Lawsuit
I am being sued. The Petitioners are the Simon Fraser Student Society, Margo Dunnet, Erica Halpern, Shawn Hunsdale, Vanessa Kelly, Glyn Lewis, Wei Li, and Marion Pollock. The Respondents are myself, Jan Gunn, and Bryan Jones. Please see this Lawsuit page for more information. The lawsuit asks the Court to order that the October 25, 2006 Special General Meeting is null and void.
Now, the interesting thing about this lawsuit is that the Simon Fraser Student Society is listed as a Petitioner, even though the Society has made no motion authorizing legal action to be taken. Furthermore, the solicitor for the Society is listed as Rush Crane Guenther, even though the Board of Directors voted on Thursday, November 2 to remove Rush Crane Guenther as their legal counsel!
Also interesting is a letter that was sent to Forum [PDF] on Thursday, November 8 by Rush Crane Guenther. This letter informs Forum that "Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents have agreed on a date for a court hearing, being November 22, 2006." This is false. First, the Ottho Law Group (which is representing me and Bryan Jones) has made no such agreement. Second, the Ottho Law Group is not (at present) representing Jan Gunn. Rush Crane Guenther never approached Jan to ask her who her lawyer was, nor did Jan file an Appearance with the Court to this effect.
I am being sued. The Petitioners are the Simon Fraser Student Society, Margo Dunnet, Erica Halpern, Shawn Hunsdale, Vanessa Kelly, Glyn Lewis, Wei Li, and Marion Pollock. The Respondents are myself, Jan Gunn, and Bryan Jones. Please see this Lawsuit page for more information. The lawsuit asks the Court to order that the October 25, 2006 Special General Meeting is null and void.
Now, the interesting thing about this lawsuit is that the Simon Fraser Student Society is listed as a Petitioner, even though the Society has made no motion authorizing legal action to be taken. Furthermore, the solicitor for the Society is listed as Rush Crane Guenther, even though the Board of Directors voted on Thursday, November 2 to remove Rush Crane Guenther as their legal counsel!
Also interesting is a letter that was sent to Forum [PDF] on Thursday, November 8 by Rush Crane Guenther. This letter informs Forum that "Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents have agreed on a date for a court hearing, being November 22, 2006." This is false. First, the Ottho Law Group (which is representing me and Bryan Jones) has made no such agreement. Second, the Ottho Law Group is not (at present) representing Jan Gunn. Rush Crane Guenther never approached Jan to ask her who her lawyer was, nor did Jan file an Appearance with the Court to this effect.
Labels: sfu
44 Comments:
So much for Hunsdale's 'public' resignation from the Board on which he is now suing to remain. 3rd party speakers should start lining up to appear in court on the 22nd. If the g7 win or lose, who picks up the legal tab?
I be confident that if the SFSS does not pick up the tab, that the CFS will.
Nice going Titus,
In terms of the comments previous.
1) Hunsdale's resignation is permanent. He cannot go back on it. At no point did he acknowledge the validity of the SGM. As such, his being part of the suit is not a contradiction.
2) If they succeed, they can reasonably argue for the SFSS to pick up the tab. If they lose, I would not expect the SFSS to pick up the tab. The premise raised about the CFS picking up the tab is interesting. I, however, would not expect them to do so. If they did and it ever became public, the uproar at SFSS would be heard across the country. I doubt CFS would take that risk. Mr. Crane, however, could be doing this pro bono.
Evidentally, Hunsdale has not technically resigned, as a letter of resignation was not received by the BoD, and his letter to the Peak cannot be considered an official document.
Sneaky, eh?
Very interesting, I would be shocked if he came back. How would he justify that kind of action.
I doubt it. From the look of things, everyone's done a good job of chasing him away n.n
Still, I don't think this'll be the last we'll hear of him on the public square.
Just curious: Why is the matter taken to Supreme Court? Have the parties involved been in lower court(s) in the past?
In BC, the Supreme Court is the body that deals with most civil cases.
There is a Provincial Court, but this court only deals with very minor issues.
'Supreme Court of BC' is just the name BC uses for it's provincial lower court. It's not to be confused with the Supreme Court of Canada.
As for Crane, he's fighting to keep his job at the SFSS. I wouldn't call it 'pro bono' because it's not exactly in the public interest, but if he looses, he probably won't charge.
Titus (or anyone else),
I'm curious of at least 3 things.
1. Given the lawsuit does name you 3 as respondents and the SFSS as plaintiffs, how can you get clarification of this to a judge? I.e. is there anyway to let the courts know what is 'really' going on here without prolonging the process?
2. How can you ensure that Don Crane is held accountable for this stuff? Isn't he acting on shaky legal ground at this point? How can you go ahead with the court case in a timely manner yet still deal with these niggling issues regarding respondents and other points of contention?
3. A couple major points in Glyn's affidavit are wrong in my legal authority as a former MSO and a person who helped draft the by-laws in 2000/2001. As well, there are a number of points in the lawsuit that a number of people can probably speak to. How can we assist you guys and the SFSS in this matter reagrding information that we may have?
On a side note, if Hunsdale were to come back he could do so very easily. In case anyone hasn't realized, Shawn's ability to gauge how his actions might piss off a whole bunch of folks is pretty slim. He could say that his resignation wasn't accepted and he could serve out his term without having to acknowledge that he was impeached.
Either way, it looks like Shawn got some kind of compinsation out of all this. I heard last night that his girlfriend Lori Macdonald 'somehow' got a student union position at the former college of a Ms. Jan Gunn: North Island College. I found confirmation on the web. Guess we can all blacklist that college from now on.
I have to state this as an observer from Ontario:
Is B.C. that small? You have people running at more than one school for office. You have people shuffling around the province leaving a trail of destruction (a little over the top I know) behind them. It is just mind boggling to me. It seems to be a small world out there of the appearance of "it is not what you know, it is who you know"
Would like to see this confirmation, out of curiosity n.n
(Not that I don't take your word for it, mind you).
Juan:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/38thparl/session-2/fgs/hansard/N60919p.htm
I hope this works. If it doesn't, simply google her name and North island college. From the 5 minutes of research I did on this it seems like this is pretty recent (September, 'after' the firing). Also, it seems like the information about this (On the "life drawing cartel" website, which Hunsdale is an executive officer for), was taken off in October (according to a google cache file).
Juan - I don't know what you wanted confirmation of, but I'll take it that you wanted confirmation of a small group of people trailing about the province leaving a wrath of destruction behind them.
Take, for example, Joey Coleman. Once upon a time, President of our very own SFSS. He was responsible for the disastrous implementation of an undergrad health plan, that was delayed by *semesters* and ended up being turfed by the student body. What else happened during Coleman's disastrous reign? Two executives from the SFSS were impeached - in the last (before the Oct 25 fun) quorate general meeting of the SFSS, in relation to pornography.
Where is Coleman now? He's the Financial Coordinator of the Douglas Student Union - where he was (allegedly!) involved in disastrous financial mismanagement. The CFS had to bail out the DSU to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars.
And what of the CFS? Well, they're the ones who have the National Student Health Network, which Shawn Hunsdale desperately wanted to provide the health care plan for the grads (and now undergrads) at SFU. What else of the CFS? Well, it seems that their national deputy vice chair has been hired at SFU. Take a look at some scans of journals here on Titus' site where it's proven that the CFS wants to get rid of 'bad staff' and replace them with 'good staff' (read: CFS).
Also, while you're at it, look up Shamus Reid, who chaired the July 26th meeting of the SFSS and who was a past provincial coordinator of the CFS. Also look at Michael Gardiner, who's staff of the CFS, was on the executive, and who is now responsible for crafting a survey in regards to a potential health plan for undergrads. Why might this be a problem? Well, I would believe that Mr. Gardiner could conceiveably be in a conflict of interest as he is closely tied to the CFS and the National Studnt Health Network.
Geordie - how is it possible that Lori is a staff person at North Island college while at the same time being a student at SFU? She was at the last forum meeting, and at the AGM.
I have never been at SFSS. You are confusing my name "Joey Coleman" with the name "Joey Hansen", at least that is what I believe.
Thanks for the laugh mind you, I was a little taken back.
Yeah, that was odd. For some reason, the comment above transposed Coleman with Hansen. Maybe titus can edit that.
My incredibly humbled apologies to the fine and upstanding Mr. Coleman.
Anonymous said:
"The CFS had to bail out the DSU to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars"
I would dispute the "had to"--CFS BC certainly had a choice--it looks like at least half a million between BC and national.
Also, Shamus Reid is the current CFS BC national rep.
Titus,
Where should donations to your legal costs be sent?
There is no way this is anything but a slapp suit.
Re: "how is it possible that Lori is a staff person at North Island college while at the same time being a student at SFU?"
It could be that Lori is not a student at SFU. I'm not sure. It's possible that she's only here to help out her boyfriend in his time of downfall. It's also possible (and historically common) that CFS BC has parachuted her here to help Shawn out. Hence her low-key spy appearance at the Forum meeting.
If she is a student at SFU, I do not know how she is pulling it off and can only speculate. If I had to guess it's either cause she got the job but told them she'd need to take some time off immediately or start part-time for whatever reason (very possible).
OR
she gets the job and if her union is pro-CFS (likely in this case) she is allowed to work from afar / do "liasing" work / take some time off to help at SFU (Also possible and done many times before).
So, can anyone clear this up for me?
There has been some debate about how much CFS is "in" to DSU for. One contributor said that CFS-BC "loaned" $200,000, and if I understand correctly people think that CFS National "gave" $300,000 - although my impression is that it would be more correct to say that CFS National paid $300,000 in health plan fees on DSU's behalf.
Does anybody have any documentary proof on any of this? Or is this all just rumour? How do we *know* this?
See, this matters more than a little. As I understand it, it is illegal for a health plan broker to pay fees on a client's behalf using his/her other client's money (Since the National Health Plan's only income is from student health fees, thats what must have happened, right?). So if CFS National did what I think they are alleged to have done, then someone is in deep, deep shit. As in, time behind bars shit.
If said payment was made, who authorized the payment? If it was a loan, where are the papers? Whether it was a loan or a gift, my understanding of the CFS by-laws is that only the Board would have been able to authorize something of this nature. Is there a board decision documenting this?
*If* this allegation is true, it is the largest financial scandal in Canadian student union history, with the CFS executive possibly sitting smack-dab in the middle of it.
So it would be useful if someone could clear this up.
Oh, and why exactly has not a single student journalist picked up on this? Are they all really that clueless?
Hey, why limit the discussion to BC? Try Ontario, where CFS-lifer Jeremy Salter (Lakehead SU president circa 2000) is simultaneously presdient of the continuing ed students at Ryerson, the CRO at York and an executive VP at Centennial. (the excalibur has an interesting article on him in their 8 March 2006 issue).
It's pretty clear what this guy is doing - using a paid position at one CFS institution to act as a guardian of "CFS morals" at York and as a CFS organizer at Centennial.
It's all within the rules, but it's creepy. And symptomatic of a CFS culture where it is OK for students to remain in student politics for a decade at a time - by which time they have nothing in common with the students they represent.
I know some people objected to my using the term "loser" to describe these people, but COME ON! Do you have a better word to describe CFS-lifers? I'm sure their mothers love them and all (well, maybe not Joey Hansen and Phil Link) but could *you* hold your head high if you'd been in student politics for a decade? Puh-leeze....
lori macdonald isn't currently a student at SFU. i ran into her on campus a couple of days before the SGM and specifically asked her if she was still doing classes. also, lori wasn't actually at the SGM. she was hanging out up in the galleria with our CFS 'friends' shawn hunsdale (who couldn't get himself into the meeting) and sean hibbits!
Dear Anonymous,
I was a student journalist, and I covered this extensively. Now I am being sued. That's why student journalists are reluctant to touch it.
This is exactly how the mean machine CFS operates. Collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in yearly fees from unknowing and uncaring students on a yearly basis. Spout off a bunch of cliché slogans (ie. “Reduce Tuition”, “Freeze Tuition”) that play well in short sound bites. Pay for 3 times yearly indoctrination general meetings in which to cultivate the group think. Then cut off any dissent from any students with vicious law suits brought on by a team of highly compensated hired gun lawyers that are paid from the very fees the students paid in the first place.
If you are being sued for speaking up against something inappropriate student politicians have done, for being a student journalist who covers CFS controversy, or for being a student activist who organises successfully to impeach a student union, you are faicing a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).
Environmental activists have faced this tactic for years in confronting major corporations (like Mickey D's infamous lawsuit against a UK teacher).
In 2001, the Protection of Public Participation Act was passed to prevent SLAPP suits in BC and can be reviewed at
http://qp.gov.bc.ca/2001/3rd_read/gov10-3.htm#section%201
Please read it and use it to defend yourself against this crap!
I also suggest contacting the BC Civil Liberties Association for assistance!! contact them at
http://www.bccla.org/05contact.htm
I also suggest that the SFSS activists set up a prominent table on campus and solicit cash donations for their lawsuit as well as letters of support. I will be happy to send a cheque.
Unfortunately, the Protection of Public Participation Act was repealed by the BC Liberal government back in 2001. See:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/37th2nd/3rd_read/gov11-3.htm
With due respect for the student journalist (and I'm not familiar with the article you wrote):
You can't successfully be sued for asking to see documentation related to a loan by a membership association (or printing the fact that they refused to give it to you, which is what I suspect would happen). You cannot successfully be sued for asking CFS about paying health plan fees on one member's behalf. Presumably, anyone with half a brain could sneak into a CFS meting and ask questions at a plenary session - if they don't answer the question, you can print that.
More to the point, though - why exactly have other student journalists not reported that the CFS - Staunch Defenders of Students that they are - are suing a student journalist for Christ's sake? Isn't that a story?
Or, again, are they all so clueless that they can't see the news value in a student journalist being sued by the country's largest student organization because he/she (sorry, anonymous!) started pecking away at a story which might have implicated them in the biggest student union fraud in the country's history?
On second thougts - they are probably not stupid: more likely they're fellow travellers - the CUPpies can't bear to think that CFS - Voice of Students - actually might be flawed. Or criminal.
The latest news report on the situation at Douglas College and a phone interview with CFSer Philip Link:
http://www.dailymotion.com/student3/video/xnc22_dsu-cfs-corruption-3
I think I'm falling in love with this Global News reporter. God bless her...
That's *hilarious*! Philip Link asking: "What's your problem?" is priceless.
So does Phil Link have legal authority to "advance" that amount of money? If not, will he be fired?
Even if he did have authority from the Board, is it legal for CFS to advance fees in this manner?
And so - between the money CFS owes Travel CUTS which might now have to be repaid and the money it has now apparently lost to DSU...is CFS actually solvent?
Does anyone have a copy of their recent financial statements (as divorced from reality as they might be) that can be posted and shared?
(We're counting on you here, titus...)!
Titus is unable to post the forsenic audit. It received a letter last time he did.
I meant CFS' financials, not the DSU's. These are presumably public documents even tho CFS doesn't have the cojones to post them.
A
Oh, my mistake. Good Luck getting those. I be surprised if the National Executive even gets to truly see the financial state of the CFS.
(sorry - hit send too soon)
I meant CFS' financials, not the DSU's. These are presumably public documents even tho CFS doesn't have the cojones to post them.
Another point: what legal redress do members have in societies where an executive or executives engage in financial impropriety? Would it be legal to withhold fees, for instance? Any lawyers out there?
Ha, good example with Ontario and Jeremy Salter ... I've heard he also now has a job as the 'Policy Director' for the York Federation of Students. So, he was the CRO, disqualified the other candidate for President and was then hired on by the cfs-friendly slate as the Policy Director.
Does anyone know if student unions are covered under freedom of information legislation?
Feel sorry for those of you in BC facing this ordeal. SLAPPs suck.
The CFS national meeting is coming up next week and an audit is required to be presented at that meeting to the delegates.
It should be easy for anyuone, and certainly for any CFS member to acquire a copy as it should be a matter of public record.
The audit would cover the time from July 2005 to June 2006, so it should cover the loan of $207,000(or whatever you want to call it) made by CFS Services to the DSU health plan broker (Heath) as it was made on June 28, 2005?
Student delegates note: this will likely show on the balance sheet, likely as an Account receivable, and these might include other substantial funds, so it may not be obvious. It would also not show up on the Income and Expense sheet.
Does anyone know who their auditor is at national level?
Please Titus, or any other respondent in the G7's ridiculous supreme court suit, post any information you can about how folks can make donations to help pay for legal counsel. THANKS!
I'd like to comment on this comment:
"...The fact is that this former exec would be SFSS staff and have to listen to the goal the exec sets out. Don't become the kind of politics you hate. Unless you know him/her, don't presume they won't be a good staffer, and don't fire them just based on past political connections..."
The SFSS has already had several hires in the advocacy staff area that put CFS hacks, if you will, in place. These people didn't/won't "listen" to the goals that the exec sets out. They either undermine them or take the initiative and 'channel' CFS priorities and methodologies to the exec.
As has already been stated, the problem with Angela Regnier's hire is that the employer did not observe the terms of the collective agreement vis a vis hiring committee process.
This hire was driven by the former directors of the society--railroaded would be a better word. Given the intensity of their efforts to get Regnier in place, I'd be very concerned about why they'd be motivated to do that. And why they insisted on using their majority to get board approval for this hire, while on the other hand, insisting that the board did not need to 'fire' Aitken because the Internal Relations Officer had all the power to hire, fire and discipline.
Regnier has been confronted at least twice in the last 3 months about CFS involvement in Locals' elections and has catagorically denied that the CFS has anything to do with Local politics. Anyone seen Global's coverage lately? Or read Harder's account of how his own slate was engineered and steered by the CFS?
She is not playing it straight and I wouldn't expect there to be any change in her perspectives once she begins work on November 29th.
BTW, as a probationary employee, she is covered by the collective agreement and if she is relieved of her job during that time, it has to be for performance inadequacies or an elimination of the position. She also has the right to Union representation and can grieve any action against her employment with the SFSS. Also, as a temporary employee, she would be considered an 'internal' candidate for other permanent jobs that may open up while she's there.
However, the offer to employ her may be withdrawn with no penalty to the Society before her start date. There may be minor compensation due her in this case, like costs incurred in preparation for moving etc. but that would be about it.
She may or may not 'have' to resign her CFS national post before she starts work for the SFSS. As the national general meeting is next week, it would be really good if the SFSS withdrawl of an offer of employment were delivered to her before then so that she does not needlessly resign and lose her income from that position, and, before the meeting elects a replacement for her.
SFSS Impeachment Email Campaign, Pass It On!
As everyone is well aware, a large portion of the SFU student body recently voted to impeach several directors of the SFSS. Glyn Lewis, Margo Dunnet, Vanessa Kelly, Wei Li, Erica Halpern, and Marion Pollock have all refused to respect the wishes of the students and step down. This has resulted in legal action and SFSS bank accounts being frozen. As mentioned in the “member update” this week in The Peak, until this financial matter is resolved no departmental student unions or clubs will receive funding. Also, as they failed to mention, the Student Society’s food services (Higher Grounds, the Highland Pub, The Ladle, and catering) have been comprised because the commercial suppliers of these services are not being paid. This will inevitably result in these operations being shut down and in the layoff of Student Society employees. Plus, possibly no beer on campus.
In their “member update,” Margo Dunnet, Glyn Lewis, Wei Li, Vanessa Kelly, Marion Pollock and Erica Halpern state that they are trying to find an “acceptable resolution” to end this situation. They mention that several alternatives have been offered, but say that these alternatives would put staff signing officers in difficult positions that may result in disciplinary action. What exactly are these alternatives? Why would these alternatives result in disciplinary action for SFSS staff? This is ridiculous; it is not the job of the SFSS to protect their staff from disciplinary action; that is the job of the Union. Why would disciplinary action even be an issue? The only reason that comes to mind is retaliatory action from the impeached board members should they be returned to office. I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation why the impeached directors are not relinquishing their signing authority while the matter is being settled in court. If they truly desire to remain in a “caretaker” role, then they should start taking care of the people they are responsible for.
The so-called G7 also stated in their latest “member update” that they will abide by whatever decision the court makes. One has to wonder why they did not abide by the decision of the 1028 students who voted to impeach them. Even if the SGM is deemed to have been invalid, does that invalidate our voices and displeasure with their actions? Do they think that we will not call another meeting and re-impeach them? Based on their actions following the impeachment I find it hard to believe that they will abide by any decision that does not suit their personal needs.
Whatever the courts decide on this matter, one thing is clear, the actions of the impeached members of the student society, and those that support them, since the SGM are clearly negligent. Their actions are not protecting staff; it is putting their livelihoods in jeopardy. Their actions are not in the best interests of students; they are only seeking to save their own skins. In my opinion these negligent actions and inaction are impeachable offences and if the courts do invalidate the SGM, I will do whatever is necessary to ensure that these members are impeached again.
It is time the students speak up again, as it would appear that we were not heard the first time. If you feel the same way, pass this on to your friends, add your name to this letter, and forward it to:
pres@sfss.ca
atlarge1@sfss.ca
atlarge2@sfss.ca
ero@sfss.ca
iro@sfss.ca
treas@sfss.ca
SFSS Impeachment Email Campaign, Pass It On!
As everyone is well aware, a large portion of the SFU student body recently voted to impeach several directors of the SFSS. Glyn Lewis, Margo Dunnet, Vanessa Kelly, Wei Li, Erica Halpern, and Marion Pollock have all refused to respect the wishes of the students and step down. This has resulted in legal action and SFSS bank accounts being frozen. As mentioned in the “member update” this week in The Peak, until this financial matter is resolved no departmental student unions or clubs will receive funding. Also, as they failed to mention, the Student Society’s food services (Higher Grounds, the Highland Pub, The Ladle, and catering) have been comprised because the commercial suppliers of these services are not being paid. This will inevitably result in these operations being shut down and in the layoff of Student Society employees. Plus, possibly no beer on campus.
In their “member update,” Margo Dunnet, Glyn Lewis, Wei Li, Vanessa Kelly, Marion Pollock and Erica Halpern state that they are trying to find an “acceptable resolution” to end this situation. They mention that several alternatives have been offered, but say that these alternatives would put staff signing officers in difficult positions that may result in disciplinary action. What exactly are these alternatives? Why would these alternatives result in disciplinary action for SFSS staff? This is ridiculous; it is not the job of the SFSS to protect their staff from disciplinary action; that is the job of the Union. Why would disciplinary action even be an issue? The only reason that comes to mind is retaliatory action from the impeached board members should they be returned to office. I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation why the impeached directors are not relinquishing their signing authority while the matter is being settled in court. If they truly desire to remain in a “caretaker” role, then they should start taking care of the people they are responsible for.
The so-called G7 also stated in their latest “member update” that they will abide by whatever decision the court makes. One has to wonder why they did not abide by the decision of the 1028 students who voted to impeach them. Even if the SGM is deemed to have been invalid, does that invalidate our voices and displeasure with their actions? Do they think that we will not call another meeting and re-impeach them? Based on their actions following the impeachment I find it hard to believe that they will abide by any decision that does not suit their personal needs.
Whatever the courts decide on this matter, one thing is clear, the actions of the impeached members of the student society, and those that support them, since the SGM are clearly negligent. Their actions are not protecting staff; it is putting their livelihoods in jeopardy. Their actions are not in the best interests of students; they are only seeking to save their own skins. In my opinion these negligent actions and inaction are impeachable offences and if the courts do invalidate the SGM, I will do whatever is necessary to ensure that these members are impeached again.
It is time the students speak up again, as it would appear that we were not heard the first time. If you feel the same way, pass this on to your friends, add your name to this letter, and forward it to:
pres@sfss.ca
atlarge1@sfss.ca
atlarge2@sfss.ca
ero@sfss.ca
iro@sfss.ca
treas@sfss.ca
A Concerned Student,
Theresa Hughes
Re: Anonymous:
"As I understand it, it is illegal for a health plan broker to pay fees on a client's behalf using his/her other client's money (Since the National Health Plan's only income is from student health fees, thats what must have happened, right?). So if CFS National did what I think they are alleged to have done, then someone is in deep, deep shit. As in, time behind bars shit."
Anonymous, or anyone else, Do you know what law or statute or regulation would be relevant?
Thanks!
Can't speak for why "anonymous" said what he/she said but it's difficult to say unless we know the precise circumstances of the "advance" and more specifically, where the funds came from.
It would I think almost certainly be illegal for a broker to use one student group's fees to pay for another's. Not sure which jurisdiction's law applies here (Ontario's or BC's) but as I read the Registered Insurance Brokers Act of Ontariofees received from one client are legally held in trust for that client, so using them to pay for another client (DSU) would be illegal.
That said, it's not clear that;s what happened. Did CFS (or CFS-S, or the NHSN) pay a fee on to Heath on DSU's behalf? That wouldn't be illegal since it's just oneperson paying another's fees on their behalf. The problem would come if an actual licensed broker were instructed by a major client (i.e the Network) to waive fees or juggle accounts. *That* would be illegal.
All that said, it brings up a question. To whom does an SU pay fees on these plans? To Heath? To the Network? (Does the network even exist as a legal entity separate from CFS? Couldn't find it on Strategis) To CFS? This presumably matters in terms of figuring out liability in this case...
The other way, of course, that Link ends up in jail is how the transaction took place within CFS. Most of the theft and fraud codes come into play if it is determined that there was a deliberate deception involved and especially if it turns out there is no serious repayment provision in the deal (I've heard this is the acse of the CFS-BC "loan", but I'm not sure if this is the case on the CFS national "advance".) Here's how this would work:
1 - In the absence of a concrete repayment plan, this looks like a "gift" to DSU to cover for whatever it is Hansen did with the money
2 - This "gift" appears to have been arranged by Phil Link.
3 - If the "gift" was done without the knowledge of the CFS NE and he himself does not have proper signing authority, then it is theft.
4 - If the "gift" was done with the knowledge of the NE, but the NE were kept in the dark about certain aspects of the case, then it is fraud.
The interesting thing here is whether or not it only the employer could bring the fraud charges. Could a CFS member start proceedings against him for fraud? (and, legally speaking, who is a member anyway? Am I a member? Or is it just my SU? If I am a member individually, what rights do I have with respect to getting access to documentation from CFS?)
More stuff for law students to chew on.
"What's your problem?"
- the Great Phil Link
Student unions in the National Student Health Network (NSHN) cut their cheques to Morneau Sobeco (Formerly Heath), which is the broker used by NSHN. Morneau Sobeco in turn pay Greenshield. No money is given by the student union to the NSHN.
I assume they get a cut from Morneau Sobeco for delivering business in bulk.
You know, I worked with Philip Link in the mid 1980s while at community college in BC and it was immediately apparent to me that he was one of a small coterie of folks associated with student politics who for lack of a better term were and are extremists. Almost Stalinists, in a way. Progressive politics was a mantra, but devoid of any humanity. He operated with this cut-throat arrogance that was really chilling and you can hear it in the interview. Surprised he didn't call her a bitch as that was a popular term of his.
Anyway the math regarding how these (then twenty-something) guys and gals kept themselves in permanent salaried jobs on the backs of everyone else's $5 a year, with total control over the pimply student executive members, was simple then and it's simple now. What stuns me is the degree to which university administrations and provincial governments continue to allow these hugely inefficient and sometimes fraudulent student governance arrangements to continue without any real reporting or accountability requirements.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home