Home > Uncategorized > Judicial Board Decision

Judicial Board Decision

March 31st, 2012

The Judicial Board has rendered their decision today and it becomes effective immediately.  Congratulations to Jamie Arron and Aaron Beale!

You can read the whole thing below if you want but the relevant paragraphs are 5, 6, and 7:

5. For the reasons that follow, I would maintain four of the six fines levied against Mr. Arron by the Elections Committee. Specifically, I find that both fines regarding Mr. Arron’s use of four seconds of footage from a ‘Brains for Change’ video were improperly levied, and cannot stand. While the first of the two ‘Brains for Change’ fines was not appealed to the Elections Committee, I find that the DSU’s By-laws give the Judicial Board the jurisdiction to consider this fine nonetheless. As will be explained, I would overturn this fine based on my finding that copyright in the ‘Brains for Change’ footage never passed to the DSU. Accordingly, it was not a DSU resource, such that no fine could be levied on this basis for its use.

6. With regard to Mr. Beale, I would overturn the twenty-nine fines in respect of the handbills posted in Howe Hall, and replace them with a single fine for negligence in relation to campaign material. I would also overturn the fine for post-campaigning levied in relation to these handbills. I would maintain the other fines levied against Mr. Beale. As will be explained, I would overturn these fines based on my conclusion that Mr. Beale had no involvement in the posting of these handbills in Howe Hall. While candidates must be responsible for taking proper of their campaign materials, I find that this care ought to be limited to the realm of reasonable foreseeability. The amount of fines levied against candidates should not be determined by way of the actions of independent parties beyond the control of campaigns.

7. In light of these findings, Mr. Arron and Mr. Beale will be reinstated as candidates in their respective races. Seeing as both garnered the majority of votes in those races, I would also declare them the winners of the races for DSU President and DSU Vice President (Academic and External), respectively.

Judicial Board Decision – Arron v Election Committee – Beale v Election Committee

Tags:
  1. JP
    March 31st, 2012 at 16:04 | #1

    Fucking hell…

  2. Tom
    March 31st, 2012 at 18:18 | #2

    FUCK, just when I though we got rid of the Hippies forever

  3. BS
    April 2nd, 2012 at 11:38 | #3

    Fuck! Goodbye dsu productivity! Let’s tear down the sub and replace it with a fucking yurt

  4. HK
    April 3rd, 2012 at 07:16 | #4

    A wonderful message to students:
    3 out of the 4 elected students were the only people in their race to violate elections policy/rules. There is no reward for following the rules and trying to run a clean campaign. Clearly, the best way to win an election to receive the maximum amount of fines because then you will be leveraging your maximum advantage over the other contenders.

    So for all of you hipsters/hippies/whatever that were yammering about the disqualifications being an affront of democracy? Well your candidates did exactly that; and embodied the exact behaviours that I’m sure you also hold against the Conservatives and Republicans — corruption, disregard for the rules, disrepect, and self-indulgence. I, for one, am glad that I’m graduating because I think it’s a disgrace to have such corrupt elected officials who had no regard/respect for the other candidates in their races, nor for the students who they are supposed to be now representing. Way to sign up for a year of deceit, rule dodging, and ignorance. I wish you all the best. (you’re going to need it)

    And for those of you who feel the same as me and will still be here next year — don’t let them get away with it — you don’t have to be represented that way if you don’t want to. Be a Councillor, a Board of Operations member, a committee member; put pressure, demand results, and ask questions. Just because the candidates you voted for didn’t win, doesn’t mean that you don’t deserve better. They owe you just as much as the people who supported them and don’t let them forget that. The DSU belongs to the students; the DSU is the students — take ownership.

  5. Faye
    April 3rd, 2012 at 10:48 | #5

    Way to go Jamie and Aaron! Looking forward to seeing some positive change next year.

  6. John Doucette
    April 4th, 2012 at 14:58 | #6

    … Point 31 boggles the mind:

    The Judicial Board’s task in determining the DSU’s policy regarding artistic works
    created in conjunction with students is rendered incredibly difficult due to the DSU Executive’s
    questionable practice of not keeping written minutes of meetings. Mr. Price informed the
    Judicial Board that, up to February 2012, the DSU Executive did not keep written minutes of its
    meetings.
    This practice unfortunately displays a lack of transparency that renders holding the
    DSU Executive accountable for its decisions incredibly difficult, leaving the entirety of the
    matter to the word and good faith of those who were present at the meeting.

  7. sarah
    April 4th, 2012 at 18:43 | #7

    As of December 5th (if not earlier) the DSU Executive definitely kept minutes.

    I began chairing the Executive meetings at this time and there are agendas and minutes for each meeting on record.

    It would be helpful if people who chose to speak on the Executive behalf represented us truthfully.

  8. John Doucette
    April 6th, 2012 at 23:34 | #8

    ^ If what Sarah says is true, doesn’t this mean:

    1): Mr. Price mislead the judicial board (presumably he was aware of the secretary at these meetings)
    2): The judicial board’s findings are based on potentially incorrect evidence (if the meeting minutes disagree with the testimony).

    No idea what the impact of that would be. Also worth noting: As usual, none of the meeting minutes in question are to be seen on the DSU’s new $30,000 website that was supposed to fix that problem. Dare I say “I told you so…”

  9. John Doucette
    April 6th, 2012 at 23:36 | #9

    Also, why would this be discussed at an executive meeting? Authorizing the DSU to literally give away the rights to a video they paid to produce seems like the kind of expenditure that requires council approval…

  10. NC
    April 8th, 2012 at 19:56 | #10

    I would just like to take a moment to defend the beaded and Birkenstock-wearing among us…

    Not all hippies supported Jamie and Aaron and some of us thought their DQs were justified. I am both surprised and disappointed that they were overturned and am concerned about what next year’s DSU will look like.

    And since I have defined myself as a hippie already, I would like to say how disappointed I am that next year’s executive is entirely made up of white males. Diversity!

  11. April 9th, 2012 at 12:05 | #11

    Regardless of the methods employed, the J.B. has ruled they played within bounds, even if only by the skin of their teeth. Due process has been followed.

    In effect, four people were declared victors and had that taken from them, but only two don’t get the satisfaction of actually holding office for the next year. My condolences to Sarah and Richard.

    I was originally somewhat concerned about some of the precedents set in this decision, but since this JB disregarded a number of precedents set by previous J.B.s, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no such thing as precedent when it comes to the Judicial Board.

    If there really is or should be concern about these executives, a petition signed by about 1,400 people should be sufficient to recall either of them. Again, due process etc.

    @NC, in fairness all of the executive candidates were white, but I too was surprised to see that the student body didn’t elect a single one of the women who were on the ballot. That is unprecedented in my experience.

    I as usual agree with John Doucette on all counts.

  12. jonesy
    April 9th, 2012 at 12:44 | #12

    @Mike Smit
    I don’t actually know if the JB had access to previous decisions. If they did, it makes their departure from precedent very odd.

Comments are closed.