I have now moved over the the new blog: http://blog.kj360.ca/
It is still in the development stages, but the blog is active and I have already started to post there.
This blog will no longer be updated. Please update your blogrolls and feeds!
Thank you for reading!
Ken
Hearing date and time!
The hearing for the election contest will be transmitted on April 4, 2009 at 1PM in the lobby of Fauteux at the University of Ottawa.
Because the lobby is such a good place for it. I guess its B.Y.O.C.?
Because the lobby is such a good place for it. I guess its B.Y.O.C.?
And so it begins
Before the preliminary hearing, Renaud Garner sent a letter to the SAC arbiters, available here.
My favourite part?
We can ensure the members of the SAC that we will respect the process. We will not bring signs to the hearing, nor will we yell insults at the arbitrators or any of the witnesses or parties. We will not bring signs to the hearing, nor will we yell insults at the arbitrators or any of the witnesses or parties. We will not cause a circus by walking out of any hearing nor shall we play games with the process. We will not cause a circus by walking out of any hearing nor shall we play games with the process.
Again, this should be interesting. Mr. Garner brings up valid points, and does so knowing that he (and the other Plaintiffs) are at a disadvantage. It was brought up at a BOA meeting, what would happen if the Plaintiffs decided not to consent to the SAC, and anyone who seriously asks that questions does not think before they speak. If the Plaintiffs refuse to submit to the SAC then there is no case before it. So there one point for the accused.
Three of the accused we present for the discussion and ratifying of the 5 new arbiters. Non of the Plaintiffs were. Another point for the accused.
Two of the interviewers are accused of having direct ties and involvement with the accused. Two out of the three. Another point for the accused.
Three of the accused are being paid to work on their defense. Or at least have not proven that they aren't. Paid by us. Another point for the accused.
I'm sure there are plenty more points to be tabulated. But so far its 4-0. But my friends, truth is a wild card. Like the Joker in Asshole.
My favourite part?
We can ensure the members of the SAC that we will respect the process. We will not bring signs to the hearing, nor will we yell insults at the arbitrators or any of the witnesses or parties. We will not bring signs to the hearing, nor will we yell insults at the arbitrators or any of the witnesses or parties. We will not cause a circus by walking out of any hearing nor shall we play games with the process. We will not cause a circus by walking out of any hearing nor shall we play games with the process.
Again, this should be interesting. Mr. Garner brings up valid points, and does so knowing that he (and the other Plaintiffs) are at a disadvantage. It was brought up at a BOA meeting, what would happen if the Plaintiffs decided not to consent to the SAC, and anyone who seriously asks that questions does not think before they speak. If the Plaintiffs refuse to submit to the SAC then there is no case before it. So there one point for the accused.
Three of the accused we present for the discussion and ratifying of the 5 new arbiters. Non of the Plaintiffs were. Another point for the accused.
Two of the interviewers are accused of having direct ties and involvement with the accused. Two out of the three. Another point for the accused.
Three of the accused are being paid to work on their defense. Or at least have not proven that they aren't. Paid by us. Another point for the accused.
I'm sure there are plenty more points to be tabulated. But so far its 4-0. But my friends, truth is a wild card. Like the Joker in Asshole.
A test of the system
The preliminary hearing for the election appeal is happening tonight. This is a very important test for the SAC arbitors, to see how impartial they are, to see how well they can handle themselves in the "media" spotlight.
iPod Battle Photos!
I took a bunch of pictures last night:
http://www.kj360.ca/photos/iPodBattlethethird/
Some are better than others lol.
http://www.kj360.ca/photos/iPodBattlethethird/
Some are better than others lol.
An upcoming change
So I will be leaving blogspot. But do not fret, I will be moving on to bigger(?) and better(?) things.
I splurged and got my own domain: http://www.kj360.ca and my own host and there will still be a blog: http://blog.kj360.ca.
This will allow me to have more dynamic content (like photo albums and easily embedded movies). And a little more freedom with the site.
Right now its not much, as I haven't had a chance to really work on it. But I expect to have something substantial up within the next week!
Thanks as always,
Ken
I splurged and got my own domain: http://www.kj360.ca and my own host and there will still be a blog: http://blog.kj360.ca.
This will allow me to have more dynamic content (like photo albums and easily embedded movies). And a little more freedom with the site.
Right now its not much, as I haven't had a chance to really work on it. But I expect to have something substantial up within the next week!
Thanks as always,
Ken
PIDSSA Results and Crazy Nights
Last night was a tad busy, there was no blogging during the night...
President: Amalia Savva
VP External: Kyle Simonovic (Acclaimed)
VP Finance: Peter Flynn (Acclaimed)
VP Francophone Affairs: Brandon Clim (Acclaimed) A large amount of no votes, I do not remember exact figures but I recall in the area of 1/3
VP Social Franco: Tristan Denommee
VP Social Anglo: Amanda Marochko By a freaking landslide!
VP Academic DVM: Ethan Plato
VP Academic PAP: James Johnston He won 5-4
VP Academic EIL: Patrick Ciaschi
VP Academic POL: Greg Smith
So the PIDSSA Provincial elections are over. We have a new exec. It should be interesting to see how it all plays out. Their first big test is getting 101 week organized, so acquiring guides and events, and all that fun stuff.
While that was going on, Arts was hosting their 3rd and final iPod Battle, with proceeds going towards Relay for Life. I have quite a few good pictures that will go up later, for those interested.
President: Amalia Savva
VP External: Kyle Simonovic (Acclaimed)
VP Finance: Peter Flynn (Acclaimed)
VP Francophone Affairs: Brandon Clim (Acclaimed) A large amount of no votes, I do not remember exact figures but I recall in the area of 1/3
VP Social Franco: Tristan Denommee
VP Social Anglo: Amanda Marochko By a freaking landslide!
VP Academic DVM: Ethan Plato
VP Academic PAP: James Johnston He won 5-4
VP Academic EIL: Patrick Ciaschi
VP Academic POL: Greg Smith
So the PIDSSA Provincial elections are over. We have a new exec. It should be interesting to see how it all plays out. Their first big test is getting 101 week organized, so acquiring guides and events, and all that fun stuff.
While that was going on, Arts was hosting their 3rd and final iPod Battle, with proceeds going towards Relay for Life. I have quite a few good pictures that will go up later, for those interested.
Commie Debates
So the fun part of the Conservative AGM is through, so I walked across Morriset Terrace to UCU205 to the Communications Students Association debate.
I arrived late, and I'm not a member so I am just a happy observer.
There's a happy little press section here. Fancy-Dancy
And they seem to love the bear.
Contested Positions
VP Social
Feria Kazemi vs Maggie Mulroney (if she's related to Brian she's got my vote!)
One of the Social candidates asked the other one why her campaign sucked (no classroom presentations, or posters and junk) and if that would continue that way if she become social. She came back with a good answer, about how that wasn't true.
They also love hypothetical questions about stuff getting screwed up and what you would do lol. And then finding out the hypothetical situations actually happened.
I just discovered: http://twittervision.com/ and I cannot look away
President
Logan Ouellette vs Enoch Kwok
Logan thanked the student media! woot!
It seems like two different spins on campaigning, Logan seems to want to continue the good stuff while Enoch wants to rebuild (complaints about failed events).
There were a lot more people at the PIDSSA debates, but then again PIDSSA is much larger :).
Enoch questions Logan's leadership experience, but he comes back with a suitable reply with his experience, even though he hasn't been on an official executive.
Logan asks what Enoch means by "getting back to basics". He talks about treating his volunteers right.
Accessibility is a huge buzz word here. It would make an awesome drinking game!
But on a serious note, apparently CSA had an amazing 101 weeks in regards to accessibility, they said it was the only "fully accessible" 101 week.
Another mention of the student media and how to handle strong criticism, as the representative of the Student Association. We sure can be rough though, it would take a thick skin, or just not making flagrant and idiotic mistakes. I mean, we're all nice people. :)
Q) A domestic policy question, role with the Exec.
Logan: fostering a cohesive team. Not being a dictator, giving everyone a valid voice on the exec.
Enoch: it's a leadership job. The exec have voices and different voices so there will be disagreements and they must be handled professionally. A tad bit of a potty mouth.
Q) Joel gives himself a shoutout indirectly, asks about how CSA execs usually go on to bigger things, and what is the candidates end goal? This position or something bigger.
Enoch: Next year is his final year, so he has no aspiration beyond this job.
Logan: This is not his "end-goal" but he does not have another position in mind. He hearts communication.
Q) How would you use your 1st year rep?
Logan: duh, get them to get 1st year students!
Enoch: That's what they do now and they are still losing 101ers after the week is over! More More More. Says something about getting out there and shaking babies . . . (he meant shaking hands! lol)
I arrived late, and I'm not a member so I am just a happy observer.
There's a happy little press section here. Fancy-Dancy
And they seem to love the bear.
Contested Positions
VP Social
Feria Kazemi vs Maggie Mulroney (if she's related to Brian she's got my vote!)
One of the Social candidates asked the other one why her campaign sucked (no classroom presentations, or posters and junk) and if that would continue that way if she become social. She came back with a good answer, about how that wasn't true.
They also love hypothetical questions about stuff getting screwed up and what you would do lol. And then finding out the hypothetical situations actually happened.
I just discovered: http://twittervision.com/ and I cannot look away
President
Logan Ouellette vs Enoch Kwok
Logan thanked the student media! woot!
It seems like two different spins on campaigning, Logan seems to want to continue the good stuff while Enoch wants to rebuild (complaints about failed events).
There were a lot more people at the PIDSSA debates, but then again PIDSSA is much larger :).
Enoch questions Logan's leadership experience, but he comes back with a suitable reply with his experience, even though he hasn't been on an official executive.
Logan asks what Enoch means by "getting back to basics". He talks about treating his volunteers right.
Accessibility is a huge buzz word here. It would make an awesome drinking game!
But on a serious note, apparently CSA had an amazing 101 weeks in regards to accessibility, they said it was the only "fully accessible" 101 week.
Another mention of the student media and how to handle strong criticism, as the representative of the Student Association. We sure can be rough though, it would take a thick skin, or just not making flagrant and idiotic mistakes. I mean, we're all nice people. :)
Q) A domestic policy question, role with the Exec.
Logan: fostering a cohesive team. Not being a dictator, giving everyone a valid voice on the exec.
Enoch: it's a leadership job. The exec have voices and different voices so there will be disagreements and they must be handled professionally. A tad bit of a potty mouth.
Q) Joel gives himself a shoutout indirectly, asks about how CSA execs usually go on to bigger things, and what is the candidates end goal? This position or something bigger.
Enoch: Next year is his final year, so he has no aspiration beyond this job.
Logan: This is not his "end-goal" but he does not have another position in mind. He hearts communication.
Q) How would you use your 1st year rep?
Logan: duh, get them to get 1st year students!
Enoch: That's what they do now and they are still losing 101ers after the week is over! More More More. Says something about getting out there and shaking babies . . . (he meant shaking hands! lol)
uOttawa Conservative Campus Club AGM
The elections for next years' executive is happening tonight. Since BOAVoice and iBlogSFUO are covering the CSA debates, I felt it was in good hands, so I decided to come to this!
Most of the Positions are acclaimed, except for two:
VP Admin: Matthew Stancek vs Alexia Forrester
Results:
Alexia Forrester 32
Matthew Stancek 21
Jesus 1
Mike Maleszyk 1
President: Laura McLennan (current VP Social) vs Jeff English (Current VP Activism)
Results:
Laura McLennan 30
Jeff English 28
Blank 1
edit: immediately following the Election, Jeff is nominated for the vacant VP External and is acclaimed.
Most of the Positions are acclaimed, except for two:
VP Admin: Matthew Stancek vs Alexia Forrester
Results:
Alexia Forrester 32
Matthew Stancek 21
Jesus 1
Mike Maleszyk 1
President: Laura McLennan (current VP Social) vs Jeff English (Current VP Activism)
Results:
Laura McLennan 30
Jeff English 28
Blank 1
edit: immediately following the Election, Jeff is nominated for the vacant VP External and is acclaimed.
PIDSSA Endorsement
Only because he asked, here is my only PIDSSA endorsement:
I mean, he's better than no one!
All kidding aside. Vote for Peter Flynn! He will do a stand up job and be available to PIDSSA members when they need em.
So Many posts today . .
I stumbled upon the Executive blogs. I think the blogosphere declaration of blog fail convinced the exec to actually update their blogs. Each has 1 post for the month of January and 1 post for the month of February. Although they are little more than Executive Updates. I mean, I don't think Seamus Wolfe rewrote his BOA update, since his post is filled with acronyms I don't know and he uses: "as a reminder to the Board" and "As you are aware".
But Dean Haldenby does say this: "Stay tuned as I will be launching a video blog updates in the next couple of weeks for our students to view on our website."
But Dean Haldenby does say this: "Stay tuned as I will be launching a video blog updates in the next couple of weeks for our students to view on our website."
Mr. Haldenby strikes again
Amy Kishek has this story on here blog. But instead of reiterating points I have made throughout my tenure this year, I am going to talk about something I think we need to implement. Two things really.
1. ATI: Access to Information
The SFUO is us. I know, it's shocking to think of it like that. Imagine with me if you will, a time before the SFUO or any kind of students' association. Then imagine the talk and excitement over forming one, one that cared about what they did, and one with the proper intentions. Through our levies we fund our federation. The salaries of the executives, the office supplies they use, the printers and computers they work on, the blackberries they have, the under-attended event they throw, the huge sums of money they spend on stuff few people actually care about, that's OUR money. So Mr. Haldenby, while SFUO President, gets to use the president@sfuo.ca e-mail account. So to do all the executive members. I think that any member of the federation should be able to go to the office and be able to request copies of e-mails pertaining to a specific topic. They would then be screened and any information that is legitimately confidential (info pertaining to a non-employee or representative of the Federation) be blacked out. For example, any e-mails between Dean Haldenby and the Chair of the BOA should open to ATI requests. I am not asking for access to Dean.Haldenby@gmail or something. I am asking for access to his work account, that he presumably uses when he is at work, being paid, by us.
This should also pertain to budgets. Itemized budgets. Not just a ballpark per department. But what each executive member gets paid, what other staff get paid, what they spend our money on. What each individual campaign cost, stuff like that. And it should be available on the website. If there is an issue with privacy, then make arrangements with the University and have it placed inside the InfoWeb section of the University site, or something like that. You want to know what I get paid? Go to the Treasury Board website. Its all public.
2. In-Camera Meeting Ombudsmen
This type of thing has been popping up in recent years, including at the City of Ottawa. It's all about accountability. So if it is felt that the BOA went in-camera for improper reasons, there can be an official complaint made.
1. ATI: Access to Information
The SFUO is us. I know, it's shocking to think of it like that. Imagine with me if you will, a time before the SFUO or any kind of students' association. Then imagine the talk and excitement over forming one, one that cared about what they did, and one with the proper intentions. Through our levies we fund our federation. The salaries of the executives, the office supplies they use, the printers and computers they work on, the blackberries they have, the under-attended event they throw, the huge sums of money they spend on stuff few people actually care about, that's OUR money. So Mr. Haldenby, while SFUO President, gets to use the president@sfuo.ca e-mail account. So to do all the executive members. I think that any member of the federation should be able to go to the office and be able to request copies of e-mails pertaining to a specific topic. They would then be screened and any information that is legitimately confidential (info pertaining to a non-employee or representative of the Federation) be blacked out. For example, any e-mails between Dean Haldenby and the Chair of the BOA should open to ATI requests. I am not asking for access to Dean.Haldenby@gmail or something. I am asking for access to his work account, that he presumably uses when he is at work, being paid, by us.
This should also pertain to budgets. Itemized budgets. Not just a ballpark per department. But what each executive member gets paid, what other staff get paid, what they spend our money on. What each individual campaign cost, stuff like that. And it should be available on the website. If there is an issue with privacy, then make arrangements with the University and have it placed inside the InfoWeb section of the University site, or something like that. You want to know what I get paid? Go to the Treasury Board website. Its all public.
2. In-Camera Meeting Ombudsmen
This type of thing has been popping up in recent years, including at the City of Ottawa. It's all about accountability. So if it is felt that the BOA went in-camera for improper reasons, there can be an official complaint made.
Ivory Antenna March 25, 2009
The lovely Emma Godmere openned up her show for the CHUO funding drive, $5 for 5 minutes!
1) Renaud-Phillippe Garner: Complaining about people who ask stupid questions in class who don't read their "damn" text. People who leave at Christmas break but never come back, wtf happens to them? Compared Residences to Barracks --> plugs the 24 hour library. And more "bloody" books in the library: John Lockes book that so many people have to read, yet we only have 2 copies(??). I had to read it and took it out :). Yay! He talks about my old chapters idea. Some talk about a new Rousseau book. He said bloody and damn alot.
2) ME!: I couldn't make it in, so I arranged to have a song put on, Alexi Murdoch's All My Days. For those interested :).
3) Caroline Lester: Centre for Equity and Human Rights, my feed cut out right in the middle of my song, and it only came back after she had begun. Diversity and Accessibility on Campus Seminar. Working with the unseen discrimination: the discrimination most people don't know about.
Intermission) Dave Aardvark, programming manager at CHUO: please donate. We need $40K by April 1st. Plug the Friends of CHUO card for $20.
4) Farrah Issa: Talk about the peer help centre. Open house tomorrow in the terminus. 10-3. The 7 main things the the PHC does for students.
5&6) Logan Oullette (CSA) & Amalia Savva (PIDSSA) : Candidates for Federated Body Presidencies. CSA Debates tonight, PIDSSA polls are open. A bit of campaigning, background why they each are running, reaching out to students-at-large. A good set.
And this is where I got super busy and had to stop listening.
Maureen Hasinoff wrapped up the show as I got back.
1) Renaud-Phillippe Garner: Complaining about people who ask stupid questions in class who don't read their "damn" text. People who leave at Christmas break but never come back, wtf happens to them? Compared Residences to Barracks --> plugs the 24 hour library. And more "bloody" books in the library: John Lockes book that so many people have to read, yet we only have 2 copies(??). I had to read it and took it out :). Yay! He talks about my old chapters idea. Some talk about a new Rousseau book. He said bloody and damn alot.
2) ME!: I couldn't make it in, so I arranged to have a song put on, Alexi Murdoch's All My Days. For those interested :).
3) Caroline Lester: Centre for Equity and Human Rights, my feed cut out right in the middle of my song, and it only came back after she had begun. Diversity and Accessibility on Campus Seminar. Working with the unseen discrimination: the discrimination most people don't know about.
Intermission) Dave Aardvark, programming manager at CHUO: please donate. We need $40K by April 1st. Plug the Friends of CHUO card for $20.
4) Farrah Issa: Talk about the peer help centre. Open house tomorrow in the terminus. 10-3. The 7 main things the the PHC does for students.
5&6) Logan Oullette (CSA) & Amalia Savva (PIDSSA) : Candidates for Federated Body Presidencies. CSA Debates tonight, PIDSSA polls are open. A bit of campaigning, background why they each are running, reaching out to students-at-large. A good set.
And this is where I got super busy and had to stop listening.
Maureen Hasinoff wrapped up the show as I got back.
To slate or not to slate?
A lot of talk has gone on about whether or not we should remove the prohibition of slates during SFUO election campaigns. I would like to say that I am very much against this kind of move. (at least not without some kind of serious research into the reasoning behind the implementation in the first place)
Here's the deal, we have 30 000+ students at our school, and a handful or two of "Federally" involved students (at the Fed level). Then there is another group of students who I would called "provincially" involved (federated body level). Now there is obviously some overlap, but clearly, there are some students who are involved in one and not the other. I also would contend that sitting on BOA for your faculty is a grey area, just to make everything more complicated. (It's all because of our weird system of having the executive sit on the legislature yet be elected as an executive, thus it is not an Primus inter pares type situation as the Canadian Parliament, but an awkward bastardization of such . . . but on to the business at hand.
What happens if someone new wishes to get elected? And better yet, what if they have new ideas that don't mesh well with the established crew? Well, you would say that slates are not mandatory and they can run independently, but come on, let's be honest, working as a slate gives you such an advantage, not only can you share money and resources (from volunteers to posters) you can mention your entire slate and give and get endorsements from every other member of the slate. If you work alone you get none of that. You also have to pay for everything yourself.
Another question is who would pick the slate members? If you ever want to compare slates to political parties, then you must reconcile the fact that riding associations choose the candidates (mostly) and the conventions choose the leader (again, mostly). Would we have such mechanisms? Or would it just be the leader of the slate determining who will be his/her VP Finance?
If we had a legitimate governance, I would expect this subject to be a first semester referendum next year, in which case I would urge a no vote.
No slates.
Here's the deal, we have 30 000+ students at our school, and a handful or two of "Federally" involved students (at the Fed level). Then there is another group of students who I would called "provincially" involved (federated body level). Now there is obviously some overlap, but clearly, there are some students who are involved in one and not the other. I also would contend that sitting on BOA for your faculty is a grey area, just to make everything more complicated. (It's all because of our weird system of having the executive sit on the legislature yet be elected as an executive, thus it is not an Primus inter pares type situation as the Canadian Parliament, but an awkward bastardization of such . . . but on to the business at hand.
What happens if someone new wishes to get elected? And better yet, what if they have new ideas that don't mesh well with the established crew? Well, you would say that slates are not mandatory and they can run independently, but come on, let's be honest, working as a slate gives you such an advantage, not only can you share money and resources (from volunteers to posters) you can mention your entire slate and give and get endorsements from every other member of the slate. If you work alone you get none of that. You also have to pay for everything yourself.
Another question is who would pick the slate members? If you ever want to compare slates to political parties, then you must reconcile the fact that riding associations choose the candidates (mostly) and the conventions choose the leader (again, mostly). Would we have such mechanisms? Or would it just be the leader of the slate determining who will be his/her VP Finance?
If we had a legitimate governance, I would expect this subject to be a first semester referendum next year, in which case I would urge a no vote.
No slates.
PIDSSA Debates, Post #4
This is not exciting, nor informative. The structure needs to change. I'm going home. Sorry folks.
PIDSSA Debates, Post #3
Jesse Root, Travis Reagant, Cliff Hansen, and Greg Smith: VP Academic (POL)
Finally one I can vote it, but there are so many people it is bound to be boring.
Cliff: he has dreadlocks. Sense of community. Talking about the GA, how they couldn't make quorum. I went once, it sucked. Getting more political science speakers . . . I heard this all before, Faris ran on this platform last year, nothing happened.
Jesse: rambled. Too bad, it seems like he had some good ideas.
Greg: connect people with their peers and community. Build the experience. PIDSSA is a community of people in the same program. Peer-reviewed undergraduates journal.
Travis: a lot of rhethoric, some fluff, a lot of complaints against the faculty. Too much swearing for my liking.
This is uber-boring
I will be voting for Greg.
Finally one I can vote it, but there are so many people it is bound to be boring.
Cliff: he has dreadlocks. Sense of community. Talking about the GA, how they couldn't make quorum. I went once, it sucked. Getting more political science speakers . . . I heard this all before, Faris ran on this platform last year, nothing happened.
Jesse: rambled. Too bad, it seems like he had some good ideas.
Greg: connect people with their peers and community. Build the experience. PIDSSA is a community of people in the same program. Peer-reviewed undergraduates journal.
Travis: a lot of rhethoric, some fluff, a lot of complaints against the faculty. Too much swearing for my liking.
This is uber-boring
I will be voting for Greg.
PIDSSA Debates, Post #2
Christine Belley vs Patrick Ciaschi: VP Academic (EIL)
I had to look up what EIL was, that's how much I know about it. And I can' t vote, so if anything sticks out I'll let you know.
Patrick has a passion for politics . . . and languages.
Christine said something about embassies.
Patrick said EIL is the best program . . . it doesn't even had co-op. Bring back PSSA.
Samantha Dale vs James Johnston: VP Academic Affairs (PAP)
Another one I can't vote in.
Samantha has a lot of ideas I do not agree with. Like increasing the capacity of required courses . . . that is something that goes beyond the scope of PIDSSA, ie. there are only so many rooms available. And having Professors putting all their lectures up on Virtual Campus, cry me a river. I have 3 of 4 Professors who don't use PowerPoint. It's up to them if they want to use VC to put up the lectures. And putting more copies of the books on reserve at the Library. Those aren't free. Will PIDSSA be paying for them?
James wants and increased dialogue between this position and the students and between PIDSSA and the faculty. Nothing that I don't totally disagree with, likely because he make too many statements.
James asks Samantha how she plans on implementing all of her ideas. She is underestimating how big these idea are, she keeps saying they are small things, but they are not.
I had to look up what EIL was, that's how much I know about it. And I can' t vote, so if anything sticks out I'll let you know.
Patrick has a passion for politics . . . and languages.
Christine said something about embassies.
Patrick said EIL is the best program . . . it doesn't even had co-op. Bring back PSSA.
Samantha Dale vs James Johnston: VP Academic Affairs (PAP)
Another one I can't vote in.
Samantha has a lot of ideas I do not agree with. Like increasing the capacity of required courses . . . that is something that goes beyond the scope of PIDSSA, ie. there are only so many rooms available. And having Professors putting all their lectures up on Virtual Campus, cry me a river. I have 3 of 4 Professors who don't use PowerPoint. It's up to them if they want to use VC to put up the lectures. And putting more copies of the books on reserve at the Library. Those aren't free. Will PIDSSA be paying for them?
James wants and increased dialogue between this position and the students and between PIDSSA and the faculty. Nothing that I don't totally disagree with, likely because he make too many statements.
James asks Samantha how she plans on implementing all of her ideas. She is underestimating how big these idea are, she keeps saying they are small things, but they are not.
PIDSSA Debates, Post #1
Brandom Clim: running unapposed for VP Francophone Affairs
Peter Flynn: running unapposed for VP Finance
Kyle Simonovic: running unapposed for VP External Affairs
Kevin Ng vs Ethan Plato: VP Academic Affairs (DVM)
Kevin wants to gets syllabuses and exam schedules earlier
Ethan wants an e-mail list for only DVM students
The question of what kind of academic events would you plan, wtf lol. We already have a bunch of awesome academic events planned by the school, just take a look at those.
There is a lot of talk about the English requirements for DVM students.
How does DVM fit into PIDSSA? I will try not to let my disdain for DVM seep though my commentary, so I won't be saying anything.
Peter Flynn: running unapposed for VP Finance
Kyle Simonovic: running unapposed for VP External Affairs
Kevin Ng vs Ethan Plato: VP Academic Affairs (DVM)
Kevin wants to gets syllabuses and exam schedules earlier
Ethan wants an e-mail list for only DVM students
The question of what kind of academic events would you plan, wtf lol. We already have a bunch of awesome academic events planned by the school, just take a look at those.
There is a lot of talk about the English requirements for DVM students.
How does DVM fit into PIDSSA? I will try not to let my disdain for DVM seep though my commentary, so I won't be saying anything.
It's easier to hear an appeal now . . .
I recorded pretty much all the debate on this motion, I will post it later tonight. I put away the camera now, since it wasn't feeding live.
I heard a bunch of very interesting statements during the debate:
-Seamus Wolfe needs to read his constitution
-Many people in support of the motion said they would support a motion to raise the amount of directors to overturn an appeal to 4/5 if it were tabled, we will see about that
-Remember that if they BOA decides to overturn a decision, it is FINAL.
-There was a lot of talk about making mistakes and how the SAC could. Well that is why there is this appeal to the BOA ability. If the SAC made a mistake, then it should not matter if it is 2/3 or 4/5, since if they actually made a mistake, all of the BOA should be on board . . . except if they let their politics gets involved.
-Apparently the motion was introduced before the election. Regardless of that, I agree with Cameron Montgomery to table it until the next meeting (after the hearing). But she voted in favour of it anyway?
More later.
I heard a bunch of very interesting statements during the debate:
-Seamus Wolfe needs to read his constitution
-Many people in support of the motion said they would support a motion to raise the amount of directors to overturn an appeal to 4/5 if it were tabled, we will see about that
-Remember that if they BOA decides to overturn a decision, it is FINAL.
-There was a lot of talk about making mistakes and how the SAC could. Well that is why there is this appeal to the BOA ability. If the SAC made a mistake, then it should not matter if it is 2/3 or 4/5, since if they actually made a mistake, all of the BOA should be on board . . . except if they let their politics gets involved.
-Apparently the motion was introduced before the election. Regardless of that, I agree with Cameron Montgomery to table it until the next meeting (after the hearing). But she voted in favour of it anyway?
More later.
Feed not active :(
Hey folks,
There was issues with the wireless connection at RGN . . . . We all have access, but its not powerful enough to stream. Sorry bout that.
Ken
There was issues with the wireless connection at RGN . . . . We all have access, but its not powerful enough to stream. Sorry bout that.
Ken
BOA Today & Movie Review?
Two things in this post!
A quick reminder of the BOA Meeting today. It's in RGN2029 and it starts at 1:00PM. If RGN is too far or you would rather get cozy at home watching some NCAA basketball (GO VILLANOVA), the live feed should be active again this week.
Last night with the youth group we had a movie night. I wandered around Blockbuster and grabbed a couple of flicks I hadn't seen. We ended up watching a movie they had labelled a Hidden Gem: "The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas". All I can saw was it was intense. It was one of those movies where you knew what was going to happen at the end but there was nothing that you could do about it, and you hear your fellow watchers say "NO, NO, NO!". It was a good movie, since it drew you into the story and even though you could figure out what was going to happen next, you always hoped it would go different, and it was like reverse suspense I guess.
A quick reminder of the BOA Meeting today. It's in RGN2029 and it starts at 1:00PM. If RGN is too far or you would rather get cozy at home watching some NCAA basketball (GO VILLANOVA), the live feed should be active again this week.
Last night with the youth group we had a movie night. I wandered around Blockbuster and grabbed a couple of flicks I hadn't seen. We ended up watching a movie they had labelled a Hidden Gem: "The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas". All I can saw was it was intense. It was one of those movies where you knew what was going to happen at the end but there was nothing that you could do about it, and you hear your fellow watchers say "NO, NO, NO!". It was a good movie, since it drew you into the story and even though you could figure out what was going to happen next, you always hoped it would go different, and it was like reverse suspense I guess.
George Galloway denied entry into Canada
This story broke today, that he was going to be denied entry. He is supposed to do a speaking tour that includes Ottawa. You can read about him here.
My only comment on this is that it pains me to see the media, and more importantly the comments people provide on the articles, be so short-sighted. Immediately they claim that Canada has lost its Freedom of Speech and its all because of the Conservative government.
Well, when you look closely, you will see that he was denied by the CBSA because he openly supports Hamas, including financially. Since Hamas is a designated terrorist organizations, their supporters are usually denied entry. The only place the Tories come in are when the Immigration Minister refused to override the decision of the independent agency.
He can still saw what he wants (providing it doesn't violate hate crime laws), he just can't physically enter our country.
My only comment on this is that it pains me to see the media, and more importantly the comments people provide on the articles, be so short-sighted. Immediately they claim that Canada has lost its Freedom of Speech and its all because of the Conservative government.
Well, when you look closely, you will see that he was denied by the CBSA because he openly supports Hamas, including financially. Since Hamas is a designated terrorist organizations, their supporters are usually denied entry. The only place the Tories come in are when the Immigration Minister refused to override the decision of the independent agency.
He can still saw what he wants (providing it doesn't violate hate crime laws), he just can't physically enter our country.
uOttawa Campus Conservatives?
There exists on our campus a secret society. A group of students who conspire to act out their political beliefs. They want to be able to tell people what they believe . . . but I digress . . .
Last night they hosted their executive debates for the two contested positions. I remember when I was a member of the former club, back in 2001, we just appointed people, and apparently, this is the first year they are going to have to vote.
I am not an official member of the club, I am 'small c' conservative. [I identify as a pragmatist or sometimes as progressive (small 'p').] I think it is important for politically minded people to get involved in politically minded activities. While I disagree on a number of major issues with the ideology of the Conservative Party of Canada, I can find common ground with members of the party and clubs on numerous other facets of political life. The same goes for the other political clubs and associations on campus, whether they be Liberal or NDP.
Last night they hosted their executive debates for the two contested positions. I remember when I was a member of the former club, back in 2001, we just appointed people, and apparently, this is the first year they are going to have to vote.
I am not an official member of the club, I am 'small c' conservative. [I identify as a pragmatist or sometimes as progressive (small 'p').] I think it is important for politically minded people to get involved in politically minded activities. While I disagree on a number of major issues with the ideology of the Conservative Party of Canada, I can find common ground with members of the party and clubs on numerous other facets of political life. The same goes for the other political clubs and associations on campus, whether they be Liberal or NDP.
A response
I rarely do this and would prefer not to, but I feel I should respond to comments made on Amy Kishek's blog made by someone with the Screen Name “The Pirate”. But really, this can give an insight into where I am coming from, and why I do this.
It was on her post comparing the events of our current crisis to the actions of Hugo Chavez. The Pirate took offense to this, and also called me out for making fun of Mr. Haldenby for being short. I believe they are referring to my post "Napoleon Complex".
I will say, that the post in question was meant to be humourous, and I meant it to be separate from the other posts, comic relief, or a dénouement if you will. I also don't see it as making fun of Mr. Haldenby's height. Here's the deal, Mr. Haldenby is shorter than average, and what I saw on Friday was nothing less than an abuse of power. So read the article!"
"Napoleon complex is a colloquial term describing an alleged type of inferiority complex which is said to affect some people who are physically short. The term is also used more generally to describe people who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other aspects of their lives."
It's supposed to be funny, get over yourself.
"Does that mean I can start calling you Bill O'Reilly?" fyi: on more than one occasion I have called myself the Fox News of uOttawa blogs, publically and on CHUO no less. I would likely take it as a compliment.
But by far my biggest issue with your criticism is the hypocrisy you allow, and in fact advocate for.
Here's the deal. They people may only be "students", they may be young, and this may not be a national crisis. Anyone who doesn't care what the SFUO does and is against anyone calling them out and would rather not get involved in anyway because they think that the SFUO doesn't matter because we are only young people and nothing like a national crisis could happen, they can send me $72 a semester. Seriously, I'll take it and do a terrible job! And remember, I'm only a student, and this isn't a national crisis!
Face it, we are adults. These people who are trying to be our elected representatives do so by their own volition, and get PAID for it. It is a full-time job for a year. Like it or not, our University is a "nation" (A nation is a cultural and social community). Next time we decide to go to the University administration demanding to be heard, I think they should respond with "It's that [you're] just young people". How about when we request to meet with a Provincial Minister of Education? "It's that [you're] just young people". We cannot in one breath claim to be old enough, mature enough, and developed enough to be ends in ourselves, and in the next breath blame all of our mistakes on our youth, immaturity, and underdevelopment.
Oh, and you are being pretty mean spirited in your comments urging people to not be mean spririted but rather be critical. And I suppose you make the same sort of complaints about every single newspaper and television news station, since compared to them, we are overly nice.
A final point, you don't like what I write? Don't read it! I don't get paid for this and you don't pay a cent for this. There's a reason I don't have a counter here, I don't care how many people read this. I am pleased that people are reading, and most people enjoy the commentary, even if they don't always agree with it. But I do not do it to increase readership, I do it since I felt there were not many critical voices in the fray. There were many blogs during the campaign that did an excellent job giving a play-by-play or providing behind-the-scenes news, but I saw a shortage of traditional political commentary.
Oh, and before I forget, one of your comments intrigued me: "But whatever. Not like I can change anything. Free speech blah blah blah." We should get together, I've been looking to start an authoritarian themed political club on campus, and was looking for like-minded people. (That's only supposed to be a half-jab, since I do lean towards less positive liberty in the spectrum of rights, but it's hard to find people who completely agree with me in that regard).
See, I can be "critical". :)
It was on her post comparing the events of our current crisis to the actions of Hugo Chavez. The Pirate took offense to this, and also called me out for making fun of Mr. Haldenby for being short. I believe they are referring to my post "Napoleon Complex".
I will say, that the post in question was meant to be humourous, and I meant it to be separate from the other posts, comic relief, or a dénouement if you will. I also don't see it as making fun of Mr. Haldenby's height. Here's the deal, Mr. Haldenby is shorter than average, and what I saw on Friday was nothing less than an abuse of power. So read the article!"
"Napoleon complex is a colloquial term describing an alleged type of inferiority complex which is said to affect some people who are physically short. The term is also used more generally to describe people who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other aspects of their lives."
It's supposed to be funny, get over yourself.
"Does that mean I can start calling you Bill O'Reilly?" fyi: on more than one occasion I have called myself the Fox News of uOttawa blogs, publically and on CHUO no less. I would likely take it as a compliment.
But by far my biggest issue with your criticism is the hypocrisy you allow, and in fact advocate for.
Here's the deal. They people may only be "students", they may be young, and this may not be a national crisis. Anyone who doesn't care what the SFUO does and is against anyone calling them out and would rather not get involved in anyway because they think that the SFUO doesn't matter because we are only young people and nothing like a national crisis could happen, they can send me $72 a semester. Seriously, I'll take it and do a terrible job! And remember, I'm only a student, and this isn't a national crisis!
Face it, we are adults. These people who are trying to be our elected representatives do so by their own volition, and get PAID for it. It is a full-time job for a year. Like it or not, our University is a "nation" (A nation is a cultural and social community). Next time we decide to go to the University administration demanding to be heard, I think they should respond with "It's that [you're] just young people". How about when we request to meet with a Provincial Minister of Education? "It's that [you're] just young people". We cannot in one breath claim to be old enough, mature enough, and developed enough to be ends in ourselves, and in the next breath blame all of our mistakes on our youth, immaturity, and underdevelopment.
Oh, and you are being pretty mean spirited in your comments urging people to not be mean spririted but rather be critical. And I suppose you make the same sort of complaints about every single newspaper and television news station, since compared to them, we are overly nice.
A final point, you don't like what I write? Don't read it! I don't get paid for this and you don't pay a cent for this. There's a reason I don't have a counter here, I don't care how many people read this. I am pleased that people are reading, and most people enjoy the commentary, even if they don't always agree with it. But I do not do it to increase readership, I do it since I felt there were not many critical voices in the fray. There were many blogs during the campaign that did an excellent job giving a play-by-play or providing behind-the-scenes news, but I saw a shortage of traditional political commentary.
Oh, and before I forget, one of your comments intrigued me: "But whatever. Not like I can change anything. Free speech blah blah blah." We should get together, I've been looking to start an authoritarian themed political club on campus, and was looking for like-minded people. (That's only supposed to be a half-jab, since I do lean towards less positive liberty in the spectrum of rights, but it's hard to find people who completely agree with me in that regard).
See, I can be "critical". :)
Letter to Dean Haldenby
March 17, 2009
Dean Haldenby, President
Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
Jock Turcot University Centre
07-85 University Private
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Fax: (613) 562-5969
Dear Mr. Haldenby:
FRUSTRATION. DISAPPOINTMENT. MELANCHOLY.
These are the three words to display the emotions I felt on March 13 as I was sitting in attendance at the Board of Administration (BOA) special meeting. What I witnessed was our leader, our president, flagrantly disregard the SFUO Constitution.
What I witnessed was our student federation, which claims to hold the values of dignity, equity, human rights, and positive space become besmirched by the inappropriate and unacceptable actions of some of its leaders.
What I witnessed at that BOA meeting can only be described as gross negligence to uphold the values and principles that the SFUO claims to have. Your true colours as the President of this federation, and who you support have been made unequivocally clear Mr. Haldenby.
I write this letter to convey my utter disappointment with you and your executive. I have lost faith in the SFUO’s ability to govern.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Joly
Social Science
Dean Haldenby, President
Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
Jock Turcot University Centre
07-85 University Private
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Fax: (613) 562-5969
Dear Mr. Haldenby:
FRUSTRATION. DISAPPOINTMENT. MELANCHOLY.
These are the three words to display the emotions I felt on March 13 as I was sitting in attendance at the Board of Administration (BOA) special meeting. What I witnessed was our leader, our president, flagrantly disregard the SFUO Constitution.
What I witnessed was our student federation, which claims to hold the values of dignity, equity, human rights, and positive space become besmirched by the inappropriate and unacceptable actions of some of its leaders.
What I witnessed at that BOA meeting can only be described as gross negligence to uphold the values and principles that the SFUO claims to have. Your true colours as the President of this federation, and who you support have been made unequivocally clear Mr. Haldenby.
I write this letter to convey my utter disappointment with you and your executive. I have lost faith in the SFUO’s ability to govern.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Joly
Social Science
BOA Meeting: Sunday, March 22, 2009
I am very anxious to see how this is going to go down. And for all you interested parties, I plan on web-casting this meeting like I did the last. I figured out how to put the feed directly onto this page, its a special gadget here on blogspot, so if you can't find it at http://www.justin.tv/kj360 you can just come here and find the video.
As well, there is an archive of my videos. Its a tad tricky to navigate, but the whole meeting is there. I also created a few clips so far.
From what I understand, next meeting should be very interesting:
As well, there is an archive of my videos. Its a tad tricky to navigate, but the whole meeting is there. I also created a few clips so far.
From what I understand, next meeting should be very interesting:
- The motion to reduce the amount of Directors it takes to overturn an SAC decision (in total) is ready for it's second reading and final vote. Jeremy Stuart wrote a letter about this (it's entitled "Shape up!")
- They will be ratifying 5 new people to the Student Arbitration Committee.
- And any possibly impeachment petition would be presented
If those aren't enough to get you to tune in, I don't know what will!
Standing up for the rights
I am pleasantly surprised that we already have a complaint filed with the SAC over the behaviour of the Chair of the BOA at last nights meeting. I talked about it in my last post, but if you want to see it: http://vimeo.com/3648408 (this is Zoom's, not mine).
The official submission can be found here. http://larotonde.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cae-demande-abstention-gh-lyp.pdf. The only thing they overlooked (and it may be an issue in the translation) is that they say that the Chair of the BOA is not a member of the federation. This is not true, as the Constitution declares that the Chair is deemed a member of the federation for the duration of their term.
Overall I agree completely with this complaint, and you only need to read my previous post to see why. I would extend this to sanction both Mr. Haldenby and the Chair of the Board though. Since they pre-meditating this action.
The official submission can be found here. http://larotonde.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cae-demande-abstention-gh-lyp.pdf. The only thing they overlooked (and it may be an issue in the translation) is that they say that the Chair of the BOA is not a member of the federation. This is not true, as the Constitution declares that the Chair is deemed a member of the federation for the duration of their term.
Overall I agree completely with this complaint, and you only need to read my previous post to see why. I would extend this to sanction both Mr. Haldenby and the Chair of the Board though. Since they pre-meditating this action.
On Last Night's Meeting (including videos)
In this post, I will mostly contend with how the procedure of the Special BOA meeting was in violation of the principles of the SFUO and the SFUO Constitution. I discuss the content of Mr. Haldenby's motion later in the post.
Part I
For those of you who were not able to attend or watch the feed or follow the liveblogs, here’s a quick breakdown.
Dean proposed a motion:
The motion was debated for hours. It was voted on. More than 1/3 of the Directors abstained from voting. According to the first half of 3.1.10.8.8:
A vote is null and void if more than one-third (1/3) of the votes cast are abstentions. In such cases, debate on the motion is resumed.
Thus, they restarted debate and continued for another debate period. A second vote was subsequently called and again, more than 1/3 of the Directors abstained from voting. So according to the second half of 3.1.10.8.8:
When a second vote is taken, if one-third (1/3) of the votes cast are still abstentions, the motion is then returned for further study to its relevant committee and deferred for consideration to the next regular meeting of the Board of Administration.
But, to the shock of almost everyone in attendance, the Chair of the Board, one Federico Carvajal took it upon himself to declare the motion as passing unanimously regardless of 3.1.10.8.8. And remember folks, at more than one occasion during this meeting Mr. Carvajal’s intentions and impartiality was openly question by speakers.
From our SFUO Constitution:
3.1.10 Rules of Order
Subject to the by-laws, meeting of the Board of Administration shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised 10th Edition;
As far as I see, Robert’s Rules are silent on the matter of abstentions preventing motions from passing, so we MUST refer to the rules that we have set out for ourselves.
3.1.10.8 Votes
3.1.10.8.4
Questions put to a vote are decided by a simple majority of votes unless these by-laws provide otherwise. The number of abstentions is recorded in the minutes along with the results of the vote
Notice the word UNLESS. And remember 3.1.10.8.8 above. It IS black and white. It is clear and direct. There is absolutely no vagary in this section.
Part II
Apparently that section of the constitution meant to say: "unless it contradicts the will of the Chair of the Board and/or President of the Federation.
Since Section 47 of Robert's Rules states the following:
47. Votes that are Null and Void even if Unanimous.
No motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void. No rule that conflicts with a rule of a higher order is of any authority; thus, a by-law providing for the suspension by general consent of an article of the constitution would be null and void; so, the general parliamentary rule allowing a two-thirds vote to amend the by-laws after due notice, is only in force when the by-laws are silent on the subject . . . [it continues to discuss absentee ballots and elections]
Mr. Haldenby's motion is in clear conflict with the laws of our Federation as laid out by our Constitution.
8.6.3 Dispute
When a claim or recourse is sought from the Student Arbitration Committee:
8.6.3.1
A written notice must be presented to the Chief Arbitrator of Student Arbitration Committee. The notice sets out the relevant facts giving rise to the dispute. This notice must be served concurrently on the opposing party.
8.6.3.2
The hearing must take place within ten (10) working days following the presentation of the notice.
8.6.3.3
The decision of Student Arbitration Committee must be rendered within the next ten (10) working days after the last hearing.
Mr. Haldenby’s motion clearly states that the decision must be rendered within 10 days of the SAC member being ratified by the BOA, at their next meeting on March 22, 2009. The Constitutional section above (8.6.3) clearly demands more time than Mr. Haldenby’s motion provides, therefore his motion is out of order and should immediately be nullified.
I leave you with a few points:
At the outset of the meeting there was tension regarding the agenda. Some directors felt that Mr. Haldenby’s motion was in fact a new motion since is barely even resembling the motion he first submitted and that it was clearly not an amendment like he declared. (You can be the judge: Old and New) The Chair would have none of it, and sided with Mr. Haldenby. Then there was an amendment proposed to the Agenda that would see the order switch around, regarding the SAC Appeal on the agenda. And here is some surprise news:
So why would Mr. Wolfe suddenly withdraw his “secret” appeal?
I will give you a reason: He knew that no matter what he would get his way, because Mr. Haldenby and Mr. Carvajal told him so.
If you think that he withdrew it because Mr. Haldenby's motion took care of his appeal (and basically acted as an appeal for him), I would respond by reminding you that it is not logical, politically or strategically to put all your eggs in one basket. Wouldn't you, if you had the chance, get two shots at something as opposed to one? What would have happened if Mr. Haldenby's motion did not succeed? Then Mr. Wolfe would not have a leg to stand one anymore. Well folks: that did happen. Mr. Haldenby's motion did not succeed, however, in a move I can only describe as high-level corruption and collusion, the motion was deemed successful notwithstanding the Constitution.
This is no longer about the elections. This is about the SFUO's ability to govern.
Time for an impeachment. http://www.petitiononline.com/UO0309/
Napoleon Complex
Napoleon complex is a colloquial term describing an alleged type of inferiority complex which is said to affect some people who are physically short. The term is also used more generally to describe people who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other aspects of their lives. This term is also known as Napoleon syndrome,[1] Short Man syndrome,[2] and Small Man syndrome.
.........
At the moment I have no words that aren't incredibly offensive and insulting, although that might be what we need at the moment.
I hope people enjoyed the live-feed and I know there were some kinks in the hose, but I think for a first time things went well. If there is any feedback feel free to give me a shout. My uottawa e-mail is kjoly049.
I will be working on a post tomorrow that discusses tonight's travesty.
Tonight I leave you with this: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry
We lost something valuable tonight. A very dear friend of ours passed away. This was a friend who always worked hard to protect us, even when we did not know it, or cared. Tonight it was murdered.
We held an impromptu memorial service and cremation of the late SFUO Constitution.
I hope people enjoyed the live-feed and I know there were some kinks in the hose, but I think for a first time things went well. If there is any feedback feel free to give me a shout. My uottawa e-mail is kjoly049.
I will be working on a post tomorrow that discusses tonight's travesty.
Tonight I leave you with this: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry
We lost something valuable tonight. A very dear friend of ours passed away. This was a friend who always worked hard to protect us, even when we did not know it, or cared. Tonight it was murdered.
We held an impromptu memorial service and cremation of the late SFUO Constitution.
Backpedalling? Maybe not.
You know when you want something really big and you don't think you will get it. Like when you are young and there is something you really, really want but you don't think there is any chance of your parents getting it for you? Have you ever thought about asking for something a lot bigger and then when you ask for the thing you actually want it won't seem so huge? Or when you do something wrong and think you are going to get in trouble so you say you did something a lot worse than you actually did so the thing you did won't seem as bad?
It seems Mr. Haldenby has edited his motion. The italic parts are all his.
While his motion is slightly less infuriating than his last, there are some major issues.
For starters, he is still blatantly siding 100% with the accused parties. By dismissing sitting members of the SAC pool he is in violation of the ethics enatangled within our system.
Be it further resolved that due to the ongoing disputes amongst the parties, the Board of Administration of the Federation relieves the four (4) present members of the Student Arbitration Committee from hearing this case. The Student Arbitration Committee will proceed with the selection of three (3) new members to hear the case, in accordance with section 8.6.1.4 (i) of the constitution of the Federation after the remaining five (5) vacancies on the Student Arbitration Committee of the Federation have been filled.
I find this very ambiguous. For starters, does it mean that they are out of the SAC pool? It was my understanding that we have 3 people hear a case, so by saying that the 4 of them are relieved from hearing this case, I assume he means from the entire pool and they cannot be called by either party to hear this case. This would in fact be in violation of Section 8.6.1.4(i). And since the accused claim that their rights under this section were violated, I would expect and new motion accepted by them to uphold it to its fullest.
Be it further resolved that the Student Arbitration Committee panel hearings ensure a positive space, that they are video recorded for public distribution, that they are closed to the general public and that they are open to the following . . .
So when the uOttawa Senate gets disturbed and close their meetings the SFUO and the BOA gets up in arms and cries foul! But the SFUO is allowed to be in-transparent when they want I guess.
Be it further resolved that the decision will be rendered as soon as possible, and no later than ten (10) working days after the five (5) new arbitrators have been ratified by the Board of Administration of the Federation.
This is where Mr. Haldenby throws the Constitution out the window:
8.6.3 Dispute
When a claim or recourse is sought from the Student Arbitration Committee:
8.6.3.1
A written notice must be presented to the Chief Arbitrator of Student Arbitration Committee. The notice sets out the relevant facts giving rise to the dispute. This notice must be served concurrently on the opposing party.
8.6.3.2
The hearing must take place within ten (10) working days following the presentation of the notice.
8.6.3.3
The decision of Student Arbitration Committee must be rendered within the next ten (10) working days after the last hearing.
I still like my version better.
It seems Mr. Haldenby has edited his motion. The italic parts are all his.
While his motion is slightly less infuriating than his last, there are some major issues.
For starters, he is still blatantly siding 100% with the accused parties. By dismissing sitting members of the SAC pool he is in violation of the ethics enatangled within our system.
Be it further resolved that due to the ongoing disputes amongst the parties, the Board of Administration of the Federation relieves the four (4) present members of the Student Arbitration Committee from hearing this case. The Student Arbitration Committee will proceed with the selection of three (3) new members to hear the case, in accordance with section 8.6.1.4 (i) of the constitution of the Federation after the remaining five (5) vacancies on the Student Arbitration Committee of the Federation have been filled.
I find this very ambiguous. For starters, does it mean that they are out of the SAC pool? It was my understanding that we have 3 people hear a case, so by saying that the 4 of them are relieved from hearing this case, I assume he means from the entire pool and they cannot be called by either party to hear this case. This would in fact be in violation of Section 8.6.1.4(i). And since the accused claim that their rights under this section were violated, I would expect and new motion accepted by them to uphold it to its fullest.
Be it further resolved that the Student Arbitration Committee panel hearings ensure a positive space, that they are video recorded for public distribution, that they are closed to the general public and that they are open to the following . . .
So when the uOttawa Senate gets disturbed and close their meetings the SFUO and the BOA gets up in arms and cries foul! But the SFUO is allowed to be in-transparent when they want I guess.
Be it further resolved that the decision will be rendered as soon as possible, and no later than ten (10) working days after the five (5) new arbitrators have been ratified by the Board of Administration of the Federation.
This is where Mr. Haldenby throws the Constitution out the window:
8.6.3 Dispute
When a claim or recourse is sought from the Student Arbitration Committee:
8.6.3.1
A written notice must be presented to the Chief Arbitrator of Student Arbitration Committee. The notice sets out the relevant facts giving rise to the dispute. This notice must be served concurrently on the opposing party.
8.6.3.2
The hearing must take place within ten (10) working days following the presentation of the notice.
8.6.3.3
The decision of Student Arbitration Committee must be rendered within the next ten (10) working days after the last hearing.
I still like my version better.
What the motion should have read
It seems Mr. Haldenby does not read my blog, or if he does he decided not to take my advice. I guess distancing himself from the unfolding Slate-Gate was to easy for him and he decided to jump into the controversy head first. Accordingly, I may have to lower the grade I bestowed on Mr. Haldenby's term.
If I were submitting the motion on Friday here's a taste of what I have in mind:
Whereas the Student Arbitration Committee is the highest judicial body of the SFUO, pursuant to section 8.1.
Whereas the Constitution was written in order to protect the students of the University of Ottawa from abuses of power of the SFUO.
Whereas it is the duty of the Board of Administration to uphold the Constitution of the SFUO.
Be it resolved that the BOA accepts the report published by the SAC and agrees with their intent move forward with the hearing. From the report:
We conclude that an arbitration into disputed election results can occur when any member of the SFUO asserts that there was fraud or irregularities during the election campaign, regardless of whether the respondent candidates’ consent to the arbitration
Be it further resolved that it will be the duty of the SFUO and its subsidiary and federated bodies to ensure that the environment in which the hearing take place be one of positive space.
All signs, banners, placards or other props will be prohibited from the venue of the hearing. Any and all students participating in behaviour which threatens the principle of positive space will be removed from the room immediately.
Be it further resolved that this hearing take place within 10 days time and be in a venue large enough to accomodate all students who wish to attend.
If I were submitting the motion on Friday here's a taste of what I have in mind:
Whereas the Student Arbitration Committee is the highest judicial body of the SFUO, pursuant to section 8.1.
Whereas the Constitution was written in order to protect the students of the University of Ottawa from abuses of power of the SFUO.
Whereas it is the duty of the Board of Administration to uphold the Constitution of the SFUO.
Be it resolved that the BOA accepts the report published by the SAC and agrees with their intent move forward with the hearing. From the report:
We conclude that an arbitration into disputed election results can occur when any member of the SFUO asserts that there was fraud or irregularities during the election campaign, regardless of whether the respondent candidates’ consent to the arbitration
Be it further resolved that it will be the duty of the SFUO and its subsidiary and federated bodies to ensure that the environment in which the hearing take place be one of positive space.
All signs, banners, placards or other props will be prohibited from the venue of the hearing. Any and all students participating in behaviour which threatens the principle of positive space will be removed from the room immediately.
Be it further resolved that this hearing take place within 10 days time and be in a venue large enough to accomodate all students who wish to attend.
Thought two on the "Motion"
From a Political Bureaucracy point of view, this might also be a way to skirt the rules. Possibly.
The rules state that if the BOA wishes to overturn an SAC decision they need 2/3 of the vote to do so. However, according to what I have read in the student media, they are not calling what the SAC produced a decision. I guess because bringing it up will destroy all the remaining clout and integrity of the accused.
And from what I understand, since they are submitting a motion, they are not even planning on bringing up the SAC document. So they are instead taking the backdoor, by using a motion. All motions need two readings. Both readings can happen at the same meeting, but that would take 2/3's to pass that. If they go the two meeting methods they will only need 50%+1.
This attempt must be co-opted by the honourable members of the BOA.
And remember, you can follow along at http://www.justin.tv/kj360!
The rules state that if the BOA wishes to overturn an SAC decision they need 2/3 of the vote to do so. However, according to what I have read in the student media, they are not calling what the SAC produced a decision. I guess because bringing it up will destroy all the remaining clout and integrity of the accused.
And from what I understand, since they are submitting a motion, they are not even planning on bringing up the SAC document. So they are instead taking the backdoor, by using a motion. All motions need two readings. Both readings can happen at the same meeting, but that would take 2/3's to pass that. If they go the two meeting methods they will only need 50%+1.
This attempt must be co-opted by the honourable members of the BOA.
And remember, you can follow along at http://www.justin.tv/kj360!
Transparency? Not so much.
So according to the motion presented on http://sfuo09.blogspot.com/ there is trickery afoot.
I urge you to read it yourself, and to think critically about it.
I wonder who is actually presenting it, at the bottom it says: Motion presented by:Dean Haldenby, President of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
A few points to mention. While the BOA is the highest decision making body of the SFUO, that in no way shape or form limit the power of the SAC, which is the highest judiciary body of the SFUO.
In Canada we have a little thing called 'Parliamentary Supremacy". In short it means that since the Members of Parliament are elected, they are supreme over the courts (who are appointed). But I would not say that this diminishes the power of the supreme court, would you?
So I have two stories, one real and one hypothetical:
The current Canadian Elections Bureau complaint against the Conservative Party reaches full strength and the case is brought before the Supreme Court of Canada. At the hearing, Mr Stephen Harper stands up and declares that he will not submit to the authority of the Supreme Court and that the case should, and will be heard by the House of Commons instead, where he may or may not hold a majority.
A group of students accuse 4 other students of violating the rules set out in the constitution regarding election campaigns. The case goes before the supreme court of the SFUO, and at the hearing, the defendants stand up and declare that they will not submit to the authority of the institution and that the case instead should go before the BOA, where they may or may not have controlling interest (and may also get to vote for themselves).
If this Motion passes at Friday's meeting, our SFUO will no longer resemble a transparent organization.
The only thing that they didn't get wrong on this motion is the following:
Be it resolved that the Board of Administration of the Federation reorder a new hearing into the contest of Garner, Hasinoff, and Chaput v. Wolfe, Dubois, Séguin and Guillaume, presently before the Student Arbitration Committee.
Pretty much everything else is deplorable. For starters, they wash to dismiss the current sitting SAC and name a new one, from the BOA! I guess if they broke the constitution already, why not keep going, I mean, our rights as a student body don't mean much to the accused.
I was asked today about the apathetic majority. I responded, sure 73% of students didn't vote and could be called apathetic, but do they not deserve to be protected from tyrannical manoeuvres? 40% of Canadians did not vote in the last election, does that mean that the current Canadian government can do whatever they want because of it?
One of the stipulations for being a pool member of the SAC is that you are impartial (one of the 4 pool members recused himself). The motion requests that each side of the case select one BOA Director and that those two will select the third. I see no way for either side to select an impartial director to hear the case, so it will be up to the third person to decide the case.
Here is where they leave all forms of transparent dealings behind:
Be it further resolved that the panel hearings ensure a positive space, that they are video recorded for public distribution, that they are closed to the general public, and that they are open to the following:
(a) All directors of the Federation, including the executive of the Federation
(b) The chairperson of the board of administration of the Federation
(c) All parties involved in the contest of the elections
(d) Counsel of all parties involved, pursuant to 8.7.1 of the constitution of the Federation
(e) Any witnesses called to the hearing by the parties involved in the contest of the elections
(f) One staff member from “The Fulcrum”
(g) One staff member from “La Rotonde”
For one, each paper brought more than one staff member to the first hearing, and none of them were inciting the threats to "positive space". Perhaps instead of closing the meeting, it would be smarter to instead control the room! Mr Haldenby, since your name is one the bottom of the motion, if you truly stand by your letter and hold the truths of the 'SFUO' in high regard, you will not close the meeting all, but instead close it to those parties who were in fact threatening the positive space of other students. Perhaps by reviewing video tape and witnesses you will find out who was doing that, and maybe Mr. Cheevers will get the boot as well.
I urge you to read it yourself, and to think critically about it.
I wonder who is actually presenting it, at the bottom it says: Motion presented by:Dean Haldenby, President of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
A few points to mention. While the BOA is the highest decision making body of the SFUO, that in no way shape or form limit the power of the SAC, which is the highest judiciary body of the SFUO.
In Canada we have a little thing called 'Parliamentary Supremacy". In short it means that since the Members of Parliament are elected, they are supreme over the courts (who are appointed). But I would not say that this diminishes the power of the supreme court, would you?
So I have two stories, one real and one hypothetical:
The current Canadian Elections Bureau complaint against the Conservative Party reaches full strength and the case is brought before the Supreme Court of Canada. At the hearing, Mr Stephen Harper stands up and declares that he will not submit to the authority of the Supreme Court and that the case should, and will be heard by the House of Commons instead, where he may or may not hold a majority.
A group of students accuse 4 other students of violating the rules set out in the constitution regarding election campaigns. The case goes before the supreme court of the SFUO, and at the hearing, the defendants stand up and declare that they will not submit to the authority of the institution and that the case instead should go before the BOA, where they may or may not have controlling interest (and may also get to vote for themselves).
If this Motion passes at Friday's meeting, our SFUO will no longer resemble a transparent organization.
The only thing that they didn't get wrong on this motion is the following:
Be it resolved that the Board of Administration of the Federation reorder a new hearing into the contest of Garner, Hasinoff, and Chaput v. Wolfe, Dubois, Séguin and Guillaume, presently before the Student Arbitration Committee.
Pretty much everything else is deplorable. For starters, they wash to dismiss the current sitting SAC and name a new one, from the BOA! I guess if they broke the constitution already, why not keep going, I mean, our rights as a student body don't mean much to the accused.
I was asked today about the apathetic majority. I responded, sure 73% of students didn't vote and could be called apathetic, but do they not deserve to be protected from tyrannical manoeuvres? 40% of Canadians did not vote in the last election, does that mean that the current Canadian government can do whatever they want because of it?
One of the stipulations for being a pool member of the SAC is that you are impartial (one of the 4 pool members recused himself). The motion requests that each side of the case select one BOA Director and that those two will select the third. I see no way for either side to select an impartial director to hear the case, so it will be up to the third person to decide the case.
Here is where they leave all forms of transparent dealings behind:
Be it further resolved that the panel hearings ensure a positive space, that they are video recorded for public distribution, that they are closed to the general public, and that they are open to the following:
(a) All directors of the Federation, including the executive of the Federation
(b) The chairperson of the board of administration of the Federation
(c) All parties involved in the contest of the elections
(d) Counsel of all parties involved, pursuant to 8.7.1 of the constitution of the Federation
(e) Any witnesses called to the hearing by the parties involved in the contest of the elections
(f) One staff member from “The Fulcrum”
(g) One staff member from “La Rotonde”
For one, each paper brought more than one staff member to the first hearing, and none of them were inciting the threats to "positive space". Perhaps instead of closing the meeting, it would be smarter to instead control the room! Mr Haldenby, since your name is one the bottom of the motion, if you truly stand by your letter and hold the truths of the 'SFUO' in high regard, you will not close the meeting all, but instead close it to those parties who were in fact threatening the positive space of other students. Perhaps by reviewing video tape and witnesses you will find out who was doing that, and maybe Mr. Cheevers will get the boot as well.
So what goes good with LiveBlog?
Live WebCast maybe?
That's right, I am going to try and webcast the next BOA Meeting.
This Friday, 5PM EST. http://www.justin.tv/kj360
I e-mailed the chair a couple of days ago notifying him that I was planning to do this and I haven't heard anything back yet so . . . I'm gonna be there with the video camera and laptop, and hope it all works out.
So here's what you do, pop open the live feed, http://www.justin.tv/kj360, then open up BOAVoice and you can actually see what they are writing about!
That's right, I am going to try and webcast the next BOA Meeting.
This Friday, 5PM EST. http://www.justin.tv/kj360
I e-mailed the chair a couple of days ago notifying him that I was planning to do this and I haven't heard anything back yet so . . . I'm gonna be there with the video camera and laptop, and hope it all works out.
So here's what you do, pop open the live feed, http://www.justin.tv/kj360, then open up BOAVoice and you can actually see what they are writing about!
A look back on a Presidency
I will admit that I have been rough on dear ole Dean. However, what kind of pundit would I be if I wasn’t? More so than not, I just like poking fun at him, like saying, "Man, there are more people in here than voted for Dean!" Again, all in good fun! (for me)
But over the past few weeks I have been thinking back over the year as a whole and come to the conclusion that Mr. Haldenby did an 'okay' job.
While he has made some questionable moves and choices (the ATU comes to mind, perhaps even more clearly the CFS), I think that the way he holds himself in his written form, and his openness in that regard partially makes up for any perceived bumbling. If I had to give Mr. Haldenby a mark it would be in the C+/B range, which you may think is low, but compared to some of the other members on his executive, it's practically honour-roll.
This year has not been an easy one for students at uOttawa, it's been nothing but divisive. While Mr. Haldenby has been unable to rectify the situation, he has on many occasions tried to calm the storm. The relations between the SFUO President and the uOttawa President seem to be on the mend, with correspondence going both way respectfully (most of the time). I would think that he fit well into the role that we needed this year, since many of the projects were these backroom ongoing ones, such as the U-Pass and Student Space initiatives. As we move into the next and final steps of these projects though, the position of President will also change, that fact puts more credence into his performance this year. And it's not like people were running up to the office last year to run for President, Dean was there and committed.
As your Presidency enters its homestretch, I encourage you to get out and be seen, to control your executive, and demand respect from students in our institutions.
Thank you Mr. Haldenby.
But over the past few weeks I have been thinking back over the year as a whole and come to the conclusion that Mr. Haldenby did an 'okay' job.
While he has made some questionable moves and choices (the ATU comes to mind, perhaps even more clearly the CFS), I think that the way he holds himself in his written form, and his openness in that regard partially makes up for any perceived bumbling. If I had to give Mr. Haldenby a mark it would be in the C+/B range, which you may think is low, but compared to some of the other members on his executive, it's practically honour-roll.
This year has not been an easy one for students at uOttawa, it's been nothing but divisive. While Mr. Haldenby has been unable to rectify the situation, he has on many occasions tried to calm the storm. The relations between the SFUO President and the uOttawa President seem to be on the mend, with correspondence going both way respectfully (most of the time). I would think that he fit well into the role that we needed this year, since many of the projects were these backroom ongoing ones, such as the U-Pass and Student Space initiatives. As we move into the next and final steps of these projects though, the position of President will also change, that fact puts more credence into his performance this year. And it's not like people were running up to the office last year to run for President, Dean was there and committed.
As your Presidency enters its homestretch, I encourage you to get out and be seen, to control your executive, and demand respect from students in our institutions.
Thank you Mr. Haldenby.
The Senate Shenanigans
So my pals over at BOAVoice brought this up. And I am going to write a bit about it because I stumbled upon La Rotonde's Vimeo page which has copies of the two outrageous videos of a fringe group, whom I am henceforth going to describe as campus criminals (the other option is domestic terrorists, I will leave it up to you to decide, but we will see what I do).
Allan Rock held his composure as they continually disrupt the meeting without justification, and even after they quickly discussed the recording policy and the members of the Senate agreed with the current policy, but would put it on the Agenda for the next time, the domestic terrorism continued.
I enjoy how he rebukes one of them, after they talk about "the community" and Pres. Rock says that if any single person here can speak for "the community" they are more then welcome to approach. Then mentions how the meetings are open-door and anyone can enter and watch, but it is up to the individual members of the Senate if they consent to being photographed or recorded, since it is there faces and voices. And as BOAVoice asks, have any of them taken minutes and compared their minutes to the official minutes? Or started to LiveBlog the meetings? By immediately claiming that our Senate lacks transparency is irresponsible and unfounded. If the meetings included no public access, no student members, no published minutes, then we can talk. But I would call a meeting that anyone can go and sit quietly and observe, multiple student members and minutes that are published to be quite transparent. Who the heck even cares that I can't videotape it. I personally could think of a few reason why we should NOT be able to do that. I could simple alter the audio track to my own Michael Moore-type narration to completely distort the actual proceedings.
I have no patience for this. I would be up for forming a Student Senate Security Squad to protect our institutions . . . maybe.
Allan Rock held his composure as they continually disrupt the meeting without justification, and even after they quickly discussed the recording policy and the members of the Senate agreed with the current policy, but would put it on the Agenda for the next time, the domestic terrorism continued.
I enjoy how he rebukes one of them, after they talk about "the community" and Pres. Rock says that if any single person here can speak for "the community" they are more then welcome to approach. Then mentions how the meetings are open-door and anyone can enter and watch, but it is up to the individual members of the Senate if they consent to being photographed or recorded, since it is there faces and voices. And as BOAVoice asks, have any of them taken minutes and compared their minutes to the official minutes? Or started to LiveBlog the meetings? By immediately claiming that our Senate lacks transparency is irresponsible and unfounded. If the meetings included no public access, no student members, no published minutes, then we can talk. But I would call a meeting that anyone can go and sit quietly and observe, multiple student members and minutes that are published to be quite transparent. Who the heck even cares that I can't videotape it. I personally could think of a few reason why we should NOT be able to do that. I could simple alter the audio track to my own Michael Moore-type narration to completely distort the actual proceedings.
I have no patience for this. I would be up for forming a Student Senate Security Squad to protect our institutions . . . maybe.
I was thinking today . . .
I don't think that I have ever left our school library feeling "happy" about the experience.
I mean, it's not that every visit there is a negative one, most of the time I would render the verdict as "so-so" or indifferent, but there are occasions were I leave very unhappy with the whole thing.
And it's not always for the same reasons. Ever try to get a book, only to realize that it's in the Annex? (Which is off-site) Ever found the book you are looking for but its signed out and not due for a couple of months? Ever had to wait in line to return a borrowed lap-top but the line is too long and you get charged for it being late? (I haven't experienced this one, but I know someone who has) What about after you've printed out your paper and you need to staple it? They used to have staplers available, now you are supposed to walk downstairs to the AV desk. What about if you need change for your copy card. The circulation desk has a sign specifically saying they won't do that, you need to leave the library and go to Reprography, and stand in their line. (There may be a change machine in the copy room, but it won't deal with Quarters or Dimes I believe).
Even things like trying to go there to study, but the entire place is full, but of people basically hanging out. Or perhaps how they needed to move books to the annex so they could put in more fixtures like couches and fireplaces.
And it's not just specific issues, I mean on the whole macro-sense of being satisfied with our library. Perhaps if the late charges weren't exorbitant, and the staff were at least a little bit friendly, it might make up for the negative issues.
And if anyone feels like elaborating I welcome it, perhaps even sharing a overtly positive experience.
I mean, it's not that every visit there is a negative one, most of the time I would render the verdict as "so-so" or indifferent, but there are occasions were I leave very unhappy with the whole thing.
And it's not always for the same reasons. Ever try to get a book, only to realize that it's in the Annex? (Which is off-site) Ever found the book you are looking for but its signed out and not due for a couple of months? Ever had to wait in line to return a borrowed lap-top but the line is too long and you get charged for it being late? (I haven't experienced this one, but I know someone who has) What about after you've printed out your paper and you need to staple it? They used to have staplers available, now you are supposed to walk downstairs to the AV desk. What about if you need change for your copy card. The circulation desk has a sign specifically saying they won't do that, you need to leave the library and go to Reprography, and stand in their line. (There may be a change machine in the copy room, but it won't deal with Quarters or Dimes I believe).
Even things like trying to go there to study, but the entire place is full, but of people basically hanging out. Or perhaps how they needed to move books to the annex so they could put in more fixtures like couches and fireplaces.
And it's not just specific issues, I mean on the whole macro-sense of being satisfied with our library. Perhaps if the late charges weren't exorbitant, and the staff were at least a little bit friendly, it might make up for the negative issues.
And if anyone feels like elaborating I welcome it, perhaps even sharing a overtly positive experience.
SAC refutes the arguments of the Accused
In a very well written report, available here, the SAC responds to the protests of the Accused parties and very handily dismisses them all as reasons for not submitting to the Arbitration.
They conclude that it is only in the best interests of the Accused to participate, since they would be able to substitute the Chief Electoral Officer in the place of the Accused candidates.
The report isn't all negative towards the Accused parties. But by releasing the whole back story, it no doubt makes them look bad.
From the report
By way of background, the respondent candidates brought a motion to dismiss the current action and intended to lead evidence to that effect. Before sending their evidence to the SAC, they asked that the SAC not divulge the information to the appellants. The SAC gave the assurance that the information would not be shared, and the respondent candidates forwarded the confidential information.
SFUO legal counsel subsequently informed the SAC that the SAC should not have
received confidential information from the respondent candidates. This is due to the fact
that information considered by a judge or arbitration panel must be available to all parties
to the dispute, and a judge or arbitration panel should not have communications with one
party that cannot be revealed to all other parties. In other words, the SAC’s dealings with
all parties must be open and transparent.
It has been ruled that the evidence cannot be brought forward by the Appellants, unless it is first done so by the accused. Sounds fair, like something we would hear on Law & Order.
But by revealing to everyone that the accused tried to get evidence submitted that wouldn't be able to be scrutinized by the appellants makes them seem even more devious, I mean, wasn't one of their complaints that they did not receive the evidence against them in a timely manner? Yet they wanted to surprise the appellants with secret evidence?
Let's get this show on the road! Again, we are trying to figure out if these four individual intentionally violated our constitution. If they did, she should be removed, whether or not the new evidence was received after a deadline. There should be no statute of limitations on this.
They conclude that it is only in the best interests of the Accused to participate, since they would be able to substitute the Chief Electoral Officer in the place of the Accused candidates.
The report isn't all negative towards the Accused parties. But by releasing the whole back story, it no doubt makes them look bad.
From the report
By way of background, the respondent candidates brought a motion to dismiss the current action and intended to lead evidence to that effect. Before sending their evidence to the SAC, they asked that the SAC not divulge the information to the appellants. The SAC gave the assurance that the information would not be shared, and the respondent candidates forwarded the confidential information.
SFUO legal counsel subsequently informed the SAC that the SAC should not have
received confidential information from the respondent candidates. This is due to the fact
that information considered by a judge or arbitration panel must be available to all parties
to the dispute, and a judge or arbitration panel should not have communications with one
party that cannot be revealed to all other parties. In other words, the SAC’s dealings with
all parties must be open and transparent.
It has been ruled that the evidence cannot be brought forward by the Appellants, unless it is first done so by the accused. Sounds fair, like something we would hear on Law & Order.
But by revealing to everyone that the accused tried to get evidence submitted that wouldn't be able to be scrutinized by the appellants makes them seem even more devious, I mean, wasn't one of their complaints that they did not receive the evidence against them in a timely manner? Yet they wanted to surprise the appellants with secret evidence?
Let's get this show on the road! Again, we are trying to figure out if these four individual intentionally violated our constitution. If they did, she should be removed, whether or not the new evidence was received after a deadline. There should be no statute of limitations on this.
Moving Forward
A required amount of BOA Directors have requested an emergency meeting of the BOA, according to La Rotonde.
According to the Constitution, it takes 1/3 of the members, and:
3.1.8.2 Notice of the meeting and the agenda thereof shall be given to all directors at least two business days before meeting.
La Rotonde put up the story this morning, so Monday (1), Tuesday (2), so Wednesday is the earliest the meeting can happen.
The excitement builds.
And SFUO President Dean Haldenby wrote a letter conveying his disappointment with how the SAC Hearing went; perhaps he should tell Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, and Julie Seguin Monday morning when they get to work. We will see how he votes at the BOA meeting. It is clear to anyone who was in attendance at the Hearing that the students who were exhibiting "behaviours that dishonour our federation, that dishonour our cause," were those invoked by the defendants, and no doubt encouraged by them. Those students that "besmirched by inappropriate and unacceptable actions" the altruistic values of the Student Federation were empowered by the defendant's total disregard for decency. Point the finger in the proper direction Mr. Haldenby.
According to the Constitution, it takes 1/3 of the members, and:
3.1.8.2 Notice of the meeting and the agenda thereof shall be given to all directors at least two business days before meeting.
La Rotonde put up the story this morning, so Monday (1), Tuesday (2), so Wednesday is the earliest the meeting can happen.
The excitement builds.
And SFUO President Dean Haldenby wrote a letter conveying his disappointment with how the SAC Hearing went; perhaps he should tell Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, and Julie Seguin Monday morning when they get to work. We will see how he votes at the BOA meeting. It is clear to anyone who was in attendance at the Hearing that the students who were exhibiting "behaviours that dishonour our federation, that dishonour our cause," were those invoked by the defendants, and no doubt encouraged by them. Those students that "besmirched by inappropriate and unacceptable actions" the altruistic values of the Student Federation were empowered by the defendant's total disregard for decency. Point the finger in the proper direction Mr. Haldenby.
Mission Accomplished, or was it?
The quality of the two photos I used did not match, the photo of Seamus Wolfe was a higher resolution than the Aircraft Carrier photo, but I think everyone will get the meaning. I think it's rather comical myself. It also works on a few different levels.So, from what I understand, the decision of the SAC to continue with the Hearing yesterday is being challenged to the BOA.
Here is the section from the SFUO Constitution:
8.4.1 In order to render a valid juridical decision, the members of Student Arbitration Committee must ensure that the following principles have been respected: (a) The parties have agreed to submit to the decision of the Student Arbitration Committee.
Notice the tense in the word 'agreed'. Did they not agree to submit to the SAC when they ran for office? Or in the days leading up to the hearing? Or by filing their defence papers?
But that is all over, it is time to move onto the next phase. March 29, 2009 is the next schedule BOA meeting. Notwithstanding the current motion to making it easier to overturn a SAC decision, this will be an interesting meeting. But here is my contention, which I mentioned briefly in my last post, if the BOA reverses the decision of the SAC to proceed with the hearing has anything really been accomplished to stop it? I mean, okay, the BOA decides that the SAC should not have proceeded on March 6, the SAC will just be convened at a later date! One where All the defendants are present no doubt (since Alex Chaput had a conflict and was unable to attend the hearing).
But what should we do if the BOA sides with the SAC decision? We cannot just go back in time and do the SAC Hearing over, its already been made a mockery of. If the BOA decides that the SAC was correct in continuing, then the accused who flagrantly disrespected it by walking out and creating near riot condition should be further punished. Impeachment anyone?
And for those of you who were unable to attend, La Rotonde took a bunch of good pictures, here are a few that I believe show how the Accused conspired to make a mockery of the SFUO highest judicial body, check out the smiling faces!
I leave you with this. Can you just walk out of a fraud hearing by saying that you don't respect the authority of the court? And the fact that they walked out without allowing the SAC to deliberate on thier disputation of the proceedings show they have no respect for the Constitution, even though their supporters, some of whom sit on the BOA and were acting without any shred of integrity, kept crying for the Constitution to be followed. Well if you were quiet enough to allow the Arbitors to speak, you would have noticed that they were. The fact that the accused walked out meant that they waived their right to a further defence. And since their claim was rejected, based on CANADIAN evidence law, the plan was to disrupt the Hearing in such a way that it was impossible to continue.
A Flagrant Disrespect for Democracy
Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\
Function: noun Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness synonyms see honesty
I truly believe that all politicians or people in a position of trust and authority need to act with integrity. While the last part of the definition might make you chuckle, honesty IS something that we look for in our elected officials. Making empty promises is different that acting dis-honestly. But that is another conversation.
I think there should be a clause in the SFUO Constitution that states that each member of the Executive need to act with integrity throughout their term. This would not mean that they can't go out and get really drunk and have a good time. That would not violate the definition of integrity (incorruptibility, soundness, and completeness). What we must remember is the SFUO Executive are duly elected and paid for by us. They come to the student body and ask us to elect them to this very public position. They are not volunteers but employees. Should we not expect a level of professionalism from our own SFUO Executive?
The behaviour of the accused Executive members (and their supporters) was a few levels below immaturity. Intimidation, yelling, bullying, and grandstanding is not acting in a way which displays integrity. The four accused should be ashamed of themselves.
In the end the stall tactic will not be successful. What happened was after the gong-show began and the accused decided that they did not respect the authority of the SAC (which is the highest body of the SFUO by the way) was that the SAC was unable to continue due to the unruly behaviour of the accused supporters. The decision was made to defer the decision to continue to the BOA. But that would not end anything. Even if the BOA decides to find the SAC in violation, the appeal would still be active, just start at a new date. But what happens if the BOA rejects the appeal? The Mugabe-esque tactics of the accused should be held against them once this Arbitration does start.
On a good note, on my way out I passed Seamus Wolfe, and we made eye-contact and it looked like he expected me to say something positive, instead my words were, "Robert Mugabe couldn't have done it better." And kept walking.
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\
Function: noun Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness synonyms see honesty
I truly believe that all politicians or people in a position of trust and authority need to act with integrity. While the last part of the definition might make you chuckle, honesty IS something that we look for in our elected officials. Making empty promises is different that acting dis-honestly. But that is another conversation.
I think there should be a clause in the SFUO Constitution that states that each member of the Executive need to act with integrity throughout their term. This would not mean that they can't go out and get really drunk and have a good time. That would not violate the definition of integrity (incorruptibility, soundness, and completeness). What we must remember is the SFUO Executive are duly elected and paid for by us. They come to the student body and ask us to elect them to this very public position. They are not volunteers but employees. Should we not expect a level of professionalism from our own SFUO Executive?
The behaviour of the accused Executive members (and their supporters) was a few levels below immaturity. Intimidation, yelling, bullying, and grandstanding is not acting in a way which displays integrity. The four accused should be ashamed of themselves.
In the end the stall tactic will not be successful. What happened was after the gong-show began and the accused decided that they did not respect the authority of the SAC (which is the highest body of the SFUO by the way) was that the SAC was unable to continue due to the unruly behaviour of the accused supporters. The decision was made to defer the decision to continue to the BOA. But that would not end anything. Even if the BOA decides to find the SAC in violation, the appeal would still be active, just start at a new date. But what happens if the BOA rejects the appeal? The Mugabe-esque tactics of the accused should be held against them once this Arbitration does start.
On a good note, on my way out I passed Seamus Wolfe, and we made eye-contact and it looked like he expected me to say something positive, instead my words were, "Robert Mugabe couldn't have done it better." And kept walking.
This is uOttawa, not Zimbabwe
On the left is our President-Elect Seamus Wolfe, who is accused of violating the Constitution, along with Julie Seguin, Roxanne Dubois, and Jean Guillame. The Student Arbitration Committee is supposed to be happening right now, but in a move that could only rival Robert Mugabe (on the right), the accused decided that they did not accpt the auhtority of this SAC and walked out. Shame. When the SAC deliberated on their claims, the answer was that under all forms of the law, the dispute was not acceptable, and the hearing would move forward. The supporters of the accused parties decided to protest by chanting. The decision was made because when an individual is accused of FRAUD, they cannot simply decide not to go forward with the arbitration.
It does not look like it will move forward easily, and it is a darn shame.
Why I don't support the U-Pass
As a student who pays $62.65 for his student bus pass, one would think that I would be totally gung-ho for the proposed U-Pass, but I am not. In fact, I am against it. I will end up saving a little bit more than 50% if the proposed $125/semester U-Pass is enacted, so I am not going to spill any tears over the plan. However, I do not feel that the plan is in the best interest of all students, all residents of the City of Ottawa, all bus-riders of the City of Ottawa, and the City of Ottawa leadership.
All Students
In order to get your money's worth out of the U-Pass, you would have to take 16 trips per month. Including December, when you might not be going anywhere but staying on campus to study then going home for the holidays. This also includes reading week, and April finals. Now you may be saying I can take 16 trips; I can make it worth my while. My response would be, would you have normally done those trips, so are you in fact saving anything at all? I mean, I guess now you can go out to the suburbs whenever you want. And remember, twice a week (for round trips) is what you need to break-even on this. If you and your friends want to go to a party in Barrhaven, you can buy tickets and it will cost your $4 for the round-trip. How often do you go out like that? Twice a week max? Look at what you are currently spending on the bus, and then look at what you will be spending. Now, for some people it will be a good thing, I am not saying that every student is going to lose money, but I am going to go out on a limb and say quite a few are.
And I do not think that taking the bus to/from Mackenzie King/Laurier/Campus and vice-versa count as a trip, since you would have easily walked without the pass.
Residents
While the SFUO acts like the City of Ottawa should be treating them different, what they forget to mention is that the City of Ottawa is the government of all 1 Million or so residents and taxpayers of the city, and the SFUO should be afforded NO special treatment. If I were in charge of the city, I would tell the SFUO that the U-Pass would have to wait until the next city council mandate in November 2010 where it will be on the ballot as a referendum to let the voters decide. If the U-Pass is going to be a strain on the already strained budget, should it not be up to the taxpayers if it is enacted?
Bus Riders
A tricky thing about OCTranspo is that pretty much every cross-town route travels through down-town. And as such, they all (mostly) go through UOttawa's two stops. Imagine the amount of students who would take the bus from Laurier to Campus (and vice versa) just because they could. In my mind I have an image of one of those trains in India. As a current and long-time bus rider, I would not be impressed with that. Plus, who do you think will have to pick up the budget slack if the U-Pass puts a strain on it?
City of Ottawa Leadership
The focus has this mandate has been on budget efficiency and tightening the belt. While many cuts have been long overdue, some are no doubt questionable. However, one number that is being batted around is $1.4 million. They say that is the shortfall of the U-Pass proposal. That's a hefty chunk of change.
Other questions
Logistically, how would this plan be implemented? Would it be a sticker on our Student card? So once a semester every student needs to come to the SFUO office and line up for it? I can imagine how much fun that will be.
I would also question the validity of the referendum that was passed on the subject. If we are able to enact the U-Pass for next school year, how can we consider the referendum still valid when potentially half of the eligible voters are no longer at uOttawa and potentially everyone in 1st or 2nd year would not have voted?
I welcome debate on this issue, but remember that I would be one of those who would benefit greatly from this program if it were enacted. In the spirit of shorter posts I did not include everything, and I am also working on a counter-type idea to the current proposal.
All Students
In order to get your money's worth out of the U-Pass, you would have to take 16 trips per month. Including December, when you might not be going anywhere but staying on campus to study then going home for the holidays. This also includes reading week, and April finals. Now you may be saying I can take 16 trips; I can make it worth my while. My response would be, would you have normally done those trips, so are you in fact saving anything at all? I mean, I guess now you can go out to the suburbs whenever you want. And remember, twice a week (for round trips) is what you need to break-even on this. If you and your friends want to go to a party in Barrhaven, you can buy tickets and it will cost your $4 for the round-trip. How often do you go out like that? Twice a week max? Look at what you are currently spending on the bus, and then look at what you will be spending. Now, for some people it will be a good thing, I am not saying that every student is going to lose money, but I am going to go out on a limb and say quite a few are.
And I do not think that taking the bus to/from Mackenzie King/Laurier/Campus and vice-versa count as a trip, since you would have easily walked without the pass.
Residents
While the SFUO acts like the City of Ottawa should be treating them different, what they forget to mention is that the City of Ottawa is the government of all 1 Million or so residents and taxpayers of the city, and the SFUO should be afforded NO special treatment. If I were in charge of the city, I would tell the SFUO that the U-Pass would have to wait until the next city council mandate in November 2010 where it will be on the ballot as a referendum to let the voters decide. If the U-Pass is going to be a strain on the already strained budget, should it not be up to the taxpayers if it is enacted?
Bus Riders
A tricky thing about OCTranspo is that pretty much every cross-town route travels through down-town. And as such, they all (mostly) go through UOttawa's two stops. Imagine the amount of students who would take the bus from Laurier to Campus (and vice versa) just because they could. In my mind I have an image of one of those trains in India. As a current and long-time bus rider, I would not be impressed with that. Plus, who do you think will have to pick up the budget slack if the U-Pass puts a strain on it?
City of Ottawa Leadership
The focus has this mandate has been on budget efficiency and tightening the belt. While many cuts have been long overdue, some are no doubt questionable. However, one number that is being batted around is $1.4 million. They say that is the shortfall of the U-Pass proposal. That's a hefty chunk of change.
Other questions
Logistically, how would this plan be implemented? Would it be a sticker on our Student card? So once a semester every student needs to come to the SFUO office and line up for it? I can imagine how much fun that will be.
I would also question the validity of the referendum that was passed on the subject. If we are able to enact the U-Pass for next school year, how can we consider the referendum still valid when potentially half of the eligible voters are no longer at uOttawa and potentially everyone in 1st or 2nd year would not have voted?
I welcome debate on this issue, but remember that I would be one of those who would benefit greatly from this program if it were enacted. In the spirit of shorter posts I did not include everything, and I am also working on a counter-type idea to the current proposal.
Allan Rock and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Well given lecture on the history of the R2P Doctrine and how it came to be.
Stresses that it is not about military interventions and is more about the continuum of options available to the global states. Mentioned that Sudan is a sign of this, as a military intervention would not work, and R2P would.
We have an excellent resource in Pres. Rock. He himself is a gifted speaker with incredible experience and a great resume. But through him we also have access to others; Paul Martin spoke a short time ago. During this lecture Pres. Rock acknowledged the presence of former Defence Minister David Collenette.
Q&A Section
Marc Kelly=dumbass
He acts in his usual manner. He talks only about himself, and continual shows a disrespect for both the Chair of the Q&A and everyone else not only in the room, but in line to ask a question. I think Marc Kelly would have a good career as a comedian, since he can easily make an entire room laugh at him . . .
When he finally allowed a response to his tirade, Pres. Rock would make a statement about how this is not the forum, and we are here to discuss R2P, but that he would reiterate that Mr. Kelly's situation is no more important than that of the other 35000 students, and that his duty as President is to deal with every student, and not just Mr. Kelly. (I am paraphrasing)
Then Marc Kelly decides that we don't have enough of a circus atmosphere and pulls out his own microphone, even though the microphone for the Q&A was still active(??). And talks about how his freedom to express himself has been taken away and he isn't even allowed to talk. This is when I told him, "You're standing right here Marc!" This is when Protection came over and kindly escorted him out to remind him of the rules, he then came back in, looked like he was going to make another scene but ended up not.
It's sad, because Marc Kelly seems like a nice guy, he's just been brainwashed by Denis Rancourt into thinking he needs to take over the university and rescue everyone from the evil clutches of Allan Rock.
The final question was asked by one of Marc Kelly's supporters (one of his posse nonetheless), it was a two part question. She spoke in French and spoke extremely fast. And I was distracted by the lack of facial expression when she spoke, it was slightly unnerving. The first part of the question had to do with the 'idea' of Canada not being a real thing, or something important (along those lines) and the second part was a statement about Marc Kelly. As soon as she mentioned Kelly the crowd almost seemed ready to lose its patience. But when she finished she received a Thank You, and started to walk away, but Pres. Rock stopped her and rebuked her statement about the idea of Canada and said that the 'idea' of Canada does exist and is really respected globally. Which was kind of a subtext throughout his entire lecture, about how he, as a representative of Canada, was able to spearhead the R2P initiative and work hard to get it through the UN GA. Apparently she wasn't even paying attention.
My final point is this: Why does Marc Kelly have a posse of people? And he always has someone videotaping him. Is it all about him? Is he starting a cult? I mean, unless you are planning on making a scene, why would you have someone videotaping you?
To close, I would say kudos to Pres. Rock for a good lecture, and the way he handled the disturbance. Bravo!
Stresses that it is not about military interventions and is more about the continuum of options available to the global states. Mentioned that Sudan is a sign of this, as a military intervention would not work, and R2P would.
We have an excellent resource in Pres. Rock. He himself is a gifted speaker with incredible experience and a great resume. But through him we also have access to others; Paul Martin spoke a short time ago. During this lecture Pres. Rock acknowledged the presence of former Defence Minister David Collenette.
Q&A Section
Marc Kelly=dumbass
He acts in his usual manner. He talks only about himself, and continual shows a disrespect for both the Chair of the Q&A and everyone else not only in the room, but in line to ask a question. I think Marc Kelly would have a good career as a comedian, since he can easily make an entire room laugh at him . . .
When he finally allowed a response to his tirade, Pres. Rock would make a statement about how this is not the forum, and we are here to discuss R2P, but that he would reiterate that Mr. Kelly's situation is no more important than that of the other 35000 students, and that his duty as President is to deal with every student, and not just Mr. Kelly. (I am paraphrasing)
Then Marc Kelly decides that we don't have enough of a circus atmosphere and pulls out his own microphone, even though the microphone for the Q&A was still active(??). And talks about how his freedom to express himself has been taken away and he isn't even allowed to talk. This is when I told him, "You're standing right here Marc!" This is when Protection came over and kindly escorted him out to remind him of the rules, he then came back in, looked like he was going to make another scene but ended up not.
It's sad, because Marc Kelly seems like a nice guy, he's just been brainwashed by Denis Rancourt into thinking he needs to take over the university and rescue everyone from the evil clutches of Allan Rock.
The final question was asked by one of Marc Kelly's supporters (one of his posse nonetheless), it was a two part question. She spoke in French and spoke extremely fast. And I was distracted by the lack of facial expression when she spoke, it was slightly unnerving. The first part of the question had to do with the 'idea' of Canada not being a real thing, or something important (along those lines) and the second part was a statement about Marc Kelly. As soon as she mentioned Kelly the crowd almost seemed ready to lose its patience. But when she finished she received a Thank You, and started to walk away, but Pres. Rock stopped her and rebuked her statement about the idea of Canada and said that the 'idea' of Canada does exist and is really respected globally. Which was kind of a subtext throughout his entire lecture, about how he, as a representative of Canada, was able to spearhead the R2P initiative and work hard to get it through the UN GA. Apparently she wasn't even paying attention.
My final point is this: Why does Marc Kelly have a posse of people? And he always has someone videotaping him. Is it all about him? Is he starting a cult? I mean, unless you are planning on making a scene, why would you have someone videotaping you?
To close, I would say kudos to Pres. Rock for a good lecture, and the way he handled the disturbance. Bravo!
Should we care about Denis Rancourt
I only speak of Rancourt because he wrote a piece for the latest issue of "The Caucus". The only way I can describe it is as a self-indulgent piece of crap.
He says he is right because people support him.
More troubling is that he writes off all criticisms and negative feedback as from those who "understand that I threaten their comfort as they aspire to integrate into the system". Well Dr. Rancourt, I am going to tell you that I DO NOT support you, and it has nothing to do with you threatening "my comfort".
A quick look at his website will give you a bunch of information on his case, and while he may have been treated harshly, I completely agree with the outcomes.
I do not really want to convince you either way, that's not my goal here. All I will do is point out a few things.
Rancourt has been treated the same way by two successive uOttawa Presidents. He, without due cause, is extremely critical of Allan Rock. One of his criticisms directly at Pres. Rock is because Pres. Rock was deeply concerned about the racism shown by OPIRG. Another is because Pres. Rock yelled at Marc Kelly. Pshht, I yelled at Marc Kelly. Another is over the dismissal of Rancourt himself, and the final is over the whole recording of Senate meetings. Try to bring a video camera into the House of Commons.
Why is he being disciplined? He decided to deviate from the standard course methods. He intentionally decided to provoke the ire of the administration a few years back, and has never apologized or admitted he was wrong. (I urge you to look it up, you can read about the details on his website)
I do not agree with a pass/fail system, which may make sense in kindergarten, but not in University. Maybe it is acceptable at a Doctoral level, as in an Acceptable Dissertation or not so much. But surely not as an Undergraduate. We are here to learn, and we are here to learn from teachers, not facilitators. I want a Professor to tell me that I am doing well, doing okay, or doing excellent, not below 50% or above 50%. I don`t think I can apply to Grad school with a 'P' average anyway.
I do not recall seeing on his website that he awarded all his higher year students A+'s out of spite to the university either. I think it is fitting that Dr. Rancourt is trying to act political. I also think it is time we treated him with the same regard as we do other political individuals.
Dr. Rancourt, it is time to reconcile.
He says he is right because people support him.
More troubling is that he writes off all criticisms and negative feedback as from those who "understand that I threaten their comfort as they aspire to integrate into the system". Well Dr. Rancourt, I am going to tell you that I DO NOT support you, and it has nothing to do with you threatening "my comfort".
A quick look at his website will give you a bunch of information on his case, and while he may have been treated harshly, I completely agree with the outcomes.
I do not really want to convince you either way, that's not my goal here. All I will do is point out a few things.
Rancourt has been treated the same way by two successive uOttawa Presidents. He, without due cause, is extremely critical of Allan Rock. One of his criticisms directly at Pres. Rock is because Pres. Rock was deeply concerned about the racism shown by OPIRG. Another is because Pres. Rock yelled at Marc Kelly. Pshht, I yelled at Marc Kelly. Another is over the dismissal of Rancourt himself, and the final is over the whole recording of Senate meetings. Try to bring a video camera into the House of Commons.
Why is he being disciplined? He decided to deviate from the standard course methods. He intentionally decided to provoke the ire of the administration a few years back, and has never apologized or admitted he was wrong. (I urge you to look it up, you can read about the details on his website)
I do not agree with a pass/fail system, which may make sense in kindergarten, but not in University. Maybe it is acceptable at a Doctoral level, as in an Acceptable Dissertation or not so much. But surely not as an Undergraduate. We are here to learn, and we are here to learn from teachers, not facilitators. I want a Professor to tell me that I am doing well, doing okay, or doing excellent, not below 50% or above 50%. I don`t think I can apply to Grad school with a 'P' average anyway.
I do not recall seeing on his website that he awarded all his higher year students A+'s out of spite to the university either. I think it is fitting that Dr. Rancourt is trying to act political. I also think it is time we treated him with the same regard as we do other political individuals.
Dr. Rancourt, it is time to reconcile.
Freedom of Speech?
I will open this post by saying I am very against Israel Apartheid Week (IAW). Not that I support Israel occupation of Palestine, so before you condemn me as a mouthpiece for Israel, know that.
Whether you like it or not, IAW is a racist event. Not that all individuals who organize or participate in the event(s) are racist. It is a very important distinction. However, the type of culture that events like this harbour is quite dangerous, for example:
Two weeks ago, anti-Israel protesters besieged Jewish students in York University's Hillel office after they took part in a press conference held to call for an impeachment of the student government - an issue unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but which dealt instead with ending a long strike by teachers assistants. An angry mob that included members of Students Against Israeli Apartheid, a main IAW organizer, banged on the glass doors of the Hillel office, shouting anti-Semitic epithets at the Jews inside, including, "Die, Jew, get the hell off campus."
Any event that advocate people think negatively against Israel will undoubtedly make people think negatively against Israelites, whether or not they live in Israel. The problem is no longer political, but personal.
The poster should have been banned, and the SFUO should have immediately supported the administration. I would also ban events such as IAW from my campus unless they change the focus from Anti-Israel to Pro-Palestine. The fact of the matter is, that our Jewish students are feeling threatened on their own campus. I hear the argument a lot: "Yes the SFUO is supposed to represent every student and not one group over the other, so we need to support our right to Freedom of Speech and Expression." de facto supporting IAW. But by banning IAW's Posters and even IAW itself, will the anti-Israel students feel physically threatened? I think not.
We hold many events on our campus throughout the year. How many of them have the potential for causing physical violence? That is what I am advocating, not either side of the debate, but none.
Whether you like it or not, IAW is a racist event. Not that all individuals who organize or participate in the event(s) are racist. It is a very important distinction. However, the type of culture that events like this harbour is quite dangerous, for example:
Two weeks ago, anti-Israel protesters besieged Jewish students in York University's Hillel office after they took part in a press conference held to call for an impeachment of the student government - an issue unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but which dealt instead with ending a long strike by teachers assistants. An angry mob that included members of Students Against Israeli Apartheid, a main IAW organizer, banged on the glass doors of the Hillel office, shouting anti-Semitic epithets at the Jews inside, including, "Die, Jew, get the hell off campus."
Any event that advocate people think negatively against Israel will undoubtedly make people think negatively against Israelites, whether or not they live in Israel. The problem is no longer political, but personal.
The poster should have been banned, and the SFUO should have immediately supported the administration. I would also ban events such as IAW from my campus unless they change the focus from Anti-Israel to Pro-Palestine. The fact of the matter is, that our Jewish students are feeling threatened on their own campus. I hear the argument a lot: "Yes the SFUO is supposed to represent every student and not one group over the other, so we need to support our right to Freedom of Speech and Expression." de facto supporting IAW. But by banning IAW's Posters and even IAW itself, will the anti-Israel students feel physically threatened? I think not.
We hold many events on our campus throughout the year. How many of them have the potential for causing physical violence? That is what I am advocating, not either side of the debate, but none.
The Manoeuvring of a Lame-Duck Executive
The term lame-duck comes mainly from US politics. The President is elected in November but does not take office until the following January, during which period they are referred to as the "President-Elect". Generally the period in between the two administrations is a quiet one, where the current President attempts to cement their legacy. ie: no major changes.
We do not have this situation in Canada, since in the parliamentary system, the current Parliament is dissolved during the elections, and opens again after the elections (and our campaign is 6-7 weeks long instead of 18 months+). On our campus, the SFUO represents the former idea. Our new administration is elected in February, but takes over in May. I can't speak to the history of BOA actions during the lame-duck period, but I will speak of current BOA actions.
At the last BOA meeting there was a constitutional amendment proposed in a first reading (the second reading is at the next meeting). The timing of this amendment is very suspicious and soon you will know why. The amendment is proposing a change to the way Student Arbitration Committee (SAC) decisions can be overturned by the BOA, by making it easier to do so. I ask you, why is this change happening now? We are about to enter into a SAC session that could very well disqualify 4 members of our incoming executive, 3 of which are current members and sit on the BOA. Currently in order for the appeal to the SAC decision to even be heard by the BOA there needs to be a vote of 4/5. Then if the appeal is heard, it takes a 2/3 vote to reverse it. The proposal is to lower the amount for it to be heard to 2/3.
According to the BOA list I found (although it is poorly maintained) there are 31 seats on the BOA. 4/5 of the votes would be 25 while 2/3 is 21. That means that it would take 4 less votes to successfully reverse a SAC decision. Now you might be saying: I don't see a major problem there; it still takes 2/3 of the BOA to change it. But remember that the current exec holds 6 seats of that 21, 3 of whom are implicated in the decision (I hope that all three would recuse themselves for the entire period of the arbitration though). Thus it would now only take 15 BOA votes to overturn an SAC decision. To compound matters, section 8.8.3 states that the BOA decision is final and unchallengeable. So the SAC could find total guilt in the 4 accused candidates, then the BOA could simply overturn that decision, and we would be stuck with the guilty people.
But my biggest concern is that these changes are being made now. First off because they are a lame-duck Board, but mostly because of the more than coincidental timing here. We have an extremely important SAC about to happen, and the executive is moving to make it easier for them to overturn an SAC decision. The motion pretty easily passed the first reading last Sunday, but my hope is that our duly elected Board members will see this for what at best is simply an improperly timed action that should be rejected, or more cynically is a clear attempt to subvert our processes to hold onto power by any means necessary.
We do not have this situation in Canada, since in the parliamentary system, the current Parliament is dissolved during the elections, and opens again after the elections (and our campaign is 6-7 weeks long instead of 18 months+). On our campus, the SFUO represents the former idea. Our new administration is elected in February, but takes over in May. I can't speak to the history of BOA actions during the lame-duck period, but I will speak of current BOA actions.
At the last BOA meeting there was a constitutional amendment proposed in a first reading (the second reading is at the next meeting). The timing of this amendment is very suspicious and soon you will know why. The amendment is proposing a change to the way Student Arbitration Committee (SAC) decisions can be overturned by the BOA, by making it easier to do so. I ask you, why is this change happening now? We are about to enter into a SAC session that could very well disqualify 4 members of our incoming executive, 3 of which are current members and sit on the BOA. Currently in order for the appeal to the SAC decision to even be heard by the BOA there needs to be a vote of 4/5. Then if the appeal is heard, it takes a 2/3 vote to reverse it. The proposal is to lower the amount for it to be heard to 2/3.
According to the BOA list I found (although it is poorly maintained) there are 31 seats on the BOA. 4/5 of the votes would be 25 while 2/3 is 21. That means that it would take 4 less votes to successfully reverse a SAC decision. Now you might be saying: I don't see a major problem there; it still takes 2/3 of the BOA to change it. But remember that the current exec holds 6 seats of that 21, 3 of whom are implicated in the decision (I hope that all three would recuse themselves for the entire period of the arbitration though). Thus it would now only take 15 BOA votes to overturn an SAC decision. To compound matters, section 8.8.3 states that the BOA decision is final and unchallengeable. So the SAC could find total guilt in the 4 accused candidates, then the BOA could simply overturn that decision, and we would be stuck with the guilty people.
But my biggest concern is that these changes are being made now. First off because they are a lame-duck Board, but mostly because of the more than coincidental timing here. We have an extremely important SAC about to happen, and the executive is moving to make it easier for them to overturn an SAC decision. The motion pretty easily passed the first reading last Sunday, but my hope is that our duly elected Board members will see this for what at best is simply an improperly timed action that should be rejected, or more cynically is a clear attempt to subvert our processes to hold onto power by any means necessary.
Julie Seguin, what will you do next?
There's a pretty nasty e-mail submitted as evidence: Read the La Rotonde article here. According to our friends over at BOAVoice Ms. Seguin has sent out another e-mail apologizing for the rather rude and unnecessary insults she made in the first e-mail. Again, click the links if you want to read them, and I urge you to. That way when I cite information from the two pieces you will be able to follow.
The VP Communications is arguably the public face of our SFUO. If you are an outside body looking to contact the SFUO, the first step you would likely take is to contact the person in charge of communications. I would prefer if that person had a high level of integrity. (I used that word in two consecutive posts; I wonder how many in a row I will go)
So, you argue that the e-mail that Julie sent was private. I will say that nothing she does while working on OUR payroll, or working on her campaign that WE pay for is "private". In the Public Service, almost everything you do is available under the Access-to-Information legislation. We should have the same type of access to the people that we elect and pay to represent us. This was not an e-mail that Ms. Seguin sent to her mom, this was sent out to a number of people, each of whom had the right to release it if they wanted as well. The uOttawa secret police did not barge into Ms. Seguin's home and confiscate her computer, this e-mail was released by someone. If you send me an e-mail, do I not have the full rights to that e-mail? Of course there are times where confidentiality should apply, but as you read this e-mail from Ms. Seguin, I do not see any reasons why it should remain confidential (other than its release hurts her character).
She mentions in the e-mail that she has not opponent in the VP Comm campaign, and that she should have a stress-free campaign. She urges her volunteers to support other candidates, which she names (they happen to be Roxanne Dubois & Seamus Wolfe). That would have been bad enough, and qualify as a violation of our constitution. But Ms. Seguin did not stop there. She personally insulted the other candidates (Maureen Hasinoff, Renaud Garner, and Michele Lamarche). Is this the person you want as OUR VP Communications?
She should resign. Immediately.
The VP Communications is arguably the public face of our SFUO. If you are an outside body looking to contact the SFUO, the first step you would likely take is to contact the person in charge of communications. I would prefer if that person had a high level of integrity. (I used that word in two consecutive posts; I wonder how many in a row I will go)
So, you argue that the e-mail that Julie sent was private. I will say that nothing she does while working on OUR payroll, or working on her campaign that WE pay for is "private". In the Public Service, almost everything you do is available under the Access-to-Information legislation. We should have the same type of access to the people that we elect and pay to represent us. This was not an e-mail that Ms. Seguin sent to her mom, this was sent out to a number of people, each of whom had the right to release it if they wanted as well. The uOttawa secret police did not barge into Ms. Seguin's home and confiscate her computer, this e-mail was released by someone. If you send me an e-mail, do I not have the full rights to that e-mail? Of course there are times where confidentiality should apply, but as you read this e-mail from Ms. Seguin, I do not see any reasons why it should remain confidential (other than its release hurts her character).
She mentions in the e-mail that she has not opponent in the VP Comm campaign, and that she should have a stress-free campaign. She urges her volunteers to support other candidates, which she names (they happen to be Roxanne Dubois & Seamus Wolfe). That would have been bad enough, and qualify as a violation of our constitution. But Ms. Seguin did not stop there. She personally insulted the other candidates (Maureen Hasinoff, Renaud Garner, and Michele Lamarche). Is this the person you want as OUR VP Communications?
She should resign. Immediately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
