Two seats still remain vacant on the Concordia Student Union’s (CSU) judicial board, as commerce major Suzana Ek was the only person elected out of four candidates in two back-to-back voting periods by the CSU council during its Jan. 22 regular council meeting (RCM).
Some members of the CSU Executive Committee expressed their disappointment with the council’s failure to fill the positions. For the judicial board to be active, at least three seats must be occupied.
“For months, upon months, upon months, councillors have been complaining, ‘Oh, there’s no JB [judicial board], the JB is dysfunctional,’” said CSU General Coordinator Kareem Rahaman. “It falls on the executives; the executives do the work. [When] it comes to council, the council doesn’t deliver. The work falls on the executives again, and everyone’s upset now. This doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Kinsey El Tanani, Nicola Woloz, and Saraluz Barton-Gomez were the other Concordia undergraduates considered for candidacy. These candidates were not elected to the judicial board because they did not receive the majority vote.
Coun. Drew Sylver accused one candidate of lying in their interview regarding being politically impartial. He claimed that this candidate’s political bias made them unfit for a judicial board seat and wanted to present a video and photo of their alleged presence at the Nov. 8, 2023, protest that occurred in the Hall building’s mezzanine.
“I do not want someone adjudicating a judicial board case that has been present at a riot,” he claimed.
Chairperson Mya Walmsley confirmed that a debate regarding the candidate’s political involvement in the protest was permissible during the discussion period but that presenting the evidence in an open session would be out of order.
“I think it is very concerning that you would share a photo of [them],” said Coun. Mohamad Abdallah to Sylver. “That would be an attack on [their] privacy.”
Candidates were asked to leave the room after their interview was over. They were not allowed to be present during the debate period. CSU Academic & Advocacy Coordinator Vanessa Massot argued that presenting Sylver’s alleged evidence in the absence of the candidate was against the principles of procedural fairness.
“I don’t feel that it is appropriate for this intervention to happen [to] the candidate,” they said. “Especially because the person themselves is not here to defend themselves.”
Sylver affirmed to Walmsley that he requested earlier in the RCM for the candidates to remain while he presented the evidence. A closed session to view the alleged video and photo was motioned to the council and failed to pass. No evidence was presented to the council during the RCM.
CSU will have to hold another election in order to fill the two remaining seats and have an active judicial board.
“I really sympathize with the frustration of the executives after putting in this work. I can definitely assure you that we were very rigorous, having voted twice. It was pretty clear that people wanted to give it a serious try, but there was not a consensus in the end,” said Walmsley. “I’m not sure about what the next steps are, but the council voted with the information on hand. The process will need to be done again.”
This article was updated to protect the identity of the candidate mentioned in the accusations.