What the motion should have read

It seems Mr. Haldenby does not read my blog, or if he does he decided not to take my advice. I guess distancing himself from the unfolding Slate-Gate was to easy for him and he decided to jump into the controversy head first. Accordingly, I may have to lower the grade I bestowed on Mr. Haldenby's term.

If I were submitting the motion on Friday here's a taste of what I have in mind:


Whereas the Student Arbitration Committee is the highest judicial body of the SFUO, pursuant to section 8.1.

Whereas the Constitution was written in order to protect the students of the University of Ottawa from abuses of power of the SFUO.

Whereas it is the duty of the Board of Administration to uphold the Constitution of the SFUO.

Be it resolved that the BOA accepts the report published by the SAC and agrees with their intent move forward with the hearing. From the report:

We conclude that an arbitration into disputed election results can occur when any member of the SFUO asserts that there was fraud or irregularities during the election campaign, regardless of whether the respondent candidates’ consent to the arbitration

Be it further resolved that it will be the duty of the SFUO and its subsidiary and federated bodies to ensure that the environment in which the hearing take place be one of positive space.

All signs, banners, placards or other props will be prohibited from the venue of the hearing. Any and all students participating in behaviour which threatens the principle of positive space will be removed from the room immediately.

Be it further resolved that this hearing take place within 10 days time and be in a venue large enough to accomodate all students who wish to attend.