Judicial Board rules in favour of council

In a unanimous decision late Wednesday night, the Concordia Student Union’s Judicial Board ruled in favour of plaintiff Gonzo Nieto on the matter of choosing a new CSU president.

In its decision, JB cited CSU bylaw 6.3C and standing regulation 52 as the fundamental basis for the conclusion that council is not forced to appoint the only vice-president who is willing or to remain leaderless. Bylaw 6.3C states that council will “act as the final authority on appointments of the student union” while standing regulation 52 states that “all internal and external appointments by council shall be by ordinary resolution.”

The complaint, originally submitted by councillors Nieto and James Vaccaro, stems from a regular meeting held on Feb.13. During the meeting, the executive presented VP clubs and internal Nadine Atallah to replace former President Schubert Laforest, who resigned due to health issues.

After hours of arguing, clashing over bylaws and threats of legal action, council rejected the proposal and Atallah refused to rescind her candidacy, leaving the CSU in a deadlock while the issue was sent to JB.

The central issue of the case was two separate interpretations of bylaw 7.4, which states that should there be a vacancy in the presidency, council shall appoint a president from the vice-presidents and should no vice-presidents be willing then a councillor may be appointed with two-thirds majority of votes.

The executive believed that council was violating the bylaws since Atallah was the only vice-president willing to take on the position. Conversely, council expressed their discontent, asking for a second option from the executive or to appoint a councillor.

During the hearing, Nieto represented the councillors who had issue with the idea of being forced to choose Atallah, while Atallah and VP external Simon-Pierre Lauzon represented the executive. Over the course of the two-hour meeting, both sides argued their points before the five members of JB. After two hours of closed session deliberation the decision was made public.

Following the decision, Lauzon told The Concordian that the decision would allow the process of choosing a president to move forward.

“The decision defined the boundaries between which we can work,” Lauzon said.

Nadine Atallah told The Concordian that she was happy to have a ruling from the Judicial Board that would allow them to move forward with a discussion.

“I’m glad they were able to clear things up, and I’m glad they recognized that there needs to be some change to the policy as it is unclear,” she said.

The executive is set to present four executives as options: Atallah, Lauzon, VP academic and advocacy Hajar El Jahidi and VP Loyola Stefan Faina.

Nieto said that he was pleased with the decision the Board had reached but admitted that neither bylaw 6.3C nor standing regulation 52 were included in his argumentation despite the role they played in deciding the issue. Atallah also told The Concordian that 6.3C was not included in any of the arguments presented, and that its inclusion in the decision was a matter of the Judicial Board’s own research.

“We were debating this particular by-law, 7.4, and so we were arguing about how to interpret it rather than the entirety of the bylaws,” she said.

Vaccaro said he hopes the CSU can move forward from the impasse and that he was happy that JB recognized the importance of council.

Bylaw 6.3C “recognizes what the executive seems to be repeatedly neglecting,” he said. “The council of representatives is there to look out for the interests of students and represent them at all costs. The executive is elected to execute the will of council, which represents the will of students in lieu of a meeting of members.”

Nieto said that going forward he hoped other executives would present themselves as candidates, citing VP sustainability Andrew Roberts as an example.

“The thing with [Roberts] is that he keeps bringing up this thing about not liking the politics side of the position, and that’s exactly why we want him, because he’s been a very forthcoming, open and transparent person that’s shown the ability to listen attentively to both sides,” said Vaccaro.

The next regular CSU meeting is this Wednesday where the issue of presidency will be addressed.

With files from Kalina Laframboise

5 comments

  1. 1 – no legal threats were made by the exec vs coucil, 2 – the opinion of the executive during the council meeting was largely due to the opinion of one of the CSU lawyer, which was not mentioned anywhere, 3 – the role of council is to uphold the interests of the CSU as a non for profit corporation, that is their legal duty. 4 – By laws come before the will of council, no matter what that will is, 5 – informing council that they are breaching by laws, if we believe this to be the case, is our job. refer to point 2 to find out why we made such a big deal of this.

    and finally 6, we offered 3 other options, and still councilors are saying they are not happy with the choices they have. They want who they want, and we’d better be willing…if not, well, too bad for us all.

    1.  Whether or not they were intended as threats, things were said that I believe most people (including myself and other councillors) would interpret as threats, seeing as they sounded pretty clear. Even if they were empty and used as intimidation as opposed to legitimate threats, it is quite difficult, concerning the way they came up and were presented, to interpret them as anything else.

      And what 3 other options were offered?! Were they offered to all of council officially via e-mail or in a meeting? Because I have not heard a word of this. And in fact, this article is the first place I have heard of you, Stefan, or Hajar being officially presented as alternatives (excluding when the Link said you had reconsidered, and when I asked you in person, you denied it)

      1. Hardial, 

        You can decide to interpret things however way you like it really does not matter, but no threats were actually made. Maybe you misunderstood the content of what was said, in this case you can go back to the recordings and clarify for yourself. 

        -Hajar

        1.  You were present Hajar, and it is very clear that *many* councillors were of the same opinion. I don’t really see the point when execs try to isolate every councillor as an individual and pretend that their qualms are theirs alone, and not reflected by the whole group. The aggressive way that it was presented, as well as the fact that voting in Nadine sounded like an ultimatum, felt like a threat. Either way, it’s done, and the Judicial Board has unanimously agreed that it was incredibly inappropriate to attempt to force councillors to vote in favour of one particular executive.

          1. Hardial I am having a hard time understanding your logic. You seem not to make the difference between a fact and an opinion. It is your opinion that threats were made, you felt as such and that is your right to feel however way you want, but in reality there were none. And that’s a fact. As you said, it felt like a threat, does not make it one. 

            Furthermore, I think you are also misunderstanding JB’s decision and role, JB didn’t rule on the “appropriatedness” of what happened, but on the legal interpretations of things. 

Comments are closed.

Related Posts