It`s been a good week...

We won the iPod contest!

Thanks to all our readers, those who have been there from the beginning and those who have just started following us!

La Rotonde...

Your favourite lady bloggers are in this week's issue of La Rotonde. Pick up a copy if you get a chance.
...and so our "anonymity" is gone.


& also!

Date for the appeal hearing has been set: it's happening on SATURDAY @ 1PM.
Amy Kishek has some of the details from tonight's meeting over at her blog.

Not really related to the SFUO...

BUT we found this interesting...

The new iTunes gift cards are a complete ripoff of the CBC logo.


This is why we have logo standards, Mike Fancie.

Appeals meeting

Here is some more info:

There is a meeting scheduled tomorrow with both parties and the SAC. The meeting is being called in order to respect 8.6.1.3 ("the Chief Arbitrator shall notify all parties involved in the dispute.")

The chosen arbitrators are Christopher Schulz, David Davis, et Michelle Nadeau.

The meeting is happening at 7pm tomorrow. We will update you if anything exciting happens.

Rumoured date for the appeal hearing : monday (you know, that thing about "slates" that happened forever ago?)
We will let you know when we know!

CSA Election Results!!

President:

Enoch Kwok - 14/80 (17.5%)

Logan Ouellette - 66/80 (82.5%)

VP Social:

Feria Kazemi - 27/78 (34.6%)

Maggie Mulroney - 51/78 (65.4%)

VP Finance: Samantha Caron

Yes - 67 (90.5%)

No - 7 (9.5%)

VP University Affairs: Greggory Clarke

Yes - 67 (89%)

No - 9 (11%)

VP Info Franco: Bruce Landry

Yes - 74 (93.6%)

No - 5 (6.4%)

VP Info Anglo: Larissa Cahute

Yes - 65 (86.6%)

No - 8 (13.4%)

VP Social Franco: Pascal Huot

Yes - 76 (97.4%)

No - 2 (2.6%)

Voter Turnout: 8.2% approx.

PIDSSA RESULTS!

Congratulations to the new exec!!

VP FRANCOPHONE AFFAIRS
Brandon Clim : YES/OUI – 115/171 – 67.2%
NON/NO – 56/171 – 32.8%

VP OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
Peter Flynn YES/OUI – 154/171 – 90.05%
NON/NO – 17/171 – 9.95%

VP OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Kyle Simunovic YES/OUI – 116/132 – 87.9%
NON/NO – 16 – 12.1%

VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (DVM)
Kevin W. Ng – 14/43 – 32.6%
Ethan Plato – 29/43 – 67.4%

VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (EIL)
Christine Belley - 11/30 – 36.7%
Patrick Ciaschi 19/30 – 63.3%

VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (PAP)
Samantha Dale 4/9 – 44.44%
James Johnston 5/9 – 56.56%

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 OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (ANGLOPHONE)
William Hadrian - 8/163 – 4.9%
Matt Johnny - 29/163 – 17.8%
Amanda Marochko 126/163 – 77.3%

VP OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (FRANCOPHONE)
Gabrielle Beauchemin 76/166 – 45.78%
Tristan Dénommée 90/166 – 54.21%

PRESIDENT
Tamar Friedman 75/173 – 43.35%
Amalia Savva 98/173 - 56.65%

PS

Just a small note: Feria (running for VP Social Anglo) left before the debates were over. Apparently, she is not interested...

PREZ - soooo contested.

Enoch Kwok vs Logan Ouellette

Opening Statements:

Logan:

Thanks to the MEDIA for being here (you re welcome!)! Has been involved with the Commies for as long as he s been here. Was very involved with Shinerama and helped raise lots of money. Lots of experience with the CSD. Responsibility is incredibly important - must be accessible to students. Community is very important!! Four pillars of campaign: Outreach, Accessibility, Responsibility, Community (he s VERY bilingual).

Enoch:

In 4th year - When I look around, I know everyone here. Thinks Commies are on the backburner with the department. Wants to have a good relationship with him. Social spin on his campaign, but sees the events of an association as the identity of that association. Wants to bring small association mentality of Thespis to the CSA - back to grass roots.

Moderator:

Name one initiative that should and one that should not continue:

Enoch:

- One that should continue is Communication Challenge - thinks it failed this year. Should rival Jeux de Communication. Have to find a way to engage students.

- One that should discontinue is Hock and Rock - doesn t think it worked and thinks it went over budget

Logan:

- Should continue Communication Challenge - wasn t as big as they hoped, but it was a new initiative

- Wants to decline choosing an event to discontinue - nothing failed!! Whoever DID attend an event DID have fun, which is the most important thing.

Questions for each other (BEAR!!!!!!!!):

E to L:

You have been a dedicated volunteer and very involved, but you do not have any experience in a leadership position, and have not held an exec position on a student association.

Logan:

Actually did hold a leadership role with Relay for Life - managing a team of volunteers; was Speaker coordinator for the Communication Challenge. Has worked very closely with the CSA exec for the past two years, and has contacts through Party Party and within the SFUO exec.

L to E:

What does 'back to basics' mean?

Enoch:

I looked back at the facebook events - referencing that volunteers were required to submit a CV. Need to have pizza parties, pub nights, cheap events to talk to students - treating volunteers right, and they will continue to show up.

Questions from the Audience:

1) Sarah for Enoch:

You mentioned that you wanted the Comm Challenge to rival les Jeux - do you know how many people participate in les Jeux? How will it rival les Jeux?

Enoch:

Comm Challenge wasn t promoted as well as he would have liked - the facebook events, rave cards and posters were there, but thought there should be more class presentations. Promotion is a key part of making it better.

2) If you could platform poach, what would you take?

Logan:

Liked what Enoch has about multimedia experimentation, esp for the President

Enoch:

Liked the idea to continue to maintain relations with other Fed Bodies, the uni as a whole, clubs, etc. Could raise our profile on campus.

3) CSA has always been very present, involved and vocal. How do you see the CSA's role on campus?

Enoch:

We are very vocal, and I want to see the CSA at the forefront of student associations. Enrollment is the size of a high school; small army. We can rival Arts, Science, Engineering... if not overtake them.

Logan:

Loves the rebranding intiative this year, wants to reinforce that. Also wants to entrench Commie traditions, fostering the community of involvement, since so many Commies seem to move up as student leaders in other arenas - SFUO Execs, Services, etc.

3) Accessibility is a buzz word this year. CSA has been a great leader on campus. How do you see yourself taking it even further than it was this year?

Logan:

Well, I WORK at the CSD. I will use that experience to continue to be sensitive and take advantage of the Accessibility Fund. Accessibility is not just about disability, but also about those who feel alienated. Wants to be more dynamic in outreach attempts. Wants to make sure social events are accessible (although recognizes that it is not part of his portfolio).

Enoch:

Cannot add to that - recognizes that Logan is the comparative expert on this point. Wants to make sure the CSA considers all students.

4) Dave:

President = spokesperson of an association. You will face criticism. How will you face that?

Enoch:

"Professionally, I guess." He is no stranger to criticism in this campaign. recognizes that he has been portrayed as a "D-bag". "Has been professional in the past"... (not inspiring a lot of faith...).

Logan:

Is aware of the media (blogger should up... claims this is not ass-kissing...). Wants to remain accountable, accessible and responsible. Will work to keep up good relations in general. Will be respectful, professional and strive to represent CSA students as accurately as possible.

5) Bruce:

What do you see your role as internally with your executive?

Logan:

Fostering community and a cohesive team is very important to him. As President, he does not want to be a dictator, but make sure the exec runs as a team.

Enoch:

As Prez, you have to be a leader. All of the members of the exec have voices, must separate professional and casual. "I m not going to be a dick." Does not believe in over-management. Be a friend to his fellow exec members.

6) Joel:

Some past Commie exec members have moved up in the Federation, since you have never been on Commie exec before, is Prez your end goal? If not, what is?

Enoch:

This is my end goal - last year is my next year. I do not want anything beyond this. I am not looking to pad my resume.

Logan:

Does not see this as his end goal - does not have a certain position beyond this in mind. His passion is always with the Commies, but he would welcome the opportunity to go further and have a broader impact.

7) Gregg:

First Year Rep - how will you use yours?

Logan:

First year rep is the person who communicates with and for the first year students in Communications. Having a peer to communicate with them motivates them to get and stay involved.

Enoch:

Wants the first year rep to do more than they do now. Wants them to do more class presentations, more face-to-face stuff. Facebook doesn t work. First year rep should be glad-handing. Do the most possible (what the hell?). 'sees the possibilities' (although they are apparently not very clear in this vision)

8) What would you do without skinny jeans and chuck taylors?

Logan:

I would feel LOST. I would be disappointed with fashion for NOT inventing skinny jeans. Flares are the devil.

Enoch:

Would revert to a former self - cargo shorts? baggy jeans? parachute pants, perhaps. COMFORT would come first.

Closing Statements:

Enoch:

He is from a simple background. Wants to tighten the ol' belt - need to be fiscally responsible. CSA needs to increase involvement and decrease big, expensive events that don t attract enough people. He is enthusiastic and hard-working.

Logan:

Is and always has been very dedicated to the CSA. A leader AND a team player. votelogan.blogspot.com. Vote for him on Friday.

VP Social Anglo - CONTESTED!

Finally, an exciting one...

Maggie vs Feria

Opening Statements:

Maggie (speaking REALLY well):

During her own 101 Week, her Social inspired her to get involved on the way to Camp Commie. She believes a Social is approachable, accessible and inclusive. She has been involved with the CSA already, and she was a part of the Party Party. She has been working with Bruce to organize for Relay for Life - moving toward interesting new events. Allow her to be a part of your experience next year and vote for Maggie!

Feria (reading from a paper, and stumbling a bit):

Academic aspect of school is important, but Social is crucial too! 101 Week is the strongest 'social aspect' of the year for students, but she would like to carry this feeling throughout the year. She wants to create events and initiatives so that students do not have to worry about their social calendars.

Question from the Moderator:

How will you build on the accessibility of 101 week after Bruce and Cait ran an entirely accessible week?

Feria:

has met with Virginie - knows there is an accessibility fund and that they can help her plan

Maggie:

wants to be inclusive, so accessibility is really important to her - does not want to ever turn a student away from an event or initiative. Will also use the CSD as a key resource.

Questions for each other (they brought back the BEAR!):

M to F: What is the Comm spirit to you and how do you embody it?

Feria: be loud! work hard! try to consider different personalities, backgrounds, etc.

F to M: In your platform, you say you have a lot of passion - did not see much passion in your campaign, re: presentations, chalkboarding, etc. Where is it? (yikes! not gentle.)

Maggie: There is a fallacy there - I have been doing presentations, I am passionate, I have been approaching students one-on-one, asking them what they want to see next year.

Questions from the audience:

1) Cait for both of them - hypothetical:

sports night with a concert following, and the bar gets the date wrong. The place is half full, and the person you had been working with at the bar has been fired, so no one knows you are supposed to be there. What do you do?

Maggie:

need more follow-ups! Thinks they failed at that this year. Thinks one VP Social could deal with the problems, and the other could keep the students happy as the 'face of the event' while things are being put back together. Face-to-face is the best form of communication

Feria:

Would want to speak to a manager - explain what is going on and talk it out with the bar. The event would have to go on, could try to get exec members to distract the incoming students. Thinks that a bar would not complain about free entertainment (not so sure about that... set-up is complicated and needs much organization : \)

2) Joel:

how will you expand social programming to include more commies who do not come out now:

Feria:

Word of mouth, Promote the hell out of the events: Facebook, etc. New programming: survey students to see what they want.

Maggie:

Use the entire exec because it is a TEAM - work closely with the VP Infos. Rave cards, posters, blitzes. Does not want to have an environment where people don t want to come out - prioritize the 101ers, so that they want to keep coming out.

3) Danielle:

Considering amalgamating Promo and Events Committees - how will you make sure to utilize this resource, and work with the Promo side to co-chair?

Maggie:

Would meet with the Infos before to set up a plan. Get their opinions, and work very closely with the VP Infos - using their advice, since they are crucial to having successful social events.

Feria:

Would also meet with the Co-Chairs to set up plans - need a goal to keep people motivated.

4) Gregg:

Fave 101 activity? As a Guide or a 101er

Feria:

As a guide - Shinerama. As a 101er - Camp Commie, was a great bonding experience. Met current friends.

Maggie:

Camp Commie for both guide and 101er. Can t beat the bonding with the other guides, the new students - it s the spirit of what makes Commies special.

5) Amanda:

What separates you? Your platforms are very different.

Maggie:

My experience with the CSA since her first year - she can only think of one event that she has missed.

Feria:

Her experience with the university, but not the CSA - thinks she has strength from coming from outside. Is in a sorority where she is very involved.

6) How do maintain 101 week hype?

Maggie:

really stress the Commie-centre Comm Games and Slurvivor.

Comm Games - have workshops! so that students are prepped

Slurvivor - have tournaments to build up hype for Slurvivor - low-key, easy events that build up

Feria:

Have lots of events to keep interest high - even just random stuff like capture-the-flag or movie nights

7) Any completely new events in mind to build on traditional ones?

Feria:

Theme-pubs. Capture-the-Flag comes up again (?). Silly old games from when we were young could be fun.

Maggie:

Slip-and-Slide party!! Not completely accessible, but wants to figure it out! Would spend her summer brainstorming to try to add to the legacy events.

Closing Statements:

Feria:

Goal is to keep Commies connected like they were during frosh week (EFF-word ALERT! BAD GUIDE!). Please vote for me!

Maggie:

Would really love the opportunity, and considers the position of Social very important to her. Said FROSH, but caught herself and changed it to 101 week. Wants the next year to be accessible, inclusive and FUN. Vote Maggie.

Uncontested VP University Affairs

Greggory NORRIS Clarke.

Opening Statement:

Never expected to be here! Came here for a girl and it didn t work out ... (the theme of Felicity is running through my head) ... but 101 week changed his attitude! He loves it here now, and the Commies made it happen. He wants to build on the strong year that the CSA had and keep doing what has been done so well.

Question from the Moderator:

Which is most important of your portfolio tasks?

Gregg: Relationship with the department. There is not enough interaction between the students and the department. Students should have access and be comfortable talking to profs, and take control of their program.

The BEAR!

Celebrity Guest: current CSA VP Uni Affairs - Sarah Burke!

(ps the muffled 'that s what she said' jokes are EVERYWHERE!)

Gregg tries to turn the spotlight away - 'it s a bit uncomfortable' (not sure he understands WHY the light is there...)

Three campaigns to pursue?

Gregg:

- new initiative this year is the BRAG campaign - didn t really get off the ground this year, but would like to see it expand.

- End Violence Against Women

- CopyLeft

Distraught students have a problem with a professor and come and see you - what do you suggest to them?

Gregg: ask them to put their greivance in writing, so that it is on record - would perhaps defer the problem to the Undergrad director, since he is not a professional.

Name 2 weaknesses from this year:

Gregg:

1) thinks we didn t take enough of an interest in campaigns - would like to expand...

2) can t think of one.

Questions from the Audience:

(sorry, missed these - stupid Jason Holtz...)

Closing Statement:

Vote yes! I hope you liked me!!

(Moderator announces that there will be no more BEAR TIME! bloggers are sad...)

VP Finance - Uncontested

Samantha Caron - involvement: met all of the exec during her 101 week, this year she was on the Events Committee and was a 101 Guide, and feels that the exec is a natural progression.

She hasn t been a literal VP Finance before, but she has dealt with money and held positions of responsibility. She wants to make sure that money is spent properly and fairly - including French and English students, and also not focusing too hard on drinking events.

Question from the Moderator:

Name 3 things that you might consider a waste of student association funds:

1) exec furniture

2) too many posters as an example of spending too much on one kind of media

3) .............. ? a CAR! sure!

BEAR TIME!

Celebrity guest: Jason Holtz - current VP Finance for Arts

Sam: 'don t crush me!! please!'

Finance is demanding, how do you plan to keep your balance while completing your mandate?

Sam: Will be organized, maximize time between classes, stay updated on what is going on

Making events accessible can make events $$ - how can you make events accessible without sacrificing the aesthetic?

Sam: expect the events to be more expensive to begin with. (after some prompting...)Work with CSD

You do not mention audits in your platform - explain how you find them important (prove you know what they are time):

Sam: They keep us on track, retain our budget - keep her and the exec in check

All of my goals have changed - have three rules now that I live by, what would you guess will be your rules?

Sam:

- be prepared! avoid curveballs - take as much into account as possible.

- Make a very clear, realistic budget for every month.

- be open and accessible, so that she can benefit from others' suggestions

Questions from the audience:

Maggie (current CSA Finance): Do you have a problem saying No? Also, how will you keep track of verbal agreements.

Sam: I can say No, because it is student money, and she is responsible for it. She will try to have a notebook/folder/binder to keep track of everything immediately.

Bruce: Say it s Commie Ball, and your Socials have spent less than half of their budget - keep the difference for next year's exec or get CIRQUE DE SOLEIL?

Sam: keep it for next year. The event is paid for and it will be great if everything is covered!! So, I will be responsible and keep it.

Closing Statement:

Thanks for coming! Thanks to Jason for not crushing me! I hope you are convinced - I will be dedicated and really want to be involved!

VP Social Franco

Pascal Huot is the only candidate, and is debating alone. Since most of this debate will be in French, it might be best to check out La Rotonde's coverage... but, I ll try...

He has a lot of experience on the exec, and has worked with the current SFUO VP Social Joel Larose and the current CSA VP Social Franco Bruce Landry this year and in the past, learning much from them.

(can t wait for the BEAR!)

*blogger's note: when the candidate is running out of time, current VP Info Anglo, Danielle O'Hanley waves a piece of paper at him. It is ridiculous and effective. love it.*

it s BEAR time!! seriously, they turn the lights off, put a spotlight on the candidate and play stressful music!!

Celebrity Guest: Joel LAROSE!!

he says he has approx .... 33 questions for Pascal. we shall see. (keep in mind, these questions are only a few of those asked and the answers are probs incomplete) - these are going to be lightning-style, for the most part...

Have you thought about a theme for next year's 101 week?

Pascal: yeah - maybe the Good, the Bad and the Commies

(.... missed a few....)

What would you change for next year?

Pascal: I want to bring back Slurvivor...

Who would you like to work with on campus next year?

Pascal: PIDSSA

(missed a few more!)

if he had to come up with a theme RIGHT NOW for an end of year bash, what would you do?

Pascal: (all I caught:) theme = Mustaches Ride Them All

Questions from the Audience:

How will you steer 101ers away from Arts and towards us?

Pascal: Shouldn t be too hard... (HEY! ... do not piss off les bloggers!) ... *pacifies bloggers: ok, it ll be a bit of work... I just want more word-of-mouth, excited/motivated volunteers and I think that will make it happen

Do a cheer!! Doesn't have to be new!

Pascal: *leads a pretty effing hardcore Commie cheer, and gets the entire audience involved... success!

**Apparently, this counts as his closing statement.

VP Information is up first!

Anglo and Franco candidates are debating together since they are both unopposed.

Anglo = Larissa Cahute
Franco = Bruce Landry

Opening Statements:

Larissa -
She was a 101 week guide, went on the montreal trip to CBC, wants to see more press releases and newsletters, will make much use of the promo team, because she has experience on the events committee and like that, the promo team will let students get involved without the pressure of exec - she was also Volunteer of the Year

Bruce -
c'est en francais! check la rotonde, they re here too!

Question from the moderator:
90% of CSA members will never attend a CSA event - how will you reach out to those students who are not on the executive's facebook groups?

Bruce:
- Class Presentations - except use video so that volunteers who are uncomfortable with public speaking do not have to present
- word of mouth,
- hook more 1st year students.

Larissa:
- Send out MORE emails - reminders, blurbs, etc
- Press releases

Special surprise for uncontested candidates!!!

THE BEAR PIT!

A Grizzly bear is trying to have Bruce's head for lunch!

The Infos have to answer questions from experienced exec members/student leaders

celebrity guest: Danielle O'Hanley!!

What were the strengths and weaknesses of the CSA exec this year?

Larissa:
- More Presentations
- More Emails
- Not just posters - not effective

Bruce:
- Posters were great, tickets were great
- Need motivated volunteers

Neither of you have design experience - how do you plan to keep the logo/promo strong this year?

Larissa:
- Strong transition
- Learning - will learn more as she goes - that s the point of the position.

Bruce:
- Same thing - will be able to use the image BECAUSE it is so strong, and for branding, it should stay the same

Both of you mentioned using different forms of communication in your platforms - what are they?

Bruce:
- Videos! Good production quality

Larissa:
- also down with video
- Press releases!

Questions from the audience:

- For Larissa from Alex Chaput: you mentioned working with The Fulcrum - do you think it is important to work with La Rotonde?
Larissa: absolutely - I did not mean to leave them out, I really want our year to be bilingual

- For both from Logan: Who is your fave Comm prof?
Larissa: Strangelove!! Most hands-on experience she s ever had - was inspired to
Bruce: Flo! very creative and free with his grading and structure

Closing Statements!

Bruce:
- He has a lot of experience with the Exec; has worked closely with this year's VP Infos. Vote Yes for Bruce!

Larissa:
- She m very dedicated to the CSA - Volunteer of the Year!! She might not have concrete exec experience, but she is learning and she thinks she can get more people involved!

Communications Students' Association Elections Debates!!

So, we are blogging from UCU 205 today, covering the Commie Elections Debates by special request!

As a quick guide (while everyone gets set up), here are the candidates:

President
- Enoch Kwok (Arts Member Association Thespis Social)
- Logan Ouellette (CSD advocate/ally/volunteer/employee?)

Finance
- Samantha Caron (not sure, but she s super nice!)

Uni Affairs
- Greggory Clarke (current CSA 1st year rep)

Info Anglo
- Larissa Cahute (CSA volunteer of the year)

Info Franco
- Bruce Landry (current CSA VP Social Franco)

Social Anglo
- Maggie Mulroney (current CSA VP Finance)
- Feria Kazemi (no idea - sorry!)

Social Franco
- Pascal Huot (current CSA VP Info Franco)

The Wrath of Dean

Damn! Scooped by Kishek!

In any case, you should know that our lovely President, Mr Dean Haldenby has (allegedly... see what I did there?) taken to engaging in the bullying tactics that were usually relegated to the core of the 'Base.'

We are not impressed.

Email

In case you have tips, criticisms, praise for us, or just want to contact the bloggers, you can now email us at boavoice.blog@gmail.com!

CSA Debates

The CSA`s debates are tonight - we`ll be liveblogging! Apparently, La Rotonde is going to be there too.

Should be exciting.

Interesting...another constitution fail?

8.3.1
The Student Arbitration Committee is composed of nine bilingual arbitrators who are members of the Federation and who meet the following criteria:
two (2) Common Law students
two (2) Civil Law students
one (1) Administration student
four (4) students in faculties other than the ones mentioned above, with no more than two arbitrators per faculty.

The new arbitrators: Ali Abdourhaman (Social Sciences), Charles-Antoine Gosselin (Management), Christopher Schulz (Common Law), Dave Davis (Droit Civil), Michelle Nadeau (Management).

Apparently Management falls under "Administration"...and according to the constitution, there can only be one student from that faculty on the SAC. All of the arbitrators were ratified on Sunday at the BOA during an in-camera session, so we don't have any info on how/why they were chosen. We were stuck outside eating pizza.

Link to la Rotonde article

CSSA Election results!

President - Brandon Bay - 63.4%
VP Finance - Marc Meszaros - 100%
VP University Affairs - Christian Cyr - 100%
VP Comm Anglo - Sean Webster - 100%
VP Comm Franco - Jean-Luc Martin - 100%
VP Internal - Michel Simonot - 100%
VP Information Technology - Kyle Arseneault - 100%

Thank you, Brandon, for the tip! Any ideas on voter turnout? Strange that everyone got 100% yes expect for President.

REVOLUTIONARY STAMINA

Federated Body Elections

PIDSSA is holding their debates today, although I can`t figure out when or where. Bah.
Anyhoo, you can access the list of candidates here.

Edit: PIDSSA debates are at 7pm in LMX220. Thanks, Ken!

The CSA is having theirs on Wednesday night, at 7pm in UCU 205. Candidates/platforms can be found on their elections site at myCSA.ca.

Your turn!

So, dear readers, what do you think?

Should the constitution on the SFUO website be updated after every board meeting? Do you want to be able to access an up-to-date version of it?

The version on the SFUO's website hasn't been updated since August 2008. If I didn't go to the BOAs, I would have no effing clue what was going on.

Adding a Motion to the Agenda

Antonio - any changes to the constitution be changed on the ONLINE version of the constitution, before the next BOA meeting after the change. It is too expensive and eco-negligent to do it on paper all the time.

Dean - there hasn t been an updated version, because he wants to get the entire French side re-translated

Rob - there is a lot backlogged now, but once we catch up, it will be easy.

Antonio - agree with Rob. InDesign is pretty easy to update.

Dean - it s not as easy as you THINK. minutes have to be approved before it is changed, so that it is not presumptive. He will look into it. He is for the motion.

Dick - giving speaking rights to Michele: I do it now for Arts constitution - much smaller, but still - could just post the changed amendments on the website, instead of changing the actual document every time, so save time/work.

Cheeeeeeeeve - wants to table this to the policy and by-law committee

carries. it s for them to deal with now. ha.

Antonio proposes a motion:

"Any changes successfully made to the constitution must be added to the online version of the constitution before the beginning of the next Board of Administration meeting. If the changes have yet to be made, then the changes must be presented at the beginning of the next BOA meeting"

By-Law 13 motion

so much round-abouting.

here is a summary:

(one of many?) amendment result: Droit-Civil still has to do 101 week training with the rest of the Federated Bodies' 101 week Guides (even though, they realllllly don t want to)

motion result: 101 week By-Law 13 motion passes. everyone actually cheered.

i really wish i had paid more attention for all of you readers, but it is just so tired in here...

oh shit - new director throws down the F word...

FROSH!

it's 101 week, Fabrice. yeesh.

Motion for pizza.

Cameron motions for a pizza order - 'we re wilting!'

Dean: compromise - we will have pizza at the next meeting

Fancie - point of order: we re supposed to be fixing our now-hunger, not our later hunger.

...

real motion: 10 minute recess. bahaha. fails. continue to WILT!

(suckas - bloggers had hallway pizza)

if you have noticed a bit of a lag in our blogging abilities...

the hangovers have JUST hit pretty damn hard. sorry, kids. we re trying our bestest.

Dean looks sleepy!

Someone call for a recess!

Still discussing the changes to By-Law 13.
Fancie just twirled into the room.
Some smokers have snuck out.

My feet keep falling asleep.

Bah!

Discussing By-Law 13.

Joël gives the Commies a shout-out for running a completely accessible 101-week, with a balance of wet & dry events.

Joël has finally finished reading the motion.

Wow.

someone needs a recess...

CJ has spent the better part of this motion gripping, looking at and generally sort of making out with a cigarette.

ew.

By-law 13 revisions

Joël mentions "sexual activities" and "dirty things".

Everyone has perked up.

Joël is reading a very long motion. Everyone looks very bored.

Seamus seems sleepy.
Mike Fancie may be doing his homework.
Roxanne is stretching.

12.16 Veterans

CJ is shot down by Federico. NO DEBATING A MOTION ON THE SECOND READING!

Second Reading: Veterans

passes.

12.15: Time

The motion.

Ryan : The BOA is a time- vampire (timeburglar! - Seamus)

All in favour! Motion passessss

Motion is adopted - you now need the support of 2/3 of the BOA for an appeal to be brought to them.

"Set aside your politics and make a responsible decision." - Ted Horton, speaking in favour of the threshold being 2/3 for hearing an appeal.

motion to hear the appeal 2! the sequel!

Ted thinks it s not so bad, since it was proposed in December. Does not see hearing an appeal as an attack on the SAC. It's just as political to say we will not hear an appeal as to say we will. Down with Dick's idea about 2/3, 4/5, but will vote in favour of this motion, regardless.

Julie agrees with Ted. This is why we have directors.

Ryan wants a roll call vote. forthwith!

vote: 21 in favour, 5 against.

Sooooo, they only need 2/3 to hear a SAC appeal.

after 5 minutes of debate, Federico reveals:

MOTION TO TABLE IS NOT DEBATEABLE

OOPSIES.

Motion fails.

Hearing Appeals.

People keep talking about voting blocks.

"Anyone who is voting against hearing the appeal is voting against hearing evidence, and therefore has a political agenda...". - Becky Wallace

"I voted against hearing the appeal for e-voting. It's about voting whether or not its constitutional. It's not about denying students the right to be heard....this is how the board should be doing things. What it comes down to is does it warrant the board's time? ". - Ryan Kennery

"A lot of members have framed this about whether or not the SAC is objective. This is about whether or not htey can make mistakes. And they can. And there needs to be a form of recourse for students. Regarding the board slate that people keep referring to...we need to commit to what is sensible and what is just. " - CJ Symons.

Cameron proposes a motion to table

"I think these are all good arguments, but i can't think about it without thinking about the present situation"

"I agree. People's feelings are a bit clouded. It's a bit hard to distance yourself from something that touches many people at this board" - Richard Mah

Seamus: "That's wacky!"

Motion to hear the appeal

8.8.14 - changing to 2/3 vote to hear a request for appeal (as opposed to 4/5).

(Amy: is this questions or debate? Federico: ... uhhh... Dean: it's debate.)

Amy is against the change - thinks there should be a higher threshold to hear an appeal than to pass it, so that the same set of 2/3 cannot just force the decision (ps 'conflictual' is not a word).

Rob agrees with Amy - thinks she already said what he thinks

Kennery also against the motion - we JUST changed it from 'unanimous' ... moving too far from that too quickly. SAC is objective and should only be questioned if it is very serious - hence high pass quotient

CJ is for the motion. He is worried that important miscarriages of justice will not be addressed (it s not like they are taking OUT the process...).

Amy does not want to detract from the SAC's legitimacy.

Dean - there is a difference between hearing an appeal and voting for an appeal... Thinks the threshold should be even lower! Doesn t feel that it is a LOW threshold. (SAC = existential body, apparently... WTF?)

Becky is for the motion. Wants to see the evidence to be able to decide if the appeal is valid - wants to make it more accessible to students.

Dick is against the motion, and thinks we should trust our own process of choosing arbitrators, paying due diligence, etc. Does not like that the same set of people could vote to hear and to pass. Thinks that perhaps they should switch the 2/3 and 4/5 amounts.

Cameron is against the motion, because she thinks it is inappropriate at this time. She likes Dick's idea though.

Federico - motion was submitted before the elections even happened. So, it s coincidental.

Seamus wants to clarify that the SAC is not judiciary. Doesn t know why ANYONE wouldn t want to make it easier to hear appeals. that s just WACKY! ... obvs, he is for the motion.

(ps 8.1 Functions - The judicial authority of the Federation is vested in the SAC. fail.)

Sarah Jayne thinks the issues of legitimacy are overblown.

.... lots of debate. sorry, it s getting repetitive. talk to your fave BOA member if you want to know exactly what they said...

Becky - 'i never get any info! we should just hear everything!' her argument seems to always have some sort of 'it s hard to be informed when you re at RGN' whine-fest.

Ryan - you just READ the decision. Then you are informed. Was it a solid ruling or not?

Cameron - we should table this because of our current situation. I can t not think of it.

Dick - agreed!

Tabling? nope. shot down. ridiculous.

to be con't...

Policy & By-Law Committee (an exciting committee!!....)

Sarah Jayne has nominated herself. No one else is interested in being on the committee. No questions. No debate.

She's now on the Committee

Aaaaaaaaaand we're back!

Back in the room!

The new SAC arbitrators have been chosen.

Also, the BOA has decided that it s cool that Federico broke the rulez last time when he pushed through the vote despite all of the abstentions.

lovely. [<-- sarcasm, unless you couldn t tell...]

La Rotonde, The Fulcrum, BOA Voice, and KJ360 are all sitting in the hallway. Boo.
But we have Chex Mix!

kicked out for in camera.

mmm, hallway.

feel free to send us pizza love.... : D

Cheevers to Fabrice: Welcome aboard!

har har har.

15-minute recess. We're waiting for the lawyer, and then there's going to be an in-camera session.
oh goody.

Joël talks about the selection of board members to fill vacant seats.

They looked at the resumes! and coverletters! go team!

Motion to ratify Fabrice Yoboua (Science) & Sarah Jayne King (Social Sciences) as members of the board.
No debate. 2 against, 1 abstention.
Motion passes.

Applause. They are excited about this.

Ryan: What's the timeline for removing tobacco products from the PIVIK?

Roxanne: May 1 2009. There will be a LIQUIDATION! We're trying to clear it all out!

Ryan: Seamus, help us out!

lulz all around

Where's the money?

Questions for Exec

Rob to Roxanne: Why are Fed Bodies still waiting for money and info and meetings and everything?! There is no communication...

Rox: I don t know what you mean about no communication! you might not know this, but I communicate with Fed Bodies all the time...

(Rob = Prez of a Fed Body ... just sayin')

Dean to interwebs: "OH HAI!!!"

VP Communication Update

Julie is confused.

Working on Plastic Bag-Free campus...branding and website and exciting things.
Starting a newsletter for RGN specifically, hopefully to launch for September.
Semaine de la Francophone apparently had a lot of media coverage.
RIP! A remix manifesto is next week.

Updatezzz.

Social:

- End of Year Bash Theme - Light Brite - 5$ as of Monday

- Planning Leader Action - 'wants to have smoothest transition ever' ... great, but who are you transitioning?

Student Affairs:

- Semaine de la Francophonie, etc

- yay Volunteer Gala

- Services Emergency Fund

Comm (who Seamus is creepily staring and nodding at throughout her update... ?):

- Islam Awareness Week

- Plastic Bag Campaign

- bunch of other stuff

- something about dj snugglebots

- not too much to do with comm... but, lots going on I spose...

VP Seamus:

- something about rave cards and translation (was he telepathically getting Julie to do his update, and now he is doing hers?!?)

- blah blah, Fed Gov t budget is bad for students, CFS Ontario exec meeting next weekend, blah.

Money:

- 1848 made big dollars on St Patty's day! yay for drunken students!

- job postings are online

- has ideas re: fed purchases without using personal credit cards

Prez:

- thanks to our gentle viewers - once Ken gets us up and running...

- he's wrapping up his year.

Some exciting events coming up...

Relay for Life - Friday night!
PANDAMONIUM lineup: Bedouin Soundclash, Metric, and Malajube
End of Year Bash Theme : LIGHTBRIGHT!! Tickets on sale on Friday for 5$ at the SFUO office
SFUO apparel lineup - 4 concepts ready, probably launching in september

Adoption of the minutes

Tabled! Minutes from last meeting aren't ready yet.

Someone suggests that we split the room between observers and board members.
It isn't actually a problem though.
hah.

And we're here!

It was Arts Ball and International Gala last night.
The BOA-ers are hungover.

Ken is doing a livefeed of the meeting at kj360. You can also get the support files over at Amy Kishek's blog. Follow along with us!

It's been a slow week

Or the bloggers have just been busy.

In any case, the next BOA is happening on Sunday (at RGN! how exciting!). We will be liveblogging, as per usual.

A word of advice.

This year has been a difficult one, student politics-wise. A lot of shit has gone down. There has been a media frenzy around such crazy situations as the CFS Referendum, the e-vote debacle, and (of course) issues surrounding the BOA and the contested elections. All of these events have resulted in a very divided campus, and a lot of broken friendships.

And now, the student associations' elections are coming up. SAFA just finished theirs last week, and the CSA, PIDSSA, & ESS/SSA are getting the ball rolling on theirs.

A word to the wise. Student associations hit close to home. This is where students go to find their home base, to meet/work with people from within their programs. From what I've seen, students will usually identify themselves as being an "artsie", a "commie", or an "engineer" before identifying with the SFUO.

So what does this mean for the potential candidates? One-up the SFUO and make your elections a positive experience. Remind students that getting involved doesn't necessarily mean being slandered and plastered all over the on-campus media. Run a fun & engaging campaign that gets apathetic students to care about their student associations. Not mine, not yours. Everyone's.

Another Marc Kelly email

Despite the fact that I`ve asked to be removed from the mailing list about 5 times now, I received another email from the Marc Kelly Family Fun Band.

I`m tired of getting these messages. They read like a cult. Here are a few gems:

"Grades are the drug that facilitate the molding of your minds. The syllabus is the doctrine that you have been brainwashed to believe in. Examinations are the filters that select for the most faithful servants.

The institution is ours, and we will fight to regain power."

"Grades hurt the soul. Bad grades cause karmic pain, and good grades tempt sacrilegious sacrifice. We believe education must be built upon nothing else but the virtues of kindness and love. Abolishing grades is the rightful path towards liberation and it will transform education to release the full potential of human creativity.

Paulo Freire is our Saviour. His Pedagogy for Liberation will bring forth the New Revolution and take us towards the Enlightenment."

Creepy, no? It may be crazier than this.
Also, why is the Student Appeals Centre blogging about the need to abolish grades?

A final post about this evening's meeting

it was with great celebration that an event took place after today's emergency BOA meeting. Several of the attendees of the meeting grouped together outside of Tabaret lawn, and not unlike the celebration of the defeat of the Code of Conduct, they "celebrated" the complete lack of purpose that the SFUO Constitution holds by what we witnessed at the meeting tonight. Also not unlike the Code, a copy of the Constitution was burned, as it has no use when only selected sections are applied and followed and when there seems that some students are held to the "laws" where others feel they are above them.

Varia, Amy speaks awesomely.

In reference what happened today with the mysterious letter.

The 3 individual people that were defendants voted on how they were to be tried. I felt my right to abstain wasn't respected. When we talk about things like questioning the SAC, we do have a conflict of interests policy that should be upheld...wouldn't it be great if we uphold one part of the constitution

"If anyone wants to clap they can go outside"-Federico

(Rawb goes outside to clap)

Info point from Cheevers

Send a rep to the Ottawa labour council. Rumours that there will be strikes in 2010 that will affect students. If we can know about these strikes in advance, we can prepare for them.

Fancie: How does someone get on to the labour council?
-Not sure... I'll have to check into that.

Information point 1

From the SAC meeting on Friday, there was a lot of feedback. Looking at taking proactive (after-active?) steps to avoid this happening again.

The time saver motion

... the meeting will have a certain number of hours... will be increased by motions to continue, or else the meeting needs to conclude, with some increasing percentage of the board having to vote on the increased time as the meeting drags on.

Apparently is very effective...

The word asinine was said many times.

Cameron seconds.

Questions: none.

Debate:
Cheevers supports this motion... seems like a waste of time, ironic, tell people how you feel by voting, not by saying it here.

Sarah doesn't know how she feels, but basically, there are a lot of things brought to the BOA table that is very important.

Rawb says we should just save some time on

Fancie is in favour of the motion. If we feel that it important, we will extend the meeting. My girlfriend hates BOA day. Make us more conscious of what we are saying and what others are saying.

--
Everything about this debate proves WHY this motion is needed. I foresee long meetings still in the future, but people are at least agreeing to it...

Motion Passes.

If you were wondering how everyone voted...

Should the motion pass?

Dean yes
Rox yes
Joel yes
Danika yes
Seamus yes
Julie yes
Cam abstain
Jason abstain
Mel Book abstain
Cheevers yes
Samuel abstain
Michael Brown yes
Jason Benevoy yes
Jon Weber abstain
Rawb abstain
Mel Borduas abstain
Adrian yes
Laura yes
Joel yes
Khadijah yes
Becky yes
Dick abstain
Joel Fair abstain
Fancie yes
Sarah yes
Sam abstain
Faris yes
Amy abstain
Genivieve yes


Federico claims that this vote passes because:
Board members were going to hold the board by the 1/3 vote rule (section 3.1.10.8.8). And passes around a pre-sought letter, which we will try to get a copy for you.

Because of this, Federico decides that the motion passes unanimously.

Rawb:

Ladies and gentlemen, I have personally helped and spoken with the appellants, and I have a bias and I am abstaining, Amy is too. There are defendants that should be abstaining, whether or not they see it fit. If a vote has 1/3 abstentions, it is tabled to the next meeting. We are here to uphold this.

Federico:
... however that part of the constitution is there to assure that if there is not enough debate that it continues. As per the legal opinion, it is my reponsibility to rule by that.

Shall the decision of the chair of the vote stand?

Amy requested a roll call that was COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN BY THE CHAIR (Dean), so sorry voters, no "how they voted" for this one, but I bet you can guess!

The decision stands.

Joel speaks!

We're taking a different look here:


Let's forget about the constitution, and we're taking a real life view:

The election wasn't fair, the appeal wasn't fair, how do we make the appellants and the defendants happy. We need a process that both sides think are fair.

I do believe that we need to amend this and make both "camps" happy.

Joel really wants to see a 101 Week 2009.

Michael Brown

Decisions of government bodies (executives) can be reviewed through judicial review.

Concern that your decision-maker has a bias?

Do you think that the defendants had a reasonable idea of bias when they were in front of the SAC?

There does need to be a mediation, but that's just his opinion.

Extra! Extra!

Mel Book passed Critical Thinking in first year with flying colours.

She also wants to see where the lawyer said that this process was actually irregular, because it seems that Dean has interpreted what constitutes "irregularity"

Hmm, there is some discussion as to who has spoken twice to the motion....

J-Web

This board has lost faith in the process-- this is an example of how the Board actually does have faith in allowing (these proceedings) to occur.

The arbitrators were good enough for us before, why are they less good now. It's impossible to have impartial arbitrators right now because the campus has been "poisoned" because it's impossible not to have opinions formed.

I urge the board to support the old SAC, they had our support before, they should have it now.

Speaking to the motion

"All this is going to be is words"
"Most people have lost confidence in this appeal"

Oh poetic, and Fancie, I guess you and I have different "most people" friends

A VOTE! on the motion!

Here we go - moment of truth...

Verdict by roll call:

Motion... killed by abstention - back to debate.

(although, incredibly conspicuously, the defendants of the slate are NOT abstaining. WTF. Conflict of INTEREST! GAH!)

Alright, well, you ll have to trust in Flamenco Pirate's commentary skills, because this blogger is out for the night! Stay tuned!

4 more years! 4 more years!

Oooooooof debate!

EXTRA EXTRA!

Faris: 'I agree with Rob.'

Holy crap! Nice to see this thing bringing SOME people together.

Federico is offended.

He is taking Michele's remarks that he is too close to this to be a part of the selection committee personally. How effing ridiculous when the motion is to toss the entire SAC committee of arbitrators based on their being 'in question' by the defendants.

Wow.

SAC invalid.

Dean has decreed that the SAC decision to move forward with the arbitration is invalid. Interesting. He is down with his motion. Duh.

Does he have the power to say that they are invalid? I spose that is for the BOA to decide.

Thinks we can find arbitrators - but, the POINT is that they are instantly tainted with BIAS!

Dean speaks, for you to decide impartiality...

There have been a lot of things thrown aroundif it is an issue of a timely nature it should be considered because it is.

The Lawyer knows our bylaws inside and out

Based on the committee and how it is functioning, and whether we need to intervene.... because of not having the right number of arbitrators... something...? We are entrusted to make tough decisions, and this is one of the toughest I've had to make.

Electing--no! Appointing volunteer arbitrators.

He says that it is our fault that this happened. The though that we won't be able to find people that aren't impartial doesn't work for him. Thinks that there ARE enough students that will work on the committee.

Sorry readers,

your bloggers really didn't care about the discussion that just happened...

But it's Dick's turn now!

Dick Mah's Question masquerading as debate...

If we decide to go through with this motion, it is his impression that the entire process would restart - which would take a long time. One of the problems was that timelines weren t followed - what is the impact of this NEW timeline? Will we have an SFUO executive?

Fake lawyer

Should get an unbiased professional arbitrator. Just do it. Need to be impartial. It is ridiculous to re-appoint student arbitrators. Also, sees no prejudice in the SAC report.

Apparently...

Someone was so petty as to call Protection on this BOA meeting, for fire code. If someone is so concerned that there are more people than is safe, I hope you actually care about the issues at hand, otherwise I think you have your priorities completely wrong.

Reasons I agree with Amy...

Why is it worth undermining our constitution for this?

Fire Code?!?

The police might be coming - apparently we are over the fire code?!?

WTF?

Federico wants us to wait until we see a fireman. How forethoughtful of him.

Why is EVERYthing a circus?

Rawb

is using his powers of "undecided-ness"!

(earth! wind! fire! water! heart! undecided-ness! CAPTAIN PLANET!!!

Rawb:

We've gotten a little off topic here (insert time warp noises here)

According to "section" in the Business Corporations Act, no Corporation or Board can go against its own bylaws--our powers are pursuant to the BCA, and I feel that when I represent students, they are putting their trust in me to uphold the constitution. The Lawyer says that if we need intervention, the BOA should not intervene, because there is no SAC decision...

Would the "new" SAC members be more impartial knowing what case they are about to be trying.

In reference to to breaking the Constitution, I'm wondering we have 2/3 of the BOA to amend the constitution and 4/5 to (overturn a decision of the SAC? (sorry, I got caught up in listening )), what would the percentage of students be if we are actually amending the constitution by skirting around these bylaws?

Rob's Left Field Slamdunk (w00t, mixed metaphor!)

This is the longest Federico has EVER let Rob speak without interrupting! A new record!

Wants to get back to the point: the BOA has no business intervening at ALL, since the Board has not been provided with the SAC report, and it has not been addressed by the lawyer.

POINT: Wouldn t the applicants be more likely biased if they know what case they are applying to arbitrate?

Feels that the Board would be in direct violation of the consitution - what is the percentage of the board needed to amend the constitution in this case?

Federico: meanders around the point and lands on 50% + 1 for the motion to pass.

Rob definitely just interrupted Federico and let him know that he had the answer to his question. The tables! They have TURNED!

boils down: the letter references having to sidestep a by-law. soooo, it s a constitutional change. just saying.

Thinks it is in the best interest of the Board to question the nature of the motion - should we be able to hire the student arbitrators on a case that they are already aware of?

One last point: Just because the SFUO was negligent in fostering interest in the SAC, the case should not be biased by student arbitrators who are now familiar with the case. Not of due process.

Another Roll Call Vote.

Amendment to the motion for (sexy?) live feed: Passes!

And you KNOW we ll be there!

We re doing it right now!

Faris doesn t think we have the technology - two Board members are quick to point out that a humble blogger has manged to live feed THIS very meeting! Oh, the joys of technology.

Maybe Ken will get a contract out of this!

I can haz holograms?!?

Will will.i.am explain the appeal to those of us in the viewing room?!? to make the most of our multimedia experience? plz?

Amy
I feel a sense of bias, and that there are many people that have a conflict of interest, and as such, I hope that people abstain and I will call rollcall on every vote.

Good on you Amy, thanks for reminding the board of the conflict of interest motion that was brought up earlier this year.

Fancie, true to his word, motioned his amendment, and is on the table for discussion.

"A multimedia experience", he states of the meeting, as if the listeners/viewers or "multimedia-ers" (blogger liberties) were there.

"Technically Zoom isn't able to do this. Are we going to be able to facilitate this actually happening or will it just be a bigger headache"

"Well, any computer could do it, I know one of the members of the audience is doing this now". And the table is totally surprised that this is happening. GONG! The whole internets see how ridiculous awesome this meeting is

Speaking rights to law students...

...are not giving legal advice, but advice from a legal background, it's a fine, fine line.

Amy calls a rollcall, as the constitution requires it to be forthwith. Cookies for anyone who can use "forthwith" in a casual sentence.

Fancie makes an amendment

Can I make it known that I will be proposing this if the amendment fails--Fancie

I think you already did--Federico.

Heh, redundancy!

"Everybody involved in this case will be able to be present"- Faris

But aren't ALL voters involved in this--ALL students at this school? I think every single student has been wronged by this case, and is therefore involved.


I don't know, thoughts?

GONG! Blogger #2 has arrived, and is surprised at how calm and quiet everything is going... not that last Friday was the best of times, but at least there was passion!

Amendment and Debate

Sam: Would like to amend the motion to strike out everything that pertains to the meeting being closed to the public. (Hear, hear!!)

Dean: Against the motion - talked to Alain Gauthier, who couldn t believe that the hearings WERE open to the public (relevance?). Arbitrators: not people holding public office, so they should not be subjected to the pressures (like the BOA, for example). Wants to ensure that the SAC Appeal situation doesn t happen again.

Amy: But, we are civil right now! What's the difference between an elected official and a person in a position of importance and responsibility. Should be open.

Sam: Against the idea of Alain Gauthier's opinion's relevance (I write it, he says it!). Worried that we will start closing doors all over campus, just because of one incident, and it IS civil here today!

Laura: Against the motion.

Amy: Personally uncomfortable with it being closed, and not a big fan of the motion in general - thinks we are asking too much of the public's trust. Needs to be AS transparent as possible, considering the nature of the case.

Faris: All the BOA will be there and the media will be there ... viewing room for the bloggers (at least we re being considered!)? to preserve the low emotion for the arbitrators to think and process. Last week had a bad atmosphere

Cameron: Can we ban specific people? Would that be constitutional? Probs not.

Dean: Alain Gauthier is SO relevant! Consulting as many parties as possible is the best way.

Becky: Any precedent with this? Does anyone know?

Jason: Given the craziness of last time, I think a live viewing room is a good compromise - the matter is too sensitive.

Fancie: Can I add to the amendment? Officially adds live viewing room to the motion...? has to wait to propose it later, IN order.

Cameron: Wants to give away her speaking rights. Federico - must vote on this, first. BOA says GO team! Prez of Common Law students - there are probs no legal ramifications - thinks we NEED to be very transparent. Federico thinks he has political bias (... apparently being interested in transparency sides you - which side does he have in mind?)

Voting on the amendment (voting by roll call! forthwith!): fails. bah.

Back to the main motion. Fancie already has his placard up.

Questions!

Sam: Why not allow the board members, but allow Michele Lamarche and Ted (VP Student and Uni Affairs respectively)?

Dean: Should be closed to the public (bit of a guess - he might not have said this exactly: and it is in their immediate interests as part of next year's executive).

Cameron: Why new arbitrators? I thought the SAC addressed that...

Dean: Feels that the arbitrators have come under question, and feels it is more responsible this way.

Cameron: Can you be more specific?

Dean: The BOA must make a decision about the committee that is the SAC, and that committee's legitimacy has come under question ... SPECIFICALLY: the chief arbitrator did not get consent (re: the choice of arbitrators) from the defendants , and they did not follow a legal recommendation from the SFUO lawyer or include it in the report. Feels it is important that he gave 'constitutional guidance' to the SAC for this issue, but they did not follow it and he is concerned.

Dick: What if we don t HAVE 5 people to fill the SAC seats? The next meeting is SOON - especially if we move the meeting

Dean: well, leave it to the committee - I M on it, so it s all good. He is confident that they will find the arbitrators that they need. well then.

Amy: Did you read the SAC report?

Dean: ... no?

?: Are there any legal ramifications.

Dean: validity will STILL be under question. Doesn t look good.

Melissa: If we relieve these people, would we be breaching the constitution if the candidates want one of the relieved arbitrators?

Dean: ... i need to check my consitution - repeat the question please... It is quite clear that they will not be in the pool of options. The lawyer understands that.

Mike: Defendants already refused to participate in the arbitration process - what if they do that AGAIN?!?

Dean: who knows?!? It s pretty hard to say or we wouldn t be here. BOA = highest governing body. this is why we are even discussing this motion.

Question period OVER! Federico says so!

Be it resolved...

1) SAC takes the case back

2) relieve 4 present members of SAC, and select 3 new members to hear the case once the 5 empty seats are filled (ie choose 3 of 5, instead of 3 of 3)

3) March 22 will be moved ahead as the next BOA

4) new appeal is closed to all but those on the list (you re probs not on the list if you re not accused, accusing, deciding, chairing or from the Fulcrum or La Rotonde)... which means no bloggers : ( waaah. Although they DO plan to videotape it.

ps Caroline Poisson (chief arbitrator) is cool with the motion as it stands (according to Dean)

Who's Who...

Roll Call (check out who s here!):

Fulcrum, La Rotonde, mucho BOA members and their respective (friday afternoon!) proxies, Tyler Steeves, RPG, Alex Chaput, Maureen Hasinoff, Michele Lamarche (the only entirely uninvolved Executive-elect), bloggers galore, Zoom, the ever-present (and possibly creepily omniscient?!?) Francois Picard, and MANY concerned students of every allegiance imaginable.

(got a little bored waiting for Dean to finish reading : ) )

UPDATE: Jean Guillaume is here too. I m sure you were all concerned about not knowing that.

BOA TV!

in case you can t find it because sometimes the interwebz is hard, here is the link to Ken's live video feed!

Dean's Motion

Dean has prepared a speech to go along with the motion.

"We are at an impasse"

Wants to trust in the lawyer as the only unbiased party ... not so sure that the SFUO's lawyer is the least partial (although the partiality bar IS set pretty damn low...). Doesn't the Fed write him his cheques?

Dean has amended his motion, making it slightly less controversial. Maybe. TBD.

Anti-Harassment Officer! and the Agenda!

So, the BOA has brought in an anti-harassment officer!

That is pretty damn progressive and proactive in this situation. colour me impressed...

---------

So we are still figuring out if the agenda stands.

Dean is explaining his motion...

Seamus withdraws the Appeal from the meeting. Holy crap.

It is officially off the agenda. How does anything still surprise me?

And.... We re in the room!

So, I got here at 4!! o'clock for this 5pm meeting, and I STILL wasn t the first person here! craaaaazy. It is absolutely packed in here right now, as everyone gets organized and settled for the circus... : \

What a delightful way to spend a Friday afternoon.

Also, this will be the first televised BOA meeting - watch along with the liveblog on kj360.blogspot.com!

Let the games begin...

BOA tomorrow

Just in case you haven't heard, we'll be at the BOA meeting tomorrow (starts at 5!). Ken Joly will be streaming footage from the meeting, so you can follow along as we liveblog (and point out our epic fails).

Update: iBlogSFUO will be there as well! We should have a press section. And hats.

Bloggers, working together since 2009!
:)

Abuse. of. power.

Motion to be presented at the BOA on Friday:


Whereas there is a case contesting the 2009 elections between Garner, Hasinoff, and Chaput v. Wolfe, Dubois, Séguin and Guillaume, hereafter referred to as “the case”.

Whereas irregularies in the process of the case before the Student Arbitration Committee have put the credibility of the committee into question.

Whereas the decision rendered by the Student Arbitration Committee could potentially violate the constitution of the Federation.

Whereas the implications involved in allowing this case to continue in the present context could cause legal ramifications for the Federation.

Whereas the Board of Administration has the following powers, as outlined in the constitution and state the following:

The Board of Administration administers the affairs of the Federation in every respect and has full powers to manage the affairs of the federation, conclude or cause to be concluded, in its name, any contract that it may legally conclude and, subject to the bylaws, exercise in general all powers and take measures allowed by the letters patent and applicable laws.

Whereas the ultimate decision making body of the Federation is the Board of Administration.

Whereas the hearings into the case have shown to pose a possible threat to a members’ right to a positive space.

Whereas the hearings must be heard in a way that is fair and just.

Whereas it was suggested by the Federation’s solicitor to the Student Arbitration Committee to request direction from the Board of Administration, before concluding its latest decision.

Whereas it is a Federation member’s right to contest the elections.

Whereas the advice of the Federation’s solicitor, Vice Hunter Labrosse LLP, as per: Marc R. Labrosse was sought on this matter, and that his recommendations were as follows:

…that if the BOA first determines that it is in the best interests of the SFUO to restore some calm to the situation and intervene, the following three options which we discussed with you would be reasonable:

1. To appoint three (3) new members to the SAC and allow the participants to exercise their rights under section 8.6.1.4;
2. To allow the parties to exercise similar rights as under 8.6.1.4 and select from amongst the members of the BOA who would be prepared to sit at ad hoc arbitrators despite 8.3.1.1;
3. Appoint an independent arbitrator (with formal legal training) to hear the appeal.

Be it resolved that the Board of Administration of the Federation reorder a new hearing into the contest of Garner, Hasinoff, and Chaput v. Wolfe, Dubois, Séguin and Guillaume, presently before the Student Arbitration Committee.

Be it further resolved that the Board of Administration of the Federation relieve the Student Arbitration Committee from the current case and set in place a panel of three directors of the Board of Administration of the Federation to hear the case.

Be it further resolved that Garner, Hasinoff, Chaput select one of three directors on the panel; that Wolfe, Dubois, Séguin, Guillaume select one of the three directors on the panel, and by doing so the parties agree to the decision of the panel; and that the two directors on the panel selected by each party shall decide upon the third director on the panel, whom shall chair the panel.

Be it further resolved that the Board of Administration of the Federation shall choose the final director on the panel, should the directors selected to be on the panel be unable to come to a decision on the third director on the panel.

Be it further resolved that a director on the panel must not be in her own cause, a witness or a representative of the implicated parties.

Be it further resolved that the panel will follow the minimum guidelines to abide by in relation to sections 8.4.2.2 and 8.4.3 of the constitution of the Federation.

Be it further resolved that the full procedure and any rulings in regards to procedure will be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the directors on the panel.

Be it further resolved that minutes of all meetings and panel hearings of the meetings shall be voice recorded and released to the public.

Be it further resolved that the panel hearings ensure a positive space, that they are video recorded for public distribution, that they are closed to the general public, and that they are open to the following:
(a) All directors of the Federation, including the executive of the Federation
(b) The chairperson of the board of administration of the Federation
(c) All parties involved in the contest of the elections
(d) Counsel of all parties involved, pursuant to 8.7.1 of the constitution of the Federation
(e) Any witnesses called to the hearing by the parties involved in the contest of the elections
(f) One staff member from “The Fulcrum”
(g) One staff member from “La Rotonde”

Be it further resolved that the decision will be rendered by a two-thirds vote of the directors on the panel.

Be it further resolved that the decision will be rendered as soon as possible.

Be it further resolved that the decision may be appealed within two business days of the decision being rendered by the panel to the board of administration by one of the parties by submitting a request in writing to the chairperson of the Board of Administration of the Federation. The Board of Administration of the Federation may only overturn the decision of the panel by a vote of two-thirds of the directors present. The decision on the appeal is final.

Motion presented by:
Dean Haldenby, President of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
president@sfuo.ca / 613.808.1393 / 613.562.5800 x4061
March 11, 2009 at 3:00am

From this week's edition

Excerpt from the end of the editorial in the latest issue of The Fulcrum, regarding the SAC appeal:

"The overzealous taunting, signs reading “face it… you lost” and “face it… you cheated” used to intimidate those involved in the appeal, verbal attacks on witnesses and other individuals in the room, and the judgements levied on individuals’ decisions to support or not support a side in the appeal were closed-minded and shameful, flying in the face of the mantras of positive space and anti-oppression upheld by the SFUO.

Ultimately, the deplorable actions taken by students at the SAC hearing have struck at the very heart of the SFUO’s statement
of principles: “to regroup all undergraduate students of the University of Ottawa in a democratic and cooperative organization
where we can advance our own interests and those of our community”. This value is more important than the ambitions of any
student politicians and far more significant than this appeal—which will certainly not disappear despite these events"

-Frank Appleyard

Friday the Thirteenth

...is the date of the emergency BOA meeting, at 5pm in the Senate room (basement of Tabaret, follow the gong). I think it will inevitably be the most controversial and conflict of interest-filled meeting yet. Be there or don't, but you know we'll be there reporting on it.

I woke up with this in my inbox.

SAC Testimony - Témoignage CAÉ from SAC - CAE on Vimeo.

Some pseudo-news for y'all

If you get a chance, I would suggest picking up this week's issue of La Rotonde. There are a few good articles on the circus that was the SAC Hearing last Friday.

From the editorial (forgive me if my translation is a bit off! I wanted to make sure our anglophone readers saw this):

"Mr. Haldenby, you inaction leaves a lot to be desired. Your lack of leadership put the students who attended the hearing in a belligerent situation (a term which you use well). You speak in the name of the SFUO, while some of your employees and members of the BOA took part in this protest, despite the fact that they should all act in accordance with the principles and values of the SFUO. You saw this and did nothing. You consented to their action. Such acts should have been dealt with there and then, not behind the scenes now that the situation has deteriorated. When Protection Services had to be called to reestablish the peace, you should have tried to ease the tension immediately. You missed out on an opportunity to show that your interests are those of all the students, not simply those of a few. Now, writing a letter to students is about the only thing you could do. But will it be enough? Certain students don't seem to want to forget this inaction and accuse you of being an accomplice. You had an hour to step up to the podium and stop the situation, but you consented to it and made it so that students were profoundly disrespected.

It is essential that you clean up this mess and prove that you are neutral in this situation. Right now, it's easy to question your neutrality."

- Céline Basto

Blog love!

I've been named for VP Communications in SFUOLulz's SFUO exec dream team. How cute.

Amy Kishek has started a blog. In her words, "I wasn't heard... at least not yet. Hear me testify here."

You can follow it here.

SAC's decision regarding the appeal:

We conclude that an arbitration into disputed election results can occur when any member of the SFUO asserts that there was fraud or irregularities during the election campaign, regardless of whether the respondent candidates’ consent to the arbitration.

It will be interesting to see people's responses to this.

8:54 - Update - You can access the SAC's report here!

Dear readers

It seems that our readership has gone up as of late. We are glad the student population is so interested and passionate about what is going on on-campus right now.

However, we aren't a source of hard news (we're into the softer side of the news world!). We are a blog. We started this in order to have a platform to express our views and observations, and we will continue to use it as such. When we get tips or see interesting coverage, we will point you towards it.

If you want solid, journalistic coverage, we suggest La Rotonde or The Fulcrum. If you want to hear what we (as students) think about what's going on, stay tuned in to us.

Please try to keep your comments respectful, and happy reading.

xoxox
-BOA Voice

Dean wrote a letter expressing his reaction to what happened at the SAC on Friday (thanks, La Rotonde).

"What I witnessed as our leader, as your president, and as a person were students fighting, disrespecting, and belligerently accosting students - "Students fighting students", when our raison d'être is "students helping students. What I witnessed was our Student Federation that holds values of dignity, equity, human rights, and positive spaces become besmirched by the inappropriate and unacceptable actions of some of its members"

He ends the letter by calling on students to disagree agreeably, and to respect each other despite how tense the situation has become.

Well said, Dean. Now let's all throw down our signs and hug.

From an anonymous source:

The decision by Seamus, Roxanne and Julie (current VP University Affairs, VP FInance, and VP Communications respectively) to forego the arbitration process and go directly to the BOA may be considered an abuse of power. Apparently, no such option exists in the SFUO Constitution. Some board members are talking about holding a special meeting of the BOA. The impeachment word has been thrown around.


Also, updated blog fail!

Media

Photos from the hearing are available at La Rotonde's photoblog, here.

BOA!

Looks like it will have to go to the BOA - you know WE ll be there...

stay in touch.

Caroline just came back in, Renaud turned off his computer after she spoke with him.

Appeal has been adjourned so the defendants can have time to sort through the evidence brought against them, and an appeal can be brought forward by the defendants to the BOA.

Well. I guess this makes sense now.

There is a heated discussion going on between some students at the back of the room. They are getting more and more intense in their arguments.
Wowie.

3rd grade...

If you thought you left bullying behind in elementary school, guess what? the phenomenon is alive and well.

intimidation tactics, peer pressure, chanting, name calling, general disrespect and disdain...

gong show indeed, except it s not funny.

------

Is funny: "at least i showed up to my hearing. and WON." - Austin's new sign.

RPG is maintaining his calm, still standing at the podium waiting to speak, despite all this.

Love it.

Dean has walked out.
Cheevers tells Amy Kishek to calm down (this, from the guy who is screaming and yelling about how this is 'a kangaroo court'?)

Yelling "C'est Fini".

Someone insults Austin. Someone has yelled "Bitch". Calling the SAC and RPG "losers".

Caroline Poisson is calling Protection.

Crazy protesters! shutting this bitch down?

Chant: 'RPG! C'est Fini!'

inteeeeeense. RPG is waiting to speak. Which would finally kick this thing off. Hopefully, the chief arbitrator will call protection as she threatened.

New chant: "Shut it down!"

The audience is not far away from fisticuffs. Renaud stands smugly at the front of the room, waiting. As are the rest of us: waiting.....

.......................................................................

Caroline Poisson attempts to continue again. She threatens to call protection if the meeting gets interrupted again.

Reads the constitution:

"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."

I have never, never seen such a show of immaturity and disrespect on the part of students. Completely disgusted.

Adressing concerns:

1) Arbitrators: Parties have the ability to influence composition of the panel. One arbitrator was disqualified because of a conflict of interest. They only have three people.

2) Defendants have yet to show any prejudice

3) Dates: evidence was given in in the 10 days - if there was fraud, it doesn't matter if it was submitted within the 10 days. ALL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMISSABLE.

A 'representative' is sitting up front, and keeps interupting the arbitrator.

Cheevers keeps yelling "kangaroo court". Some people from the defendant's camp have come back into the room and started cheering. The "representative" gets kicked out.

SAC ruling on the walkout:

Carrying on with the arbitration process.

Can be appealed to the BOA if the defendants to choose.

Allegations of fraud: ridiculous and false.

It is true that the parties have the power to influence the panel - only have 4 arbitrators and need 3 for this committee. One was disqualified by conflict of interest, so there is no flexibility on the population of the committee.

There WAS a missed deadline, but all proof should be admissible unless there is good reason not to (cited canadian law). The new evidence does have value, and needs to be included.

Need to evaluate credibility of fraud allegations re: Ted's testimony.

** the crowd could be described as 'unruly'

Carrying on with the appeal.

YES.

Marc Kelly is dangerously close to the podium, and chatting with a volunteer from Zoom who was videotaping everything. I suspect he may begin a speech.

OH NOES.

WTFROFLBBQ!!!

UNEXPECTED!

Dean is grinning from ear to ear.

Defendants are leaving.

Cheers and from the Seamus camp.

This was even more ridiculous than I expected.

There goes the SFUO, walking out on their own students.

Hey Seamus -

Robbing the students of their vote? What about their right to appeal?

The entire lineup of defendants are giving statements, bringing up section 8.6.1.4 , stating that they were not given the chance to select the makeup of the SAC, that there have been irregularities in the handing-in of evidence after the deadline.

I find this convenient. Refuse to take part in the appeal, don't face your mistakes?


8.6.1.4
All parties involved in the dispute shall choose one of the following options in selecting the Arbitration Committee:
i) each party shall select one arbitrator to be a member of the Arbitration committee. The chosen arbitrators will then appoint a third arbitrator to the committee. Should the number of arbitrators appointed to the committee be of an even number, the Arbitration Committee shall appoint an extra arbitrator.
ii) The Chief Arbitrator and Arbitration Committee will select the appropriate uneven number of arbitrators for

Defending Opening Statement

Roxanne:

"I refuse to move forward with this arbitration."

Julie:

"I have not participated in any other campaigns but my own."

JG (definitely has the most support in the room - which is interesting as he was the least known on campus prior to this election):

thinks the rules were changed, cites constitution, thinks this appeal should be tossed.

ze Wolfe (worked up and yelling as per usual):

more constitutional citation - "arbitrators backtracked on their own process." "corrupt and unjust process."

(first drinking game reference: Ted-gate.)

General message: They do not believe in the process today - believe justice will not be served. They believe the rules were not followed.

They are literally walking out!!! Invited the media outside! This blogger is not taking the bait.

Arbitrator: will reconvene in 5 minutes.

but, WILL WE?!?

General explanation of process

Opening Remarks:

The point is to give the SAC a roadmap of your arguments and general plan of procedure.

3 minutes per named parties - can use your own minutes or can pool your time.

Maureen lobbies for Alex's minutes to be pooled with hers and RPG's. They will get their 9 minutes.

There is a witness chair, and the person questioning must stand at a podium to address the witness.

Parties may reject questions from either the examination or cross-examination, as can the SAC itself.

Procedure for the appeal

- Opening remarks from each side (a road map!
-Witness will be called, will be examined, then the opposing party will get to cross-examine them
- Closing remarks (tying everything together!)

-Parties can object to questions during examination
-SAC can object too

- Maureen asks if they can get the minutes for opening/closing for Alex, who isn't here (he's at Les Jeux de la Comm)
- Someone interupts the arbitrator who is explaining the procedures (RUDE!)
- Caroline reminds everyone to be respectful, and that the SAC will kick people out if they are causing a scene.

Tension is high.

After a revealing show of support from most of the crowd (we remain, as always, unbiased - *cough...) for the en masse entrance of the in-so-far elected candidates, the room has just quieted right down - clearly, we all think it is starting, since people at the front of the room are moving around with serious faces. We get a smattering of nervous laughter or chatter every so often, but it seems to be settling down.

Steeves has arrived. He walked in as it quieted, and now the chatter is high again as the crowd realizes there will still be some time before we start. Things are being set up, though, and we are definitely going to get going really soon. Roll call would turn up quite the who's who of our student political scene.

Silence has been called for. Tension time. The arbitrator, Caroline Poisson, is definitely quite nervous. The proceedings will be generally conducted in French. so bear with me...

And awaaaay we go.

SFUO exec enters

Half the room starts cheering.

Enter Steeves, upstage center.

Just discovered the bluetooth on one of our phones

So here is a view of one side of the room. It is super busy.








These signs are SO respectful (that's sarcasm, in case you didn't get it)

Don't you ever forget!

There are close to 150 people in here. This shit is real!

Homemade shirts, makeshift signs, bloggers galore.

15 minutes to go!

SAC Appeal

Well, it s finally here. The big day.

Can anyone say 'gong show'? It is already a madhouse in here.

They really should have chosen a bigger room - most of the seats are full already and it is barely 4pm. Not very encouraging of student interest and involvement. There is no apathy here, that s for sure. Everyone here seems to have already chosen a side. When you look around much of the crowd is pro-results, passing around and waving 'respect my vote,' 'random stat quotation,' and 'no to RPG, no to racism' signs.

Austin Menyasz has made up a quick and dirty 'respect my constitution' sign, but he is definitely part of the minority.

The proceedings do not allow audience participation - I wonder what the arbitrator will think of all the signage - does it count as participation? will all of these people be kicked out, allowing for a little oxygen circulation? we shall see...

Senate Shenanigans.

Looks like the ever-productive Senate paparazzi squad is at it again...

Allan Rock has been forced to call an entire meeting in camera... 

Are you happy now, camera-kids? Well done forcing LESS transparency with your crazy circus approach to bullying.

There are more important things than transparency at this point... like any kind of functionality, perhaps?

ALSO, before you call foul on transparency, has anyone tried sitting in the meeting and taking notes, then comparing those notes to the official minutes? is any of this even necessary? Just because it is not on video does not mean that it is undocumented.

ugh. OFB. rant over.