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.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteThank you for you blog. I really enjoy your commentary.
My main issue with Dean Haldenby's motion is that it is improvised. It has been amended three times in three days!
For an issue of this importance for the SFUO, you would think that people would sit down and prepare something.
There is an appeal process. If that appeal process is not adequate, you amend the Constitution to make it adequate. Or, you would have amended your Constitution the last time there was an appeal (a little over a month ago).
You would present a point of information. You would take your motion to policy and bylaws, you would debate it at First reading and then you would debate it again at Second reading. It would get amended and the final version of your motion might not be what you had initially hoped for, but it would be better than what is being thrown around.
Dean has had three different positions in the last three days. 1) BOA members would be arbitrators. 2) Professional arbitrators. 3) A whole new SAC appointed by himself and the Chair (Federico Carvajal) and then ratified by the Board.
He has presented an amendment to his own motion, which shows just how rushed everything has been.
Dean should pull the entire motion, as it has no place at this Board.
There should be an appeal and that is where the issues of irregularities should be advanced.
"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? "
ReplyDeleteHaha this is actually very true, something in persuasion, you are more likely to get your way if you ask for something really big and then go down to something smaller...