveaux membres du CAÉ choisient...
Les cinq nouveaux membres qui devaient être choisient pour sièger sur le CAÉ ont été choisi dimanche après-midi, le 22 mars 2009, pendant la partie huis clos de la rencontre du CA de la FÉUO. Voici les cinq noms: Ali Abdourhaman (Sciences Sociales), Charles-Antoine Gosselin (Gestion), Christopeher Schulz (Common Law), Dave Davis (Droit Civil), Michelle Nadeau (Gestion) (source: http://larotonde.ca/2009/03/cae-et-constitution/).
Friday, March 20, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
La Semaine de la francophonie a lieu partout sur le campus CETTE SEMAINE!
Si vous n'aviez pas remarqué, les horaires pour la Semaine de la francophonie sont affichés un peu partout sur le campus! Eh oui, les activités ont débuté hier et continueront jusqu'au vendredi 20 mars 2009! Pour ceux et celles qui le cherchent, j'ai ajouté au bas de mon blogue (il s'agit de "scroller" jusqu'en bas) l'horaire des activités!
Monday, March 16, 2009
Élections de l'AÉÉPID
Et oui, c'est le temps des élections de l'Association étudiante des études politiques, internationales et de développement! La liste de candidat(e)s est sortie cette après-midi! Vous pouvez aussi accèder au site web officiel des élections de l'AÉÉPID en cliquant sur le titre de cette note! Voici la liste officielle des candidat(e)s:La liste officielle des candidat(e)s
PRÉSIDENTE
Amalia Savva
Tamar Friedman
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (PAP)
James Johnston
Samantha Dale
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (POL)
Jesse Root
Travis Weagant
Cliff Hansen
Greg Smith
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (DVM)
Kevin W. Ng
Ethan Plato
VP AUX AFFAIRES ACADÉMIQUES (EIL)
Christine Belley
Patrick Ciaschi
VP AUX FINANCES
Peter Flynn
VP AUX AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES
Brandon Clim
VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES (ANGLOPHONE)
Amanda Marochko
Matt Johnny
William Hadrian
VP AUX AFFAIRES SOCIALES (FRANCOPHONE)
Gabrielle Beauchemin
Tristan Dnomme
VP AUX AFFAIRES EXTÉRIEURES
Kyle Simunovic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Hits
