Letters, Feb. 4
Supporting SAFA
Re: Open letter to the SAFA executive (Letters, Jan. 14)
THE RECENT QUESTIONING of the Students’ Association of the Faculty of Arts’ (SAFA) professionalism and practices has troubled and drawn the immediate attention of its executive members. As an association that takes pride in the values that comprise its mandate and structure, the SAFA executive would like to take this opportunity to clarify the principles from which their association operates.
As stated, the Board of Directors (BOD) is the legislative organism of SAFA that facilitates and provides an effective forum for communication between students and SAFA, in addition to ensuring that mandated policies are followed by the executive. Each BOD meeting is formatted to include three question periods: one for generalities, one for questions pertaining to executive policies, and lastly, one for the executive’s monthly honoraria. Additionally, there is a varia section in which all BOD members have a chance to discuss any thoughts.
With these four portions of the BOD meeting allocated solely for discussion, debate, and questions, it is our opinion that discussion is never discouraged. Rather, the opportunity for discussion is strikingly there, and thus debate is promoted and encouraged.
In regard to the proposed disregard of the SAFA executive towards democracy and freedom of speech at BOD meetings, the SAFA executive strongly believes in the chairing abilities of its chairperson. The chairperson is a neutral party, outside of the SAFA executive. It is their responsibility to enforce Robert’s Rules of Order and to lead the meeting in the appropriate manner. The leadership capabilities of our current chair are above par and have allowed for effective meetings time and time again. The current chairperson has and will always enforce Robert’s Rules of Order if need be, regardless of who may have committed the infraction.
Lastly, SAFA is a very transparent corporation and student association, providing students with numerous forums to discuss SAFA and its activities. As stated in section 5.13 of SAFA’s constitution, “all meetings of the Board of Directors are public,” in addition to our executive meetings also being public. All minutes taken from these meetings are published on our website, artsuottawa.ca, for the entire student population to read. Students can contact every executive member through email, and/or during their respective office hours each and every single week (all of which are posted on our website).
SAFA has provided students within the faculty of arts many opportunities to discuss and debate. Unanimous consent is never encouraged, or necessary, as diversity in thought is considered to be refreshing and a helpful tool for SAFA. Although we believe SAFA is running effectively this academic year, the views expressed have been taken seriously.
If there are any comments or suggestions, please email us at comments@artsuottawa.ca.
SAFA executive members: Giancarlo Cerquozzi, president Colin Vanderwey, vp university affairs Caroline Frappier, vp communications francophone Amanda Leggett, vp communications anglophone Benoit Longval, vp charities Lydia Lee, vp finance Mattie Dube, vp social Casey Perreault, corporate secretary Jaimie Howard, philanthropic commissioner Sandra Manilla, social commissioner
An open letter to Allan Rock
IN WRITING SEVERAL letters, I have attempted to open up a dialogue with you concerning reports (e.g. in the Jan. 28 issue of the Charlatan) that the University of Ottawa administration engaged student Maureen Robinson to gather information secretly on professors and student activists on campus, yet I have been consistently denied a satisfactory response. I appealed to you, Mr. Rock, without success on Jan. 6 and Jan. 22 to conduct an investigation into these allegations of covert surveillance and distance your administration from the practices of your predecessor, also to no avail.
I find it puzzling that the current administration of the university is so zealous in applying the harshest sanctions of the law, often unjustly, as in the case of graffiti allegations against student Joey Hickey, yet display signs of an allergic reaction at the thought of invoking the law against former administration officials. All the evidence so far, including email correspondence, alleges the involvement of former VP Academic Robert Major, former U of O legal counsel and current Ontario Human Rights Tribunal adjudicator Michelle Flaherty, and current Dean of Science André Lalonde in far more serious breaches of the law. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Request legislation and posted on the rancourt.academicfreedom.ca website back up these claims.
So, why the double standards? Why the hypocrisy? The denial that any U of O official could possibly commit any wrongdoing is so ludicrous it really undermines the integrity of the university and damages its reputation. Surely, Mr. Rock, you have not abandoned your commitment to the principles of equality before the law simply because you have left the legal profession and are no longer the federal minister of justice? Your silence on the matter suspiciously implicates you in what appears to be an attempt to cover up the whole matter.
Again I call on you, Mr. Rock, to conduct a full, independent investigation of allegations of covert surveillance against former professor Denis Rancourt and student members of the activist group Freedom of Expression Committee and whoever else may be under the administration’s scrutiny. It is imperative to shed light on the full extent of the former administration’s actions. If officials in the Patry administration did hire a student to spy on people opposing their decisions before, how do we know the current administration is not still doing so? Many people continue to speak out against policy decisions made by the university on a range of issues. Is it your policy simply to silence them, or to address their critiques seriously?
Wayne Sawtell, M.Sc. candidate in biology
