at least we made a decision.

The SCSU Board Meeting lasted until about 1:30 AM but somehow a decision was made.

BIRT that the SCSU hold a re-election with the following timeline: Deadline for nominations - March 23; Campaigning until April 8; voting on April 9.

This was after a presentation by the Chair on options and pros and cons, and the presentation of a letter from former SCSU Executives. The vote to hold another election was done by secret ballot (a motion that passed 6-5-5), and itself passed 9 in favour, 8 against.

VP Human Resources Lou Michael Tacorda tabled a motion to rescind, arguing that the motion to call the question that led to the passing of this motion. Some debate and then the motion to rescind. Daniel Greanya (ex-officio College Council and VP Academics candidate) tried to call the question again and Chair Susie Vavrusa ruled it dilatory, which was appealed, the appeal failed, and the speakers could go ahead. The votes on the motion to rescind were 8-7-2, but it failed because it required 2/3 majority.

Ex-officio Marc Kilchling tabled the following motion:

BIRT if quorum for the third spring election is less than 5% of the eligible electors that the results be deemed invalid.

Which passed with the following friendly amendment from VP Academics and candidate for President Rob Wulkan:

BIFRT unless 9% or greater voter turnout is met, the term of office shall be a half term, ending on the day following the initial date that the motion to ratify is considered, or at the point of ratification, whichever comes first.

Because April 9 is a) the last day of classes, b) "UTSC Friday," a day to make up for classes missed during the university's closure on Good Friday, c) Easter Monday; there was a lot of worry about turnout and an accurate representation. This was seen as a reasonable compromise.

If only the meeting itself was that simple. It started at 8 PM and like I said, ran until around 1:30. The usual people talking in circles and asking questions over and over again.

The meeting even started late because Susie had to spend a lot of time clarifying the situation with Vlad Glebov and Shaila Kibria. On Friday there was confusion and they signed ex-officio forms when Jen Hassum (UTSU Chairperson) and Murphy Brown (APUS President) had already signed them at the beginning of the year. And at the beginning of the meeting tonight, speaking rights were only extended to members of the corporation. Anyone else (including the former execs) had to have speaking rights extended individually.

Overall, I think these motions are kinda crazy. And if they don't get the turnout and/or they don't get ratified, then... yeah. I don't even want to know. Probably a motion to renew, which would give us a chance to look at the original report again. But we'll see. At the moment I'm just glad that something happened.

There were a ton of students there, at least at the beginning. We had to bar people from entering the room because it reached its capacity of 60 people. And I think in general people behaved better, though there was still a lot of crosstalk and interruptions. Approving the agenda took forever because EVERYONE wanted their motions on, from ratifying to re-election to making people declare conflict of interest. The letter from the former execs (which I'll scan and post after I've slept) took forever because people kept interrupting with points of personal privilege because they felt they were being attacked, when the way the word 'failure' was used didn't necessarily mean that.

I know there will be students angry about this, and others who will be happy. I already know of at least one or two who feel like their votes in the previous election are being made worthless. There will be an article in the Varsity tomorrow, for sure.

But now I am starting to feel incoherent so I shall be off to bed.