Dear Editor,
While the SFUO seems ready to put the U-Pass scandal all behind them, there are still fundamental questions that must be answered to ensure something nefarious did not happen. I took a look at the disciplinary committee report, and here are my views on the report.
The brevity of the report in regards to Mr. Wess is extremely concerning. How does Mr. Wess become eligible for the U-Pass program when the program is only available to full-time students? We know that Mr. Wess is not a full-time student, as he has told the BOA he is only taking two classes a semester, thereby making him a part-time student. It is my hope that Mr. Wess clarifies our concerns. If Mr. Wess shared how he obtained a U-Pass as a part-time student, this could help other part-time students receive one so they too can enjoy the benefits of the U-Pass!
The report on Ms. Dorimain raises a couple of concerns as well. Firstly, when notified she was suspended from the U-Pass portfolio she refused to follow the orders of the disciplinary committee. One hopes the executives of the SFUO have respect for the constitution of the organization. Secondly, the report does not explicitly address when or if Mrs. Dorimain returned the U-Pass in her name when the “grey period” came to an end. It is my wish that Mrs. Dorimain addresses the concerns raised above.
The record on Mr. Rachiq lacks sufficient evidence to support claims. If Mr. Rachiq was not aware of the U-Passes being held by other executives, then he certainly cannot be held to account. However, if he knowingly turned a blind eye to the situation, then, in his capacity in human resources, he willfully condoned harmful actions to the organization’s reputation.
In the case of Ms. Ellis, it is very clear that she used the system to her advantage and that is in direct contradiction of the terms of use of the U-Pass. The U-Pass program is explicit that if a student drops from full-time to part-time, they MUST return their U-Pass. Ms. Ellis registered as full-time then received her card, soon after she dropped down to part-time but did not return her U-Pass. The disciplinary committee recommended no action be taken, and this is a reckless decision. At the very least Ms. Ellis should pay the penalty under Bylaw 2007-268, and reimburse OC Transpo for their lost revenue.
In sum, the disciplinary committee report on U-Pass fraud allegations lacks detail and any recommendations to make sure something like this does not happen again in the future. Students have questions, and I hope that the executives address the questions in this letter. Four pages are not enough to express and explain the breadth of the allegations. The disciplinary committee is attempting to keep this ordeal hush-hush. Instead, the report has only produced more questions, and leaving students wondering is not the answer.
—Davis Schwartz, fourth-year political science and United States studies at the U of O.
