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.

2 comments:

  1. Thanks for the shout-out, Ken!

    Even if the email isn't evidence of a slate (it was most likely sent out before the campaign had started, and before official volunteer lists were handed in), this behaviour is not appropriate for someone who is the face of the SFUO, and who has been elected to represent our students.

    The fact that she insults these students, some of whom she has worked with closely, is upsetting. I'm glad that she has since apologized, but I'm shocked that she found it appropriate to say these things in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While the fact that the e-mail was sent out before the official campaign period puts it in a constitutional grey-area, it does show a pattern of behaviour, which could help prove that she was a part of the so-called slate.

    In either case, the Constitution, in 4.7, does not specify specific dates for eligibility. So I can only presume that the clause 4.7.1.b (no candidate [for a position on the executive] may: participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates) becomes activated as soon as the individual becomes a candidate for the executive. When the e-mail was sent out, I believe Ms. Seguin was entered into the race for VP Comm; and even if she wasn't 'officially' entered, her intentions were clear.

    On another VP Comm note in general, according to the Constitution, there are two interesting responsibilities:

    3.8.1.4
    She shall be responsible for maintaining a comprehensive calendar of events offered by the SFUO.

    and

    3.8.1.5
    She shall assume responsibility for the Federation’s brand, its image, and its visibility on and off campus.

    The first one I would say is incomplete, as the comprehensive part is not fulfilled. And interestingly enough, neither is the second. But I will save that for my next post!

    ReplyDelete