The End.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a new school year. Unfortunately, your lovely lady bloggers here at BOAVoice will not be continuing on with the blog. If you want to keep up on your uOttawa and SFUO news, take a look at our Related Blogs on the sidebar -La Rotonde is always a great source of news, and The Fulcrum looks set for a great year with their new website format.

We're sure that this year will be just as (if not more) eventful than last. Enjoy the school year, keep your wits about you, and thanks for following us through the 5 hour meetings, debates, and breaking news!

love,
The BOAVoice team

we're not dead...

we're just waiting for the next big thing...

... I hear whispers that something of interest will be happening soon.

BOA tonight!

You KNOW we ll be there! 

Here are the details:

7pm - CBY A707

It s the last one!!!!!

A few thoughts

I'm tired of talking about this, and I'm sure you have all been keeping up on the other blogs and La Rotonde with regards to the SAC decision. So, I'm going to talk about a few other things.

Regardless of what side I was on, or the ruling by the SAC, what really upset me during the past few weeks was the actions taken by the SFUO, the SFUO-elect, and the supporters of either side of the appeal.

First, the original SAC "hearing", where the incoming executive walked out on their students, our president failed to take action to maintain any semblance of order, and members of the BOA (representatives of the student body) sunk so low as to make signs accusing the appellants of being racists & chanting insults. The response by some students was to throw paper at the chanters and make insulting signs in response, effectively reducing the hearing to something out of a 3rd grade classroom. The culmination of this mockery of a meeting was when Protection was finally called and the hearing was adjourned.

Second, the BOA where the Chair decided that, despite the fact that more than 1/3 of the Directors abstained from voting, a motion presented by Dean Haldenby regarding the procedures of the appeal was passed based on "advice" from the SFUO's lawyer. This was followed by a burning of the constitution and the start of a petition to impeach the executive.

Third, the clusterfuck of blogs, letters, facebook statuses, videos, and emails that ripped through our campus over the past month and a half, personally attacking certain individuals and ruining a multitude of relationships/friendships.

Fourth, the hearing on Saturday, where members of the incoming executive badgered, attacked the character of, and outright demanded to know why the appellants and their witnesses felt they could question them & their alleged participation in a slate. This hearing where, our incoming VP Social (a bilingual position, might I add), refused a request by one of the appellants to speak English. A hearing where it was made incredibly difficult for interested students to watch/listen, since it was closed to the public, the "viewing room" was the lobby of a busy building with bad speakers, and there was no place to sit or even attempt to watch the 8-hour appeal comfortably.

In sum, I'm disappointed and tired. This year, I saw the campus divide and come together in ways I never would have dreamt possible. I truly hope that next year's SFUO executive puts their egos aside and "gets back to working for students". This appeal has shown that students can question the elections results, that they can get their voices heard if they have something to say.

Congratulations to the brave who stepped up and lasted throughout this lengthy process.
Congratulations to the executive-elect. I hope you learn from this, recognize that it did matter, and remember that you were once the students who were unhappy with the system. Despite our harsh criticisms, I truly hope that you will work next year to " regroup all undergraduate students of the University of Ottawa" and help all students (including those with differing political views) to "speak with one voice".

Finally, thank you to our readers who have followed us through this entire process.

SAC decision

surprise,surprise.

will write an actual post about this later.

this blogger has a life.

so im going out. there is music, dancing, and drinks to be had.


;)

Julie Séguin

Julien goes through the same questions for each candidate... so planned.

Julie talks about her conversation with Aminka. Admits she showed Aminka a picture on her laptop...apparently she has a lot of photos on her computer of Seamus. Claims she was trying to connect to the internet and taking a break, and was fucking around with a picture of Seamus (giving him earrings, pretty hair, etc)...wtf??

Claims that the picture she was editing couldn't have been used on his posters...and that Seamus' posters were printed the day before this convo with Aminka.

Tries to confuse everyone with photoshop terms. bahah.

Email to her volunteers:

IF someone else recommended people join a campaign, would you think that was wrong?
No.

(aka, claiming that soliciting people to work on a specific person's campaign is not against the rules)

Seriously. Watch the livefeed.

Dean singing: "Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends?"

10 minute recess.

This appeal is useless. It seems like everyone is lying...do the defendants have any actual proof that they weren't working as team???

And back to the buttons!!

JdB - did any of the defendants share info with you about buttons?

Sidney - No.

He wasn't in the loop...i think they had switched their support to Ted by the time buttons were being made.

Sydney Loko

Was a candidate for VP University Affairs.

JdB - did Rox or Seamus contact you to work with them?

Sydney - No. Not at all.

JdB - why do the appelants have that email?

Sydney - I asked them not to use it. It was confidential, but they decided that it was pertinent.

JdB - why do they have the emails between you and Rox?

Sydney - I gave the emails to them, but I didn't think it proved a slate. I told them I didn't want them to use the emails.

RPG x-examination

RPG - Did you help Sydney with his poster?

Rox - No. I gave him my advice on his poster.

RPG - In your opinion, that doesn't constitute helping him with his campaign?

Rox - No.

The end!

Rox - people often come to see us with questions, since campaigns can be complicated (Wasn't Wassim helping the candidates with all of that?)

JdB- did you make Sydney's poster?

Rox - no.

JdB - why did he send you an email with his poster attached?

Rox - Yes, but I just told him that his poster wasn't up to par, and I put him in contact with someone who does graphic design to fix it up.

JdB - And buttons,...did you have buttons? Where did you get them?

Rox - My volunteers did them. I wasn't around when they made them.

JdB - Did you tell any of your volunteers to support another cnadidate?

Rox - No


Julien mentions the voter turnout, AGAIN. Mentions the margin by which the candidate won, AGAIN. We get it.

back for a bit

but i have work to do! bah!

Roxanne examination

Vp Finance this year, elected for next.

JdB - Were you accused of working with other last year? Were you accused of breaking rules?

Rox - No.

JdB - This year, did you work with others?

Rox - No

JdB - What did you do in your campaign?

Rox - Banner, flyers, buttons, facebook groups, posters, videos, etc.

JdB - Did you do anything for any other candidates this year?

Rox - No, but there was a penalty against me because one of my volunteers sent a message to a friend instructing them to vote for me and Jean Guillaume

Rox discussing her meeting with Sydney Loko: it's normal for students to meet with exec members if they are thinking of running for a position.

Iain Brannigan

candidate for the BOA and offiicial rep for Seamus.

started recruiting volunteers for his campaign before the campaign period, and had meetings at the Royal Oak.

talking about his relationship with Lauren McPhee, their relationship ended pretty much when she recorded the testimony.

RPG: What do you mean, you were "in charge" of the volunteers?

ok, bloggers OUT for now!! Café Alt is booked.

"so therefore, the only conclusion according to your argument was that you are i were on a slate"- seamus speaking to renaud

RPG cross examines!

They are chirping at each other. I keep thinking it's going to turn into this.

Seamus!

JdB: Did you have organizational meetings before the election campaign?

Seamus: Absolutely. Meeting with other students to see what they want to see in the SFUO.

JdB: have you ever been accused of being a slate before this?

Seamus: No.

Mention of "BLOGGERS ROW".

Says that Iain took charge of making his buttons, using OPIRG's button maker

Julien probes Seamus into talking about a survey he wrote for Seamus' campaign.

JdB: Did you ever campaign when other candidates were around?

Seamus: Yes, and EVERYONE else who ran did so. someone wanted to use my class list (you mean, the one Wassim sent to everyone?) but I said no.

Seamus admits he met with Sydney Loko and mentioned that he should probably have a banner.

Seamus starts rattling on about the many trying things that one has to do in a campaign. boo hoo.

Dean: "I would just like to make a note that Richard Mah is more technically efficient than the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa"

Dean just came on the livefeed/chatroom.

Smiled until he saw the user with "deansux", then came on camera to ask who it was.
bahahaha.

20 minute recess!!

Amy Kishek

Can you explain your role in the campaign?

I was a candidate for the BOG. I was close friends and part of a group of students who would work together on various issues, specifically on the BoA. We collectively organized candidates for the next executive. The current exec, excluding Joël Larose, was involved. François actively organized a meeting for peopel interested in running for the exec. We were going to decide who should run for president to represent our group. Meeting at Cheevers' residence, i don't have evidence of it because I felt shady about it and covered my tracks. We kept it quiet.

When we went to his residence, Roxanne mentioned that they were uncomfortable discussing these things in front of Ted.
I had a conversation with Dean and Seamus at the CFS AGM after-party, I mentioned I was upset Seamus was running. Dean asked if he should run for a 3rd term.

Was told by Seamus, Roxanne, and Francois that they were not supporting Ted Horton for University Affairs (was deemed "not radical enough").

Mentions that the following were there: Francois, Cheevers, Julie, Rox, Iain, Seamus, Danika, not sure if Dean was there.

Feb 11 - Seamus told her he spent the day with JG in the UCU campaigning together. Saw JG after 7pm, and he mentioned the same thing.

Seamus interupts - this wasn't mentioned in the report. No new evidence is allowed to be presented
Maureen says that the report was a summary. Amy is elaborating.

Amy - I was wearing one of Ted's buttons in the UCU couch lounge. Julie mentioned she made it. She had asked Francois where she can make buttons, he said he had no idea where to get a button maker, yet 4 days later they all had buttons made. OPIRG button maker was broken, and Francois had mentioned

JdB cross examination:

JdB: You seem to have a lot of details for someone who claims not to have any evidence

Amy: Yea, I have a good memory. Someone was taking notes at the meeting.

JdB: I'm flabbergasted! You identify these things were going on in November. Why didn't you do anything? You obviously

Amy: To me, these meetings show intent.

JdB: Why didn't you report them during the campaign?

Amy: I didnt find out until late in the campaign. I was running a campaign by myself... I didn't sit around and chat about this. I was busy.

Seamus cross examination -

Seamus: So, you remember people at the meeting, but you forgot to mention Julien de Bellefeuille. Are you sure that those individuals you pointed out were there?

Amy: Yes. It was five months ago.

Seamus: Are intent and motive in the constitution?

Amy: No.

Seamus: You said that these conversations proved intent and motive. There is nothing against that in the constitution.

er....Seamus gets back up?

You yourself have no proof, you never witnessed any breaking of the rules.

RPG: Yes, I have proof. We gathered it after the campaign and it has been submitted to the SAC.

Seamus: I didn't ask after. I asked DURING.

RPG: During the campaign, no.


It doesn't matter if it came to light before OR after the campaign!!! Jeeeez.

more RPG

cross examination

JdB: First, I'd like to confirm - did you write some of the statement for the witnesses?

RPG: They told me what to write, my fingers were on the keyboard

JdB: In the first document, you are basically asking for the election results to be reversed...

Seamus is saying something...

Arbitrators are talking....

RPG; it was a recommendation, it's obviously up to the arbitrators.

JdB: You thought it was fair for oyu to take the position straight up. Why the change of heart?

Arbitrator: It was an option that was brought up.



HERE IS COMES!!! SEAMUS IS CROSS-EXAMINING HIM!

Seamus: Where did you get your buttons made?
RPG: Merriam
Seamus: it's been alleged that you and maureen made your buttons together
RPG: no, not at all.
Seamus: It would be my word against yours
RPG: no, that would be a fabrication. (YES RPG!!!)

...Seamus sits back down

RPG testimony!

RPG: I was a candidate for presidency in the election, I used to be super close to Sydney Loko. We had meetings once we decided we had enough evidence for the case that was at hand. Sydney mentioned that Roxanne had orginally approached him, she sent him emails offering him help. He brought chips to the meeting. hahah.

He asked for his testimony to be withdawn, but the arbitrators would not allow it.

Maureen: How do you respond to people saying that you or we coerced people into giving us this testimony?

RPG: I couldn't coerce a little girl to do anything....

Maureen: DO you have any other evidence about the candidates participating in a slate?

RPG: mentions Ted Horton

Seamus interupts: There was no evidence submitted by Ted Horton

Arbitrator: No, but he was mentionned in the evidence regarding the button maker...(arbitrators are chatting now)

Aminka, you are full of sass. We like it.

Aminka Belvitt

Being examined by Maureen

Aminka was first a candidate for the BoA, Social Sciences...was successful.
Telehpone conversation, Guillaume told her he met with Francois Picard and they told him that they would like to work with him and that he should run for the executive.

Originally was supposed to run for University Affairs, then Seamus said he should run for Social.

Jean trusted her, she trusted him. Was an employee for Seamus and trusted him, also was in his Presidential video. Had a pleasant relationship with Julie.

Saw Jean Guillaume tell voters to vote for two of the candidates
Saw Julie's computer open, with photoshop running and

JdB: did you write your own statement?
Aminka: yes.
JdB: You were a volunteer for seamus?
AAminkaL no, i was just in his video. i didn't sign a volunteer form, he never asked me to.
JdB: But, you stated that yu were in the video
Aminka: Yes.
JdB: You calim that before and during the campaign ,you noticed that he didn't follow rules.
Aminka: I saw an image from his posters on Julie's laptop.
JdB: Why did you remain one of his volunteers for his video instead of reporting him?
Aminka: It was filmed on Super Sunday, was told OPIRG button maker was broken

Julie is cross examining

Julie: Can you describe exactly what you saw?
Aminka: Looked like Photoshop or Illustrator or something, open with a poster with Seamus, you explained how you altered his eyes and his skin. You said -
Julie: Was there ever text around the image?
Aminka: No, but it was the image used on his poster.
Julie: Did you know the poster was printed the day before you saw that screen?

Jean Guillaume cross examining

Aminka: You told me you were going to go for Social. You told me they approached you to run for University Affairs, you told me they offered you their help
JG: YES or NO QUESTIONS. When we spoke, what language were we speaking?
Aminka: English
JG During the phone convo, yousaid i gave you my credit card number...was it a 3 way or a 2 way convo?
Aminka: the 3rd time i called you, there was a third person on the phone.

...what does that have to do with anything???

Seamus: When you said you saw Jean and I in the caf, was there anyone else?
Aminka: When I was there, there were no other canidates

Arbitrator asks Seamus to stop yelling. bahaha

15 minute recess. Pizza party!

JdB cross examination

JdB: Did you participate in any volunteer meetings or banner parties for Wolfe's campaign
Lauren: Recognized faces, don't know all the names
JdB: What was your relationship with Iain?
Maureen interupts: what is the relevance??
JdB: It's a character witness!!!
Arbitrator: be careful
JdB: Do you find it suspicious that the only allegations is in direct reference a person you recently broke up with?



Sham-y is up!

Seamus: You mentioned you helped me...you mentioned they were all registered volunteers. Did I ever say anything to you about helping another candidate. I never asked you to help out Jean Guillaume...I never asked you to help Roxanne
Lauren: There was no need. You're all in the same clique
Seamus: I personally never spoke to you or asked you to help any other candidate

This isn't examining....this is arguing.

THE PIZZA IS HERE!

Lauren McPhee is up next!

Arbitrators asking people to keep things civil, in the case that past relationships come up.

Lauren - was a volunteer for Seamus Wolfe, made buttons for Roxanne, Julie, and Seamus.

they are basically going over what Lauren talked about in her video

Lauren - the button maker came from CUSA! It was not wonky or hard to use...doesn't believe it was the same button maker described by Miatta, Wassim, Sylvia, or by the OPIRG committee. Was present in the house, and helped make buttons for all of these candidates.


Bloggers note: focusing too much on the buttons!

Testimony from Peter Harrin

Feb 12, 2009: Witnessed Jean Guillaume advising a student how to vote, pointing out their platforms on the e-vote on the voter's laptop

btw, loving DickNN right now

Arbitratror - stop refering to the "First Appeal", since this is technically the first one.

Jean Guillaume leaned over the student's laptop and pointed out names and said "This is who you should vote for".

JdB cross-examination:

JdB - This didn't strike you as strange?
Peter - I didn't know
JdB - Coudln't Jean Guillaume simply have been informing the student?
Peter - Uhm, i don't think so
JdB - Now, you must have an idea of what's right and what's wrong...Even if you didn't know the you must have know that this was wrong...
Peter - I found it strange...
JdB - uhm....er.....do you have any other proof??


Seamus cross-examination

Seamus - why didn't you mention this in your first testimony? Did that slip your mind? Do a lot of things slip your mind? Interesting...

Seamus is cross examining Chaput!!!! Two cross examinations?! wtf?

Seamus - did you see any other rules during the campaign... Were you in a team with Cameron Montgomery?

Chaput - there was one classroom presentation that we ended up doing at the same time, but we were not in a team

Seamus - Do you have any sort of PROOF? Tape recorder?

Chaout - er....no (seriously....who walks around with a tape recorder....)


I'm pretty sure Seamus thinks he just destroyed Chaput...

Alex is being examined by RPG right now. He is talking about the conversation he, Cameron Montgomery, and Seamus had in the UCU, where Seamus allegedly said that JG was working with him and that they were both going to win.

Cross-examination

I think Julien has been watching Law & Order all week to prepare for this.

Julien asks if he was surround by the "gang of bloggers"....says it would be arrogant for seamus to talk like that in front of ALL THE BLOGGERS.

seriously...do they think we are superheroes? we cannot be everywhere at once. eff.

Another relocation

Dean heard we were having a hard time hearing in the lobby, and proceeded to come out and snap at one of the bloggers, saying that they couldn't stop the appeal now just because we can't follow.

So...we've moved to Café Alt. We have it streaming on the TV here. There will be pizza soon.

Examination of the Appellants witnesses

Miatta Gorvie is the first witness

- was a candidate in the 2009 elections
- was a member of STAND, made buttons earlier this year using the OPIRG button maker - apparently very hard to use ("wonky" was the word).
- took about 2 minutes to make a button...
- saw a candidate's (Iain Brannigan) nice button....it was common knowledge that the OPIRG button maker was broken


Julien: the company says that it takes 1 minute to make buttons...you say two
Miatta: well...obviously the company isn't going to say that their product is a piece of shit.

bahahah

Live stream

You can watch live from inside the sac hearing here, chat here.

SAC asks if Julien de Bellefeuille is representing the defendants - they weren't informed that he would be representing them

JdB is noted as a representative of the defendants.


Roxanne:
-Starts by saying that she won by a large margin, with the help of her volunteers....submitted all of her receipts
-Reversing the results of the elections is not an effective solution
-Maureen has no witnesses, which makes her think that her motivations are only political
-Her emails with Sydney were from before the campaign, and says that there is nothing wrong with helping others and giving them council before the campaign
-Appelants evidence is weak! bah!

Julie:
- Was only registered candidate for VP Comm this year
- Says that her probabilities of winning were very high, and so it doesn't make sense for her to have worked within a slate
- Evidence does not prove that Julie participated in a slate
- Understands and respects that every student has the right to appeal the results of an election

Jean Guillaume
- talks about people wanting change....
- "it is with honour and respect that he accepted the decision of the students in the elections"
- Actions called for
- Certain individuals who are "

Seamus
- "although politics can sometimes be dirty, i did my best to run a clean campaign"
- claims that throughout the campaign, none of the defendants were penalized
- calls their claims "at best false, and at worse, SLANDER!" omg!
- says that Cameron Montgomery and Alex Chaput's claims about his conversation in the UCU is ridiculous, since bloggers are EVERYWHERE! They would have blogged about it!
- OPIRG has a button maker that's open for use for everyone! My volunteers made my buttons at Iain's house with it! (....er....)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your future president!

Another relocation

This is incredibly frustrating. We can't hear anything.
Why the hell would they decide to stream this in the LOBBY of a building? The mics are horrible and there is way too much background noise for us to understand what is going on.

Not impressed.

Opening Remarks

We can't hear Renaud! Technology fail!

Stand closer to the mike!

Sydney Loko's email is admissable evidence.

Hearing is starting!

Apparently the room is divided:

julien, iain brannigan, myriam, francois, cheevers, a few others i don't really know, federico (until guillaume chirped him), and danika are on one side, with people for the appellants on the other.

The schedule:

Opening remarks (3 minutes from each the appellants, then 3 minutes from each of the defendants)
Examination of the appelant's witnesses
Cross examination by the defendants (10 min per witness)
Examination of defendants witnesses
Cross examination of by the appelants
Closing remarks (5 minutes per appellant, 5 min per defendant)
Closing remarks from SAC

Relocation!

The bloggers now have a sweet setup on the 2nd floor. Fauteux is such a fancy place.

Getting ready

We are in the lobby of Fauteux. There are no power outlets for our laptops, and we are unsure if there will be sound on the video stream. AH!

SAC Hearing

We came across a memo from the SFUO, regarding the SAC hearing that is happening tomorrow.

The details!

1) Happening at 1pm
2) Taking place in FTX 146
3) Being transmitted in the lobby of the building (we suspect this is part of a plot to make bloggers as uncomfortable as possible).

The people who are allowed in the room for the hearing:

1. All directors of the Federation, including the executive of the Federation (so...any members of the BOA)
2. The executive-elect of the Federation (...Michèle & Ted)
3. The chairperson of the Board of Administration of the Federation (Federico)
4. All parties involved in the contest of the elections (RPG, Maureen, Alex, Seamus, Julie, Rox, and Jean Guillaume)
5. Counsel of all parties involved, pursuant to section 8.7.1 of the constitution of the Federation;
6. Any witnesses called to the hearing by the parties involved in the contest of the elections (Aminka, Amy Kishek, any other withness)
7. Two staff members from “The Fulcrum”;
8. Two staff members from “La Rotonde”.

Note the fact that bloggers AREN'T allowed in. Not fair.
Whatever. We'll just order pizza and waft it in the room's general direction.
Suckaz.

omg impeachment!

lawlz.

that is all.

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)