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.