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.
No comments:
Post a Comment