Ryan Kennery, recently elected BOA member, contacted me shortly ago with the minutes from the meeting where all these amendments took place supporting Hrick's earlier assessment of the situation.Ramy Sonbl seems to also have revised his initial position with this comment: "Ryan is correct, everything else took effect immediately. I just looked at the minutes."
So if everyone sees eye to eye, why is there confusion?
Because the only copy of the Constitution that is accessible to students... has not been updated. Yes. You read correctly, the most important document of the SFUO, has not been updated on the website. Please note that by the time most students will read this post and go to the SFUO website to download the Constitution, it will probably be updated.
UPDATE: The SFUO Blog is ready for everything, hence the screenshot. Oh. And if the Constitution is updated, which I predict it will be, please do not hesitate to contact me for the version that was online on Febuary 26th at 2:46AM.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
Two years ago, the Student arbitration committee (SAC) used the online version of the SFUO Constitution to come to a decision. It turned out the Constitution was (surprise, surprise) out-of-date. So the BOA voted to overturn the decision. (March 2005-2006 BOA meeting)
***
It would be interesting to see how many signatures Picard collected when he ran for VP Communications a few week ago to judge whether or not he was aware of the change. Some might argue that given the situation - the fact that he was in France and that volunteers were the ones collecting signatures - it is possible that someone used the Constitution as a reference for the number required.
Regardless of the outcome of Picardgate, the SFUO's inability to post an updated version of its Constitution is either an act of incompetence or laziness. Either way... not reassuring.
5 comments:
All the comments from previous readers are true, the constitution is THE document and THE law when it comes to these sorts of decisions.
However, the interpretation of said document, in regards to the number of signatures that the Picard Possum had will be at the behest of those presiding over the election.
Of course, the decision can be challenged at SAC, but the decision at this level, will again, depend on the interpretation and intent of aforementioned amendments.
The possibility for open an interpretation--grey areas, exceptions, good faith etc, especially during an election--are endless
What is beginning to present itself, and what I think everyone is missing here, is a legal term known as an "Officially Induced Error".
It is the responsibility of the FEUO to make essential policy documents, like the constitution, readily available to its members.
If the constitution that is provided to members, is incorrect, and the members adhere to the incorrect or incomplete document--how can SAC, FEUO, elections comm. and others hold their members to account when they themselves are fault--officially induced error.
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that FEUO keeps its members informed? up to date with changes to the policies that govern the organization?
Is it the duty of the VP Comm? President? or just a administrative duty that has been, casually, overlooked? mishandled? forgotten?
In any case, regardless of the ruling for or against Picard, there exist ample evidence for the Picard Possum and the other candidates to challenge the decision.
I think it would be wise that all candidates embrace one another in a show of solidarity (there are 6 people afterall) and avoid the bureaucratic and procedural squabbling that underlines other, higher profile, races for office.
I'm just sayin.
jasonchiu
Picard knew the rules and he is responcible for the actions of his team.
There are no excuses. He challenges, he is a hypocrit. It is simple.
This SFUO's inability to post an updated version of its Constitution (that is either an act of incompetence or lazyness) is under the VP COMMUNICATIONS' PORTFOLIO.
And who is the current VP Comm of the SFUO?
Pas très rassurant.
I thought OIE only existed in CUPland Chiu.
Ross,
In my experience (ahem) as a Director on the CUP and Campus Plus Board(s) of Directors, as well as a stint as the internal-auditor for a student union; I find the OIE to be a commonplace amongst many student run organizations.
Turnover, misplaced priorities, lack of sleep, lack of continuity, lack of a firm understanding of policy and concision in the institution's document can all contribute to OIEs.
--
CUP is not special in the methodology it employs to address OIEs, in fact, CUP is pretty ordinary--it is just like any other (national) student organizations I've been involved in or had contact with.
NSOs tax students with levies and fees. They make claims to the greater good: Duty and service to one's membership or brotherhood with other vitamin-deprived-twenty-something year olds.
And what do you get in return? Let me tell you: An ISIC card with a shitty photo, a half-ass health plan, and a series of antiquated services that serve a plethora of interest groups who identify themselves by acronyms alone.
Hell, if I wanted a service/student group/association of my own, I'd have to buy letters of the alphabet from other groups.
--
Also, CUP is not a land mass. Despite popular belief surrounding the Death Star fund, said project has yet to achieve financial stability, let along credibility.
--
In short, Ross, no. OIEs are everywhere.
i'm just sayin.
jasonchiu
Post a Comment