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...]
Update
13 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Wait, the BOA (which voted >50% yes to break the rules) now voted >50% yes to keek breaking the rules?
I am shocked.
yeah excellent.
really angry and disgusted.
Do we get an justification?
The motion:
BIRT
Pursuant to the ruling of the Chair that was challenged and uphelp on March 13, 2009, the Board of Administration of the Federation confirms its agreement to support the Chair's ruling and use its powers under 3.1.4 of the Constitution to ratify the ruling of the CHair to exempt a portion of the provisions of by-law 3.1.10.8.8 and allow the vote to go forward regarding the "2009 Election Appeal".
Pursuant to the BOA of the Federations powers under 3.1.4 of the constitution, the BOA of the Federation shall notify the SAC of the Federation that the Chair's ruling is not subject to arbitration pursuant to by-law 8.2.4. Any such decision will be disregarded."
Also, do we get SAC names?
Thanks @girl4.
Rachel:
No, last time technically they only needed 1/3+1 to break the rules (since you need 2/3 to challenge the chair).
However, the BOA shouldn't be able to PREVENT an appeal from going to the SAC. (And there was one appeal of Federico's decision.) Certainly not with 50%+1.
Dean still thinks that 3.1.4 gives the BOA power to violate the constitution, apparently...
Arbitrator names??
David Davis (Droit civil)
Michèle Nadeau (Gestion)
Ali Abd Elrahman (Sciences sociales)
Charles-Antoine Gosselin (Gestion) Chris Shculles (Common Law)
ps. when do we find out about the iPods?!
Post a Comment