SAC Arbitrators

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)
I’m being told that the executivenominated the arbitrators that we were supposed to be nominated Sunday at the BOA.

For those not in attendance, last Sunday’s meeting was a small victory for transparency. But only small. When it came time to discuss the nomination of arbitrators to the Student Arbitration Committee (SAC) the Chair proposed that the BOA go “in camera” (I didn’t think the Chair had that right) in order to discuss the nominees. There was immediate backlash against the proposal and a long debate began regarding the merits and necessity of going in camera for this portion. The Chair rules that if they did not go in camera theycouldnot do this agendapoint(a very clearultimatumthat if the Board did not agree with him he would take his toys home right now). His decision wasappealedimmediately by BOA Director for Common Law Guillaume Pelegrin. Guillaume argued that they do not HAVE to go in camera to discuss this type of thing, since when he was nominated to this very same body (the SAC) the process was not done in camera. In the end the Chairs decision was upheld (barely). They then voted on whether to go in camera and it failed, leaving the Chair to strike the point from the agenda and move on.

But the Executive Committee took charge and did the work for the Board!

Buuut, from what I can find, there are only two clauses in the Constitution that allow the Executive or a member of the Executive to make decisions without direct approval of the Board:

3.2.10
Special Powers
Should it become temporarily impossiblefor the Board of Administration to meet, andshould it become urgent to make certaindecisions falling within the jurisdiction of theBoard of Administration, the Executive ofthe Board of Administration may assume thepowers of the Board of Administration until
such time as the Board of Administrationagain finds it possible to meet. Any and alldecisions taken by the Federation duringsuch period must then be sanctioned by theBoard of Administration. This special power
shall only be used in case of absolutenecessity.

This clause would certainly not apply here, since the BOA did meet, and it is not impossible for them to meet. It is also not an absolute necessity, and the decision is not sanctioned by the Board. What’s next:

3.3.1.5
In case of an emergency, she [the President] canassume powers that do not offi cially fallwithin her functions, as provided for inthe by-laws of the Federation, providedthat she receives approval from theexecutive.

This clause gives the President sweeping powers in the case of an emergency, and this is hardly an emergency.

Here’s what is supposed to happen:

8.3.4
A committee made up of the President of theFederation, the Chairperson of the Boardof Administration and the Chief Arbitratorof the Student Arbitration Committee shallrecommend arbitrators to the Board ofAdministration which shall ratify them asvacancy occurs.

So there you have it.

If the Executive has unilaterally ratified the new SAC Arbitrators without the consent of the Board, can they be considered legitimate? I am not making any judgments on the individuals but rather the positions. In any event, these new arbitrators can be highly qualified and deserving, but in the end theprocessis important toguaranteedue process.