SFSS Bank Crisis Resolved; Trial Dates Set
The freeze of the SFSS bank accounts has been resolved. Following a mediation session that was held on Monday, the impeached directors (the G7) and most of the remaining directors agreed on a compromise to restore the operations of the Student Society. My understanding is that the Supreme Court of British Columbia approved the following Court Order:
.................
UPDATE (2006-11-23): I have made a couple of minor changes now that I have actually seen the text of the Consent Order.
The freeze of the SFSS bank accounts has been resolved. Following a mediation session that was held on Monday, the impeached directors (the G7) and most of the remaining directors agreed on a compromise to restore the operations of the Student Society. My understanding is that the Supreme Court of British Columbia approved the following Court Order:
THE APPLICATION of the petitioners coming on for hearing at Vancouver on the 22nd day of November, 2006 and on hearing Donald G. Crane, counsel for the petitioners, and Susan Coristine, counsel for Janis Gunn, Heather Ball, Joel Blok, Melody Lee [sic], Ben Milne, Andrea Sandau and Ivy So, and BY CONSENT;In addition, the Court has set the (final) Court Date for the trial on the legitimacy of the Special General Meeting for November 30 and December 1, in the Vancouver courthouse, starting at 9:45 a.m. on both days. I do not yet know the court room number.
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
- The authorizing signing officers of the Simon Fraser Student Society shall be:
- Nancy Woodcock
- Lawrence Jones
- John Laurin
- Brenda Phillips
- Glyn Lewis
- Ivy So- All cheques must be signed by two (2) of the above noted six (6) people.
- All cheque requisitions shall be signed by each of Andrea Sandau, Joel Blok, Glyn Lewis and Margo Dunnet.
- Stipends to the end of October of 2006 shall be processed. Stipends for the period commencing November 1, 2006 shall not be processed.
- Legal fees shall not be processed.
- The above terms are for the interim period pending a ruling of the Court on the matters raised in the Petition herein.
.................
UPDATE (2006-11-23): I have made a couple of minor changes now that I have actually seen the text of the Consent Order.
Labels: sfu
12 Comments:
Nice job!! but why is Glyn Lewis on there instead of Vanessa "i am a treasurer" Kelly?
Otherwise.. I hope all remaining BOD Members have a rather peacefull weekend..you would deserve it guys!
it still seems utterly absurd to me that a compromise had to be made, but i'm happy that the pub will be able to order more beer and continue to pay the staff.
the G7 will get their next wake-up call at the trial in a week....hopefully they'll go away and stop bothering us after the courts put them through the wringer. Maybe they'll ask the CFS to send them truckloads of money to pay for their lawyer ;)
I would love to be in the court to watch it live!
Is the court hearing going to be open to the public?
yes! Everyone is welcome to watch it happen.
Titus - the line which references legal fees seems to be cut off... is there any more to it other than "the above term"
The CFS denied our vote at the general meeting, despite its transference to Cap being entirely legitimate under their by-laws.
Slightly illegal, no?
Not exactly. The decision of the SFSS Board of Directors to give our proxy to Capilano Students' Union was done at a non-quorate meeting of the Board of Directors. The CFS was well within its rights in denying the proxy vote.
Ah, I hadn't known the nature of that meeting.
I would argue that in the situation where the SFSS board cannot meet the requirement for the number of execs needed for quorum as a result of too many of them being impeached, the board should be able to continue functioning. in theory the students impeaching all those execs continue to have confidence in the remaining board.
It isn't as though they tried to spend thousands of dollars. They simply wanted their vote to register at the national meeting where no delegates were going to be present.
You can bet that if the SFSS had sent that vote with the folks from VCC, instead of Cap, it would have been recognized.
I'm not sure I agree with you on this one Titus. Though it is true that in the strictest sense, the board meetings so far have been non-quorate, there is no provision in SFSS policy or our bylaws as what we are supposed to do after an impeachment of half the executive directors or hypothetically, if we had an election where no one ran for 3 of the positions.
In any case, the quorate nature of our meetings is an internal affair and unless there is suspicion that the directors being sent by SFSS are not actually directors I don't see how the CFS feels it can comment on the validity of our delegation.
I've been hearing a lot of talk that this is violating our membership agreement with the CFS. It sounds like we would have grounds to take some 'serious action' on this.
There's certainly nothing in the CFS bylaws that would suggest that CFS has the right to challenge credentials in this manner. As long as SFSS is a legal entity representing several thousand students - to CFS among other entities - it has a right to be heard. Indeed, its *members* - that is the students of SFU - have a right to be heard. By-law I is pretty clear about that.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home