BOA!

Looks like it will have to go to the BOA - you know WE ll be there...

stay in touch.

Caroline just came back in, Renaud turned off his computer after she spoke with him.

Appeal has been adjourned so the defendants can have time to sort through the evidence brought against them, and an appeal can be brought forward by the defendants to the BOA.

Well. I guess this makes sense now.

There is a heated discussion going on between some students at the back of the room. They are getting more and more intense in their arguments.
Wowie.

3rd grade...

If you thought you left bullying behind in elementary school, guess what? the phenomenon is alive and well.

intimidation tactics, peer pressure, chanting, name calling, general disrespect and disdain...

gong show indeed, except it s not funny.

------

Is funny: "at least i showed up to my hearing. and WON." - Austin's new sign.

RPG is maintaining his calm, still standing at the podium waiting to speak, despite all this.

Love it.

Dean has walked out.
Cheevers tells Amy Kishek to calm down (this, from the guy who is screaming and yelling about how this is 'a kangaroo court'?)

Yelling "C'est Fini".

Someone insults Austin. Someone has yelled "Bitch". Calling the SAC and RPG "losers".

Caroline Poisson is calling Protection.

Crazy protesters! shutting this bitch down?

Chant: 'RPG! C'est Fini!'

inteeeeeense. RPG is waiting to speak. Which would finally kick this thing off. Hopefully, the chief arbitrator will call protection as she threatened.

New chant: "Shut it down!"

The audience is not far away from fisticuffs. Renaud stands smugly at the front of the room, waiting. As are the rest of us: waiting.....

.......................................................................

Caroline Poisson attempts to continue again. She threatens to call protection if the meeting gets interrupted again.

Reads the constitution:

"Slates
4.7.1
No candidate for a position on the executive or the Board of Administration may form a slate with one or more other candidates running for positions on the executive or the Board of Administration. To that effect, no candidate may:
a. spend money together with one or more other candidates; or
b. participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates."

I have never, never seen such a show of immaturity and disrespect on the part of students. Completely disgusted.

Adressing concerns:

1) Arbitrators: Parties have the ability to influence composition of the panel. One arbitrator was disqualified because of a conflict of interest. They only have three people.

2) Defendants have yet to show any prejudice

3) Dates: evidence was given in in the 10 days - if there was fraud, it doesn't matter if it was submitted within the 10 days. ALL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMISSABLE.

A 'representative' is sitting up front, and keeps interupting the arbitrator.

Cheevers keeps yelling "kangaroo court". Some people from the defendant's camp have come back into the room and started cheering. The "representative" gets kicked out.

SAC ruling on the walkout:

Carrying on with the arbitration process.

Can be appealed to the BOA if the defendants to choose.

Allegations of fraud: ridiculous and false.

It is true that the parties have the power to influence the panel - only have 4 arbitrators and need 3 for this committee. One was disqualified by conflict of interest, so there is no flexibility on the population of the committee.

There WAS a missed deadline, but all proof should be admissible unless there is good reason not to (cited canadian law). The new evidence does have value, and needs to be included.

Need to evaluate credibility of fraud allegations re: Ted's testimony.

** the crowd could be described as 'unruly'

Carrying on with the appeal.

YES.

Marc Kelly is dangerously close to the podium, and chatting with a volunteer from Zoom who was videotaping everything. I suspect he may begin a speech.

OH NOES.

WTFROFLBBQ!!!

UNEXPECTED!

Dean is grinning from ear to ear.

Defendants are leaving.

Cheers and from the Seamus camp.

This was even more ridiculous than I expected.

There goes the SFUO, walking out on their own students.

Hey Seamus -

Robbing the students of their vote? What about their right to appeal?

The entire lineup of defendants are giving statements, bringing up section 8.6.1.4 , stating that they were not given the chance to select the makeup of the SAC, that there have been irregularities in the handing-in of evidence after the deadline.

I find this convenient. Refuse to take part in the appeal, don't face your mistakes?


8.6.1.4
All parties involved in the dispute shall choose one of the following options in selecting the Arbitration Committee:
i) each party shall select one arbitrator to be a member of the Arbitration committee. The chosen arbitrators will then appoint a third arbitrator to the committee. Should the number of arbitrators appointed to the committee be of an even number, the Arbitration Committee shall appoint an extra arbitrator.
ii) The Chief Arbitrator and Arbitration Committee will select the appropriate uneven number of arbitrators for

Defending Opening Statement

Roxanne:

"I refuse to move forward with this arbitration."

Julie:

"I have not participated in any other campaigns but my own."

JG (definitely has the most support in the room - which is interesting as he was the least known on campus prior to this election):

thinks the rules were changed, cites constitution, thinks this appeal should be tossed.

ze Wolfe (worked up and yelling as per usual):

more constitutional citation - "arbitrators backtracked on their own process." "corrupt and unjust process."

(first drinking game reference: Ted-gate.)

General message: They do not believe in the process today - believe justice will not be served. They believe the rules were not followed.

They are literally walking out!!! Invited the media outside! This blogger is not taking the bait.

Arbitrator: will reconvene in 5 minutes.

but, WILL WE?!?

General explanation of process

Opening Remarks:

The point is to give the SAC a roadmap of your arguments and general plan of procedure.

3 minutes per named parties - can use your own minutes or can pool your time.

Maureen lobbies for Alex's minutes to be pooled with hers and RPG's. They will get their 9 minutes.

There is a witness chair, and the person questioning must stand at a podium to address the witness.

Parties may reject questions from either the examination or cross-examination, as can the SAC itself.

Procedure for the appeal

- Opening remarks from each side (a road map!
-Witness will be called, will be examined, then the opposing party will get to cross-examine them
- Closing remarks (tying everything together!)

-Parties can object to questions during examination
-SAC can object too

- Maureen asks if they can get the minutes for opening/closing for Alex, who isn't here (he's at Les Jeux de la Comm)
- Someone interupts the arbitrator who is explaining the procedures (RUDE!)
- Caroline reminds everyone to be respectful, and that the SAC will kick people out if they are causing a scene.

Tension is high.

After a revealing show of support from most of the crowd (we remain, as always, unbiased - *cough...) for the en masse entrance of the in-so-far elected candidates, the room has just quieted right down - clearly, we all think it is starting, since people at the front of the room are moving around with serious faces. We get a smattering of nervous laughter or chatter every so often, but it seems to be settling down.

Steeves has arrived. He walked in as it quieted, and now the chatter is high again as the crowd realizes there will still be some time before we start. Things are being set up, though, and we are definitely going to get going really soon. Roll call would turn up quite the who's who of our student political scene.

Silence has been called for. Tension time. The arbitrator, Caroline Poisson, is definitely quite nervous. The proceedings will be generally conducted in French. so bear with me...

And awaaaay we go.

SFUO exec enters

Half the room starts cheering.

Enter Steeves, upstage center.

Just discovered the bluetooth on one of our phones

So here is a view of one side of the room. It is super busy.








These signs are SO respectful (that's sarcasm, in case you didn't get it)

Don't you ever forget!

There are close to 150 people in here. This shit is real!

Homemade shirts, makeshift signs, bloggers galore.

15 minutes to go!

SAC Appeal

Well, it s finally here. The big day.

Can anyone say 'gong show'? It is already a madhouse in here.

They really should have chosen a bigger room - most of the seats are full already and it is barely 4pm. Not very encouraging of student interest and involvement. There is no apathy here, that s for sure. Everyone here seems to have already chosen a side. When you look around much of the crowd is pro-results, passing around and waving 'respect my vote,' 'random stat quotation,' and 'no to RPG, no to racism' signs.

Austin Menyasz has made up a quick and dirty 'respect my constitution' sign, but he is definitely part of the minority.

The proceedings do not allow audience participation - I wonder what the arbitrator will think of all the signage - does it count as participation? will all of these people be kicked out, allowing for a little oxygen circulation? we shall see...