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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I regret voting for Dean Haldenby as President for this year. Only thing he has managed to accomplish this year were disappointments.
I am sick to my stomach.
Thanks for showing us what side you are on Dean. Because if we didn't already know, we certainly do now.
I am so so disappointed with the process and I have absolutely no faith in taking the elections appeal to the BoA. Highest governing body of the SFUO: true. Most biased and most riddled with conflicts of interests and alliances: also true. Effective in hearring this appeal: false.
Has anyone noticed the sneakiness behind this motion?
To hear an appeal, they need 2/3 majority and they then need a 2/3 majority to overturn the SAC decision.
A motion (when not a constitutional amendment) requires one reading and only 50+1%.
How can anyone doubt Amy when she says it is all about knowing how to play the game and get around the rules? I am pretty sure this is playing the game at its best.
And I agree with the above, the two above actually. First, Dean has shown his true colours. I have posted that comment on every blog I could earlier and second, I also voted for Dean. If only I could go back.
The defendants did not know Dean would submit this motion.
If it was a mistake, it is still an honest one, rather than the collusion some of you are implying...
If you're not ready to trust an anonymous poster on that, then too bad for you, because I'm not revealing my name anytime soon.
Whether the defendants knew or not, Dean is protecting them and not the students. He always has. CFS referendum anyone?
And I have nothing against anonymous posters. Whether you agree with me or not, I am glad that you are at least saying something rather than staying quiet.
If the writers at BOA Voice cared, they would remove the option.
@JAIME
You actually require 4/5 to hear an appeal.
The BOA passed an amendment to this, so that the majority needed is 2/3, but that was only passed once. All Constitutional amendments require two readings.
As the second reading for this motion is not on the agenda, the majority to hear the appeal is 4/5.
That being said, the majority to overturn the SAC decision is still 2/3.
There are 29 directors.
Motion to hear the appeal
4/5 of 29 = 23.2.
Mathematically, to achieve 4/5, you would need 24 BOA members. Which means, if only 5 BOA members decide not to hear the appeal, it will not be heard.
Motion to overturn the decision
2/3 of 29 = 19.3
If the appeal is heard, you would there would need to be 10 Board members to vote against the motion for the appeal to fail.
Regardless of Dean Haldenby's motion, there is an official "SAC Appeal" on the agenda.
@Wassim
Thanks for clearing that up. With the agenda there was no supporting document to go with 11.4 so I assumed it was the second reading rather than the submitted appeal.
But if the appeal of the SAC ruling fails before Dean's motion, would they not still hear and entertain his motion? It is to continue with arbitration, although a sick version of it, so it would comply wouldn't it?
According to the agenda, they will be debating Dean Haldenby's motion before the "official" SAC appeal.
Well that still leaves me with WTF is 11.4?
Unless not everything was yet distributed. I asked someone who knows more about this than me and she asked Dean herself what 11.4 was and he didn't answer that in his response to her.
I wish I could go on Friday, but I have a dinner I can't get out of, but cheers to the liveblog! With my cell under the table!
11.4 = Dean Haldenby's motion.
11.5 = Defendant's official appeal.
11.6 = Some random motion which should not be on the agenda of a meeting such as this one.
@Jaime
My plan is to video the BOA meeting and live webcast it for those who can't make it.
http://kj360.blogspot.com ro http://www.justin.tv/kj360
@Wassim
They might try and not even recognize the SAC Report as a Decision, therefore via sumbitting this motion, they will not require a 4/5 vote.
It makes no sense to hear Dean's motion first!! Because Dean's motion ASSUMES that the current SAC appeal must end (without having a debate on the documents submitted by the SAC).
For those unaware, I've been hosting a 'feed' of all the blogs since the SFUO elections, including now with the appeal.
http://twitter.com/maximem
There are almost 15 blogs (including this one) whose posts automatically spring up in my twitter, so that you don't have to surf all o them individually!
WTF. I can't believe you speak for all students Dean.
I made a list of my initial impressions... but seriously, could there so many things wrong with a single motion?!
http://amykishek.blogspot.com/2009/03/epic-fail.html
@Ken Joly
Well, when Renaud-Philippe Garner wrote an email to SAC advising them there was no appeal under section 8.8 (Right of appeal) of the SFUO Constitution, Federico Carvajal wrote back (to all parties + SAC) and said the contrary.
"I received a request for an appeal of the SAC decision by one of the defendants on this case this afternoon (Tuesday)."
This is as black and white as you can get. "Request for an appeal of the SAC decision" -- Federico Carvajal.
It is therefore my opinion that it does require a 4/5 majority (5 Board members to block) to even hear the appeal. If not, then the motion will have absolutely zero influence on SAC's decision to continue, as it will no longer be an appeal of a SAC decision, and the procedure (8.8) was not respected.
Really this comes down to a very simple point.
- The SAC made a process decision to continue the contestation of the election results.
- The decision could be appealed by a 4/5, then a 2/3 vote of BOA. This, realistically, won't happen.
- If the BOA appeal doesn't succeed, then the only alternative to the pursuit of the SAC process is a binding agreement between both parties to agree on another type of arbitration process. For example, bringing an arbitrator from outside. This is not in the constitution, so this is why both parties would have to agree legally on it.
- However, it seems unlikely that RPG et al. will waive their right to be heard by the SAC in this way, considering they have the advantage now (with how deep the defendents dug their hole).
To not consider the decision rendered by the SAC a 'decision' would be a total miscarriage of justice. I sincerely hope that the members of the BOA recognize that there is, realistically, only one interpretation of this situation... That it requires a 4/5 majority to overturn the SAC's decision to continue. If, and only if, that 4/5 majority is reached, should we be discussing anything else.
And, if Dean is reading this blog (and I'm sure he is), you are a royal disappointment. With such a weak mandate, you should just sit in your office and twiddle your thumbs... Not overtly try to undermine our student institutions, especially the ONLY one that has any authority in terms of oversight...
Post a Comment