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/