In-camera motions lead to limited results
Board of Administration fails to appoint new student arbitrators
THE STUDENT FEDERATION of the University of Ottawa’s (SFUO) Student Arbitration Committee (SAC) was a topic of heated discussion at Feb. 28 Board of Administration (BOA) meeting. Directors were told that unless they adopted an in-camera motion, they would not be permitted to appoint new members to the SAC, a neutral body that resolves complaints filed against the SFUO. The motion was not discussed because BOA members voted against a motion to go in camera.
“Any [human resources] issues are dealt with in camera,” BOA Chair Federico Carvajal announced at the meeting. “Unfortunately, not all of that information can be disclosed out of camera.”
Civil law student Houda Souissi, who recently challenged the unclear wording of the U-Pass referendum question in the SFUO elections, was waiting for the SAC members’ appointments so that she could go forward with her complaint.
“We don’t know what happens now,” Souissi said via email. “[Civil law BOA director] Bruno Gélinas-Faucher asked for a motion to reconsider.”
Gélinas-Faucher’s motion was never heard as a motion to extend the meeting failed; all remaining agenda points were tabled to the next meeting. SFUO President Seamus Wolfe confirmed that since the BOA has not come to a decision, the SFUO executive committee will most likely take over the selection process.
Another matter discussed earlier at the Feb. 28 meeting was a report from the disciplinary committee that explained to the BOA that SFUO VP Finance Roxanne Dubois had been cleared of all allegations filed against her during the SFUO elections. Dubois was accused of aiding presidential candidate Amalia Savva with her platform—a violation of the SFUO constitution—when it was discovered that Dubois lent her computer to Savva on the same day election platforms were due. A BOA director confirmed that Dubois had been cleared of all charges during the in-camera session.
