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!
1 comment:
Dean - el president - didn't read the f-ing SAC report?! Wow.
Slow clap.
Post a Comment