By-laws? What by-laws? Part Two

Further updates from the SCSU:

Around 5:30 Sunday afternoon, Raj Gunaratnam, the SCSU President, calls me on my cell. He wants to know what I think about sending an advertisement for a re-election to the Varsity for Monday's issue. I tell him that such an election would be illegal, as By-law #2, specifically Sections 2.01 and 2.02, outline that a) the Board must set and ratify the timing of all elections, and b) Executive elections have to take place by 15 February. He insisted there was a part of policy that allowed it, and I disagreed. He told me that we had to make sure we didn't fail the students. I told him that the Board had already failed the students when they failed to ratify on Friday night, and that I didn't want to have anything to do with this. Yeah. Well. Never happens that way.

Eventually I get back home and Jemy Joseph, our Vice-Chair, is at my house, talking with Dawn Cattapan and Marc Kilchling (both ex-officio, College Council) about this. Jemy and I head over to campus and talk to Raj in the office. As Vice-Chair, Jemy is the official interpreter of SCSU by-laws and policies. As there is no provision in the policies for what to do when a spring election is thrown out, Jemy interpreted it as up to the discretion of the Board of Directors. As By-law #2, section 2.05 states there must be three weeks' notice of the date of the election in a continuing student publication, and the only date possible would be April 4 & 5 (the last days of classes), the only way that could happen with sufficient time for nominations and campaigning would be if the ad went in Monday's Varsity. But, without consent of the Board, this couldn't happen.

I had told them about Raj's phone call and Marc sent the following e-mail:

Raj,

It has come to my attention you intend to violate SCSU By-Law #2 and proceed with another election. As an ex-officio member of the board of directors, I find your willingness to breach bylaws and policy quite disconcerting.

As the previous meeting indicated by a majority vote, the elections committee failed to follow policy. In fact, your vote stated as much. The idea that you would continue with the same elections committee shows that the issue last Friday was not about policy but rather a political one.

Be aware, that should you proceed with your action, I will ensure the necessary
signatures (pursuant to by-law #1, section 5.06.01) for your removal from office are
collected by Tuesday at noon. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me via email or by phone at *******. phone number removed for privacy

Please note, I have cc'd all the executives as I feel this issue is important and at the very least worthy of an executive committee meeting, of which as an ex-officio director I would request notice of to be present at.

Marc Kilchling
SCSU ex-officio Director

Raj attempted to contact the entire Executive Committee in the hopes of holding an Emergency Executive Meeting, at which we could take Special Powers (see By-law #1, section 8.07) and decide to call the election. However, not everyone could be contacted, and many who Raj did speak to were not in favour of calling a new election, as it could be considered to contradict By-law #2 Section 2.02. Lou Michael Tacorda, SCSU VP Human Resources, was in his car on the way and told Raj that if it was to take Special Powers, he was turning around. And he did. We held no meeting. Jemy and I asked Raj if he would run the advertisement. He said no. I went home. It was almost 11 PM and I had work to do.

So I get into school today and the Varsity is out, with UTSC split by election tumult splayed across the top of the paper. I was pleased to see that, since as you can tell by my extensive post about the Board meeting, word of this needs to get around. However, I was disturbed and angry about what was on the top right corner of page 13:





That's right. An elections ad. Jemy called me from the lab to tell me about it. Eventually we got together a meeting consisting of myself, Raj, Alexandru, Lou Michael, Rob, Lisa Endersby (VP Campus Life), Jule Benedict (the CRO), Madiha, and Guy Brisebois (SCSU Business Manager). We asked Raj why the advertisement was run when the Board had had no say, not even in the form of the Executive taking Special Powers, and after so many Executives stated they were against it. Raj said he was doing it as a safeguard in case the Board agrees to call an election, that way the advertising timeline could be fulfilled. However, the rest of us minus Alex and Madiha argued that it was inappropriate to not break one by-law in favour of another, especially when the broken one was about consent and ratificaton of a decision by the Board. Even if the re-election did run, it would still be illegal due to both 2.01 and 2.02. Alexandru didn't believe Rob when he said that if Student Affairs has to step in due to the SCSU breaking our own rules, they could take over management of the Student Centre and withhold our levy funding. In such a situation it is handy to have one's business manager around to explain things like that which are in the Student Centre Management Agreement (something Alexandru, as VP Operations, should be expected to be familiar with, one would think). We tried to explain that Jemy had ruled that whether or not a re-election takes place should be up to the Board, and that as Vice-Chair, her interpretation of policies is essentially set in stone. Jemy explicitly told Raj not to run the advertisement and he did it anyway. We said that it was wrong and he should ask Tom Nowers to send out an all-students' e-mail saying it was a mistake, and ask the Varsity to print a retraction to the advertisement. He refused.

The meeting quickly devolved into shouting, and Raj refused to admit that he had done anything wrong. Lou Michael and Lisa took off and soon after, Raj, Madiha and Alex left, Raj very very angry at the rest of us. Guy, Jule, Rob and I stuck around in the room and talked a little. We contacted Susie Vavrusa, the Chair, and Jemy, to tell them about the meeting and ask Susie, as both Chair and the liaison to the Elections Committee, to request the all-students' e-mail and retraction. Jemy, as Vice-Chair, is also responsible for enforcing sanctions should members of the Board be found to violate policy.

Raj sent out the following e-mail Monday afternoon:

Dear members of the board,

At our last Board meeting, the board made the democratic decision to not ratify the elections results due to irregularities. As president of the union, bind by the Election Policy and by-laws, I have acted upon the decision of the board to provide three viable solutions that I feel fall within our jurisdiction as a union, hence outlined on our constitution.

The Three viable solutions are as follows:
- Re-run the same election - This option would not need a Notice for Nomination, and hence will provide more than an adequate time for an election during the school year. However this solution will only limit the candidates to the ones running in the previous executive election. A re-election can be called as soon as possible with an adequate Notice for the Campaign Period.
- Have a re-election - This option, in my opinion is more democratic. A re- election is only viable if Notice of Nomination and Election are released to our membership as soon as Possible. I have attached a time line for this solution. If the board chooses to endorse this action, the election committee will need to be notified of the changes.
March 12th - March 20th - Nomination Period
March 21st - April 3rd - Campaign Period
April 4th & April 5th - Voting days
To meet this requirement and keep this option open to the board, as per by-law # 2, 2.05, I have issued an ad in Varsity Newspaper with the required time line.
- Appoint executives - This option is viable, but in my opinion is the least democratic. In my personal opinion, I believe it will be unhealthy for the democratic process that is of fundamental importance of our union, that all executives be appointed. It will be the first time in recent history that there will be no sitting elected executive within our union. I would strongly recommend the board reject this option.

In Conclusion, I would like to thank all members of the board for representing the best interests of our constituents, hopefully we will move forward in meeting the needs of our constituents. I would urge all members of the board to consult the student body and best reflect the will of the SCSU. Further, I would like to request for an emergency board of directors meeting to discuss about the options.

Yours sincerely,
Raj G.

Later, Susie sent out several e-mails, the first outlining what I just told you about the breach of policy on Sunday night, the second the retraction for the all-students' e-mail, and the third calling for an Emergency Board Meeting on Wednesday, 14 March from 8-10 PM in SL-232.

In the meantime, Jemy has inquired to our Financial Controller, Prasad Chandrakanthan, where Raj got the money to pay for the advertisement, and will be investigating sanctions for violating the By-law. Marc and some volunteers followed through on what he told in his e-mail and so far have collected 200 signatures towards an impeachment proceeding.

Personally? I'm mad as hell. I understand the need for elected Executives next year, but for goodness' sake we should NOT violate our own By-laws in ensuring we have them. As I mentioned before, someone is already heading to Student Affairs with the Board's action at Friday's meeting. No matter what we do, it's going to end up looking bad. The choices we have are the lesser of evils. We don't need more fuel for that fire by having more of our own rules broken.

I'm also going to try to keep a more low-key role. Today was very stressful and unfortunately I have quite a few other things pulling at me right now, so expect my voice to be heard and commentary to be written, but no taking on new tasks, and hopefully future posts won't be this long!

If you survived this post, you get a cookie. More cookies if you can ride out the whole storm.