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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, they are basically making the decision that the case must be ended, without first having a motion on whether the case needs to be adjourned.
ReplyDeleteThere should be first a motion saying "The SAC should not continue with this case" which can be heard and debated (aka take SADC report into consideration). From there, if they vote to end the SAC hearing, THEN this motion could be presented. There is a step missing here. Why are we assuming that the hearing needs to end? Isn't this what the BOA is supposed to vote on?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI apologize, this was posted elsewhere by Wassim:
ReplyDelete"Regardless of Dean Haldenby's motion, there is an official "SAC Appeal" on the agenda."
BUT Dean's motion is being presented first, which makes no sense at all, since in his motion he assumes that the current hearing will be canned.
Ok...a couple of things. First, this motion would take the SAC out of the appeals process. I wrote an op-ed for the Fulcrum (http://www.thefulcrum.ca/node/2521 second to last piece) about constitutional amendments changing the rules around appealing SAC decisions, and this is no different. If the SAC is to be taken seriously then this appeal cannot be hijacked from them! This precedent is terrible.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Dean’s motion is questionable. I really take exception to the following:
''2. To allow the parties to exercise similar rights as under 8.6.1.4 and select from
amongst the members of the BOA who would be prepared to sit at ad hoc arbitrators
despite 8.3.1.1;''
Despite!? Despite the fact that the Constitution says BOA members can't act as arbitrators? Does anyone else find it a little much that this motion overrules the Constitution on this point? I mean, this entire appeal is about people violating a section of the Constitution. Dean's solution to finding out whether or not the defendants violated the Constitution is to bring forward a motion that basically says, “despite the constitution”!? We’ll go around the Constitution to see if the Constitution was circumvented?! THIS ISN'T SPARTA....IT'S MADNESS!! I mean, seriously, “DESPITE”!?!
This motion attempts to hijack debate on the decision of the SAC to continue with arbitration. THIS IS THE REAL QUESTION HERE! Should the SAC be allowed to continue the case? This BOA needs to decide this because THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THEY DO SO! When did Dean’s motion become the topic of debate!? Where did it come from!? Why are they trying to now circumvent the SAC?!
To Dean: I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt again and assume you didn’t realize any of this. I think that politically this makes you look like you’re siding with the defendants. As the head of the elections committee your objectivity is becoming increasingly questionable. Publishing a letter calling for respect while having smiled and stood aside at the SAC hearing does not help and the letter looks less like an appeal for respect and decency than a way to cover your own ass. (Still, thank you for writing it) You were elected by 651 people or 59% of the 3% of people who voted. This means you have little to no political capital. This also means that you have to do an exceptionally good job just to be liked, and these past two weeks have done little to help your image as impartial or as a strong leader. You weren’t so much elected as you were by-elected, and that means people have no tolerance for you pulling stunts like this. Either you didn’t realize any of this, for which you can be forgiven by withdrawing the motion, or you’re working to the benefit of the defendants by trying to go over the constitution. Either way it would be much easier to take you seriously if you just admitted it all.
Finally, DESPITE the fact that the BOA is the highest governing body...THE CONSTITUTION IS HIGHER THAN THE BOA! The Constitution is not a set of guidelines that you consult and amend at your whim, it’s the governing document. How about we follow it for a change.