CSU councillors given bailiff letters

At the last CSU council of representatives meeting, councillors said they had received a strongly worded bailiff’s letter demanding that they attend the Oct.
18 meeting and appoint a Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) or have legal action taken against them.
Councillors are wondering how, Chris Schulz and Ralph Lee who sent the letters, got a hold of their addresses and how they paid for the hand delivered letters.
Schulz stated at the meeting that they sent the letters because they wanted to ensure that councillors would attend the meeting and reach quorum, so that council could appoint a CEO.
Earlier on Oct. 18 Schulz and Lee handed in a petition with about 3,000
signatures from undergraduate students, asking for the resignation of CSU President Sabrina Stea. On Oct. 15 Stea resigned and once a president resigns there is then an election for a new CSU president in thirty days.
There is no CEO, since last year’s CEO resigned in mid-September. Council did not appoint a CEO at the last meeting, since they decided that they needed the time to advertise for the position. Nonetheless, they appointed a committee to appoint a CEO by Oct. 24.
“The petition does not count. There will be an election process anyway because Sabrina resigned,” said Patrice Blais, the newly appointed CSU president and vice-president finance.
Schulz requested the addresses of the councillors and executives from Blais on Oct.17. “I consulted my lawyer, so I could know what we are obliged to give. I got back to him the same evening. I told him that I would give him the list later on that night or the next morning. But before I could do that I started getting phone calls from councillors that were shocked at getting the bailiff letters,” added Blais.
Blais said that he was not home when the letter arrived at his home. “I knew it was coming so I was not shocked. Some parents of the councillors received the letters and since some of them come from countries where lawyers cannot be trusted, it was really scary for them.”
“I think it is really bad that students need lawyers to talk to other students.
We need a CEO, but to send a letter like that to get a CEO is not valid enough.
Council never lost quorum except once,” said Councillor Sami Nazzal.
At the meeting Schulz apologized for the ill effects that the letter had on the councillors. “It was not a strong-arm tactic. I was not sure that Sabrina was going through with her resignation and I wanted to ensure that there was quorum at the meeting.”
After Schulz apologized to council, councillor Tom Keefer asked him how easy it was to get the addresses of the councillors and the executives. Schulz replied that his lawyer had gotten a hold of the addresses somehow, but he did not know how.
“No third party can get that information. There is no other way his lawyer could have gotten it, other than from the university itself. That’s a breach of confidentiality. We need to do something about that. Addresses of the councillors are public, but not the addresses of the executive,” said Blais.
He added that he suspected that the university had leaked that information because the addresses that the letters were sent to were on university applications. “Some people moved in the summer and they did not get the letter, but it was sent to their old addresses.”
Councillor Samer Elatrash asked Lee and Schulz how they got the money to send the bailiff’s letter, considering that some letters were sent up to 300 kilometers away and that it was an expensive procedure. He also strongly implied that it was the university or some outside organization that provided Lee and Schulz with the funds to deliver the letters. “This is interference from the university.”
Schulz replied by saying that he had an arrangement with his lawyer.
Council finally passed a motion requesting that Schulz and Lee ask their lawyer how he/she obtained the addresses and how much it cost them and where the money came from. The pair was given a 48-hour deadline to reply to Council Chair Mistie Mullarkey and as yet, she has not received a reply. Lee and Schulz are not required to give a reply.
Schulz said that he will be sending a letter of apology to Mullarkey. “I still
stand by decision. It was very possible that there would not be quorum. I regret the ill effects of the letter. I failed to consider that.”
He added that he would not take legal action against council for not appointing a CEO. “They have broken their bylaws by not having the election in 30 days. As for where the money came from I was pretty clear about that at council.”
Lee said the idea to send the bailiff letters was something that supposed to be a last resort. He attended the first meeting with the lawyer and was not consulted about the second meeting. “I was not consulted about the content of the letters. I was totally against the threatening tone of the letters. I wanted to talk to the councillors. I was extremely annoyed at not being consulted [by Schulz].”

Comments are closed.

Related Posts