LUSU BOARD OF DIRECTORS

„IN CAMERA‟ DISCUSSION: FRIDAY MARCH 4th, 2011

Interpreted and typed by the Secretary to the LUSU Board of Directors, Chelsea Cameron-Fikis

Chairman Hashemi announces that there is a motion to go in camera, which will be restricted to
members of board who are not in conflict, and also open to the past chair (Margaret Ryan).
Motion is moved by Vice-President Finance Vaillant, seconded by Director Munroe.

In camera begins at 6:27 pm.

Chairman Hashemi reminds everyone that „in camera‟ is a confidential period of time, and
members cannot repeat words to anyone outside of the room, which also includes the board
members in conflict who are not in the room.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant makes a motion to go into quasi committee of the whole, which
will permit an open conversation with no speakers list. This is seconded by Director Spurvey.
The motion carries.

Director Chiappetta states that he believes he has a point of information. He was not present the
week prior or when the events leading up to this meeting happened, and he would like someone
to please clarify what the central problem is as he wants to know the issue that is being
discussed. He is confused.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds to this question, and explains the situation. He believes
that the biggest issue currently at hand is the motion on the table to ratify the election.
Furthermore he believes that with the summary of all the issues of the election, the board has to
discuss a decision based on four options.

1. Reconsider the motion to postpone and wait for advice from LUSU‟s legal counselor
to return, as well as a response from the ombudsperson which could take a minimum
of three to four weeks;
2. Ratify the election by accepting the CRO report;
3. Reject the report and have a by-election; or
4. Reject the election and call a re-vote for within two weeks‟ time.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant explains that if the board rejects the report they may have to call
a by-election. Because there is not enough time left in the semester, the board may probably be
looking at calling a by-election in the fall. [Inaudible, Vice-President Finance Vaillant talks
about facing similar results with having a new election, and not being able to meet quorum.]
Vice-President Finance Vaillant elaborates on having a re-vote: a re-vote had been done for the

1 of 17
Board of Directors elections and he adds it was screwed up. The four options are again repeated:
a re-vote, reject the results and have by-election, postpone, or ratify the results.

Director Shaughnessy asks what the difference is between a by-election and a re-vote.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant explains that with a re-vote there is no campaigning, and
students just simply go back to the polling stations and re-cast their votes. A by-election is an
entirely new thing.

Chairman Hashemi interrupts and explains that a by-election would reopen the process; it
wouldn‟t make the election limited to the candidates that are currently there, it would be opening
a nomination period again.

Margaret Ryan adds that anyone could run with a by-election.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant asks if he has answered Director Chiappetta‟s question, and
reminds him that the board is in committee of the whole and that he can just speak when he feels
like it.

Director Chiappetta then asks how long the legal option will take for LUSU to hear back from
their lawyer.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds that the lawyer was contacted a couple of days ago,
and that he is usually pretty reliable at getting back to LUSU. Vice-President Finance Vaillant
estimates that probably by next week or the week after that they should hear back from the
lawyer, however Vice-President Finance Vaillant mentions that the lawyer‟s recommendations
will probably just be a summary of Vice-President Finance Vaillant‟s previous discussion.

[Inaudible, Director Ansari states that he was under the impression that the board would have no
choice but to accept the CRO‟s report.]

Chairman Hashemi requests that the Director‟s from Orillia mute their microphone because it
makes it difficult to hear what other Directors are saying.

Director Ansari continues and says there was no ballot box in the music room.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant says that anyone can look at Vice-President Finance 2011/2012
candidate Franz Masini‟s deputation and can see that he has done all the work for [the board.]

[Inaudible, Director Ansari talks about the constitution and the music room violation.]

2 of 17
GIC Director Dave Ivany states that it does not matter if violations regarding the election seem to
be a small violation. If those violations could be seen as causing an unfair election, the board can
go with that as the reason for not approving the report. He continues that it does not matter if it is
a tiny thing or a big thing – if it‟s a policy break then board can accept that as a reason for not
accepting the election results.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant has a question for Chairman Hashemi. He states that at present,
by-elections state that LUSU must adhere to rules of Elections Canada.

Chairman Hashemi interrupts to clarify if Vice-President Finance Vaillant means Elections

Ontario or Canada? The verdict is Elections Canada.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant continues that one of the major issues that the board had was the
unilateral decision to move a poll box, which is a decision that requires permission from the
Board of Directors, which never happened. That in itself is a constitutional breach alone.
Elections Canada has certain rules, and Vice-President Finance Vaillant wants to know if those
rules supersede the rules followed by the Board of Directors.

Director Bates responds to this question and says that Elections Canada does not supersede the
Board. [Inaudible, Director Bates explains specifically why Elections Canada does not supersede
the board.] Chairman Hashemi agrees.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant continues to speak on the issue, as he wants to further clarify
what his confusion was. He states that even though a poll box was moved without the approval
of the board, Elections Canada states that as long as there is another one within reasonable
distance that students have access to, than the choice to move a ballot box is okay.

Chairman Hashemi interrupts, and requests some clarification. He recalls that within one of the
reports it stated that only ballots that had clear checkmarks on them were counted, and wanted to
know if this is true. Members of the board agree that this is true. Chairman Hashemi continues to
say that this choice to only count checked ballots actually contravenes the board‟s bylaws. This
is because the bylaws say any mark as long as it is clear, should be considered valid. He reminds
the board that only where the board‟s bylaws are silent, that rules of Elections Canada would
come into play, of course within limits and only where it applies.

Margaret Ryan wants to speak on the topic of the marking of the ballots. She explains that the
Chief Returning Officer from the 2009/2010 year, who was also one of the candidates running
for Vice-President Finance 2011/2012, was the one who enforced this rule. He was extremely
strict on the fact that it had to be a check mark or it would be considered a spoiled ballot, because
there were so many spoiled ballots the year prior.

3 of 17
Director Shaughnessy wants to know what students were told in regards to the marking of the
ballots. She claims that she is almost completely sure she marked her own ballot with an „X‟
because she was told if it was clear it did not matter.

Director Chiappetta agrees with this and says he was told that as long as your mark on the ballot
was a clear sign of who you were voting for then it counted.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant agrees that he too agrees because he remembers looking for a
sign at his voting station that would have indicated otherwise, and there was nothing posted.

Director Blandon-Becerra states that he believes on the actual ballots it did say to indicate with a
check mark.

Margaret Ryan counters this and argues that not many students will pay attention to this
instruction because they are generally just looking for the name of the candidate they are voting
for, wanting to get the voting process done as quickly as they can.

Director Blandon-Becerra says this is still a valid reason to consider a ballot invalid.

Chairman Hashemi points out that the bylaw 10B.6.5.6 states that any mark on the ballot which
clearly denotes a preference for one of the candidates or referenda as determined by the CRO
shall be valid and shall be counted.

Director Chiappetta wants to know if the board ratified the results of this election, would LUSU
be at risk legally.

LUSU General Manager Patricia Callaghan responds by stating that she does not believe that
LUSU would be held legally accountable for ratification, as it was one of the questions LUSU
had asked Bob Edwards. She continues that if the board chooses to ratify the report, then the
board is essentially saying that they are choosing to support the election. She says there will
definitely be people who bring issues forward, but either way it‟s the same problem. If board
chooses to not ratify the results there will still be people who bring forth issues. She concludes
by saying that when the board makes their decision, they must firmly stick by it.

Both Margaret Ryan and GIC Director Ivany agree with this conclusion as they refer to a
previous year where the board had made a decision regarding elections, but then ended up going
back on their decision.

GIC Director Ivany then speaks. He wants to know the probability of having enough time to put
a new CRO and Elections Committee in place, if the board decides to follow through with either
a by-election or re-vote.

4 of 17
Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds that the […] board calls a by-election in the fall there
would be a new CRO, but having a by-election would also cost a significant amount of money.
Vice-President Finance Vaillant reports that money would be available to fund this possibility.

Margaret Ryan follows Vice-President Finance Vaillant, and asks the board members if they
would truly be willing to stay to fill their positions on board until the by-election in the fall
(about middle October). She also notes that there is always the possibility that the same
circumstances that happened with the previous 2011/2012 election could happen again with a
new election. Margaret says that it is irritating to consider holding off until then, but that a by-
election could be one of the most reliable solutions.

Director Shaughnessy then asks how having a by-election will impact the candidates, because if
a candidate wins an election they are not allowed to have a full course load. By September then,
most of the candidates would already registered for all of their courses making this a problem.

Margaret Ryan says that from past experience, by the time a by-election takes place there is still
time to drop courses. This then makes a by-election possible because candidates can still drop
courses without any penalty. She states it is difficult and obstructing but a choice that the
candidates would have to abide by.

Director Shaughnessy requests clarification with the ballots. She states that what it seems to
come down to is a number of problems with the ballots - they cannot be recounted now because
it is clear that they were tampered with. She asks if this is what the issue comes down to.

Director Chiappetta then states that he believes the best option out of the four stated earlier
seems to be a re-vote.

Director Shaughnessy then asks if the University will be able to make quorum with having a re-
vote.

Margaret Ryan states that meeting quorum is the next valid question, because it would require at
least 10% of LU‟s student population to vote again, for the fourth time this year.

Director Shaughnessy then also wonders if poll clerks will also be an issue.

Director Cerqueira points out another flaw with a re-vote. She states that the outcome can be a
landslide, so people who were apathetic or angry that the elections did not run properly the first
time would go vote specifically for people who won or those who did not.

Margaret agrees stating that people may also just spoil their ballots and put the Board back into
the same position.

5 of 17
[Inaudible, Director Bates says that another issue with the re-vote is that all the information
regarding the election has been released meaning it is hoisted.]

Director Ansari then speaks against having a re-vote. He suggests that board re-think their
choice, as 22.22% of students voted. This gives little choice but to ratify the results when also
taking into consideration that the CRO is in support of the results, and he is considered to be
mutual [inaudible.]

Vice-President Finance Vaillant states that the statistic Director Ansari mentioned cannot even
be declared, because the fact that 22.22% of students voted is in question itself.

[Inaudible, members on the board and Ian Kaufman discuss the differentiating statistics that
appear in the Argus and other reports.]

Director Spurvey speaks in favour of a re-vote. She states the advantages of a re-vote over a by-
election are that no candidate would get an unfair amount of campaigning time, it allows an
election to take place before the summer, and it won‟t allow students to forget about the election
and the candidates running. She states it is a choice that is quick, as it consists of just simply
voting again.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant states that if the Board of Directors chose to fail ratification of
the election, then it shall result in an invalid election. Vice-President Finance Vaillant states that
the Board can only invalidate an election if there has been an unfair process, and the Board has
already concluded that there has been. Vice-President Finance Vaillant reads from the
constitution under Invalid Results of Lakehead University Student Elections: “Should the results
of any election be ruled invalid a re-vote shall occur no later than two weeks after”.

Members of the board quickly deliberate with each other and suggest a re-vote.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant then asks, if a re-vote will truly fix things.

GIC Director Ivany speaks and says the election has hit a point where it is considered poisoned
or tainted. He believes the Board needs to go with options that are less tainted than others, and a
re-vote, with the campaigning restrictions, will provide this.

[…]

Director Blandon-Becerra states that the CRO did in fact give the board a recommendation – an
online voting system. Many members on Board agree that there is no time for this option.

6 of 17
Director Spurvey asks the Board if there is anyone that can objectively sit down with the CRO
and help.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds by saying the Board has tried this before by assigning
Louise Haukeness to help the CRO[…].

Director Ansari then says that because there is no JRC [Judicial Review Committee], and the
Ombudsperson may take up to a month to respond, the only official documentation for the
election is the CRO report. He suggests that the Board has no choice but to go along with the
CRO report. Many members on Board disagree.

Chairman Hashemi then lays out the constitutional framework to make everything clear for the
members on Board. He firstly states that the Board has the right to accept or reject the election
results. There is a specific process laid out for how this has to happen. The ultimate right does
rest with the Board, but in order to ratify the results it requires at least 2/3. Chairman Hashemi
then states that members are only allowed to vote against ratifying the results if there were
“policy infractions that provide an unfair process in the election”. He recommends that when
people speak for accepting or rejecting the results that they refer to how it did or did not cause a
policy infraction. If the Board does not ratify the results, 10B.9 states (as Vice-President Finance
Vaillant previously read) LUSU is then bound to hold a re-vote within two weeks. Chairman
Hashemi says that a by-election, according to the constitution, can occur when there is a vacancy
in the executive or not enough board members to make quorum. Ultimately though he states the
decision is up to the board.

Director Shaughnessy, references back to Director‟s Ansari‟s comment that 22.22% of students
voted, and she would like to know what percent of votes were spoiled because voters did not
indicate with a checkmark. She says she has a feeling that a lot of students from Orillia did not
realize that they were required to use a check mark and concludes that the Orillia vote and
Thunder Bay vote probably meant very little.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant agrees that the poll clerk training did not instruct the poll clerks
properly on how to instruct students to vote.

Ian Kaufman answers Director Shaughnessy‟s question, and says that about 25% of the ballots
were spoiled due to this reason.

Director Shaughnessy then points out that the not counting of ballots that did not use check
marks is also an infraction of the constitution.

Director Bates says that this choice was determined by the CRO, and that if anyone wants to
appeal the CRO‟s decision on what validates a ballot, then it would go to the Elections

7 of 17
Committee. If someone then wanted to appeal the Elections Committee, it would go to the JRC
[inaudible.]

Director Shaugnessy comments that even if the Board were to question it, recounting the ballots
is no longer an option.

Director Blandon-Becerra wonders that if by not accepting the election results, does this mean
that the referenda question is also affected. Members on board agree. He then wonders if there is
any possibility of separating the candidate election and the referenda question.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant points out that one cannot be accepted without the other - the
violations made in the election would affect the results of both the executive election and the
referenda question.

Director Blandon-Becerra questions if Mr. Masini had won the election, would he have brought
up all the issues of the election that he did. Members agree there is no way to determine this.

Margaret Ryan wants to know if the complaints of the elections have actually been looked into
seriously. […] She notes that the concerns seemed valid.

[…]

Director Chiappetta then asks the board a question. If the Board chooses to have a re-vote,
[inaudible] the CRO leaks confidential documents – Chiappetta would like to know which
documents exactly.

Director Bates responds that the CRO published a long list of complaints and allegations against
all candidates over the course of the election. This document was given to all board members in a
public meeting. Some of the complaints or allegations candidates were not even aware of, most
were not investigated and no one was given a chance to respond to them. Director Bates also
notes that a lot of these complaints were full of very hateful language. He suggests that if the
board would have known the actual contents of this document, he would have motioned for these
complaints to be confidential, not allowing it to circulate. Ultimately the document should have
been confidential, but it was not officially stamped confidential.

Director Blandon-Becerra asks if anyone on board knows where this document and its copies
went.

General Manager Callaghan responds by saying she picked up all remaining copies that were left
in the board room. Margaret Ryan points out however that it is a possibility that these documents
could have been taken out of the meeting to circulate.

8 of 17
Director Cerqueira announces that she believes one of the copies was not accounted for, although
she has no proof.

Margaret Ryan notes that the contents of this report were discussed in an open public meeting,
making its contents public knowledge.

Director Ansari responds that none of the information was published in the Argus. Members
agree that this does not matter.

Margaret Ryan acknowledges another problematic year for the Board of Directors a few years
ago. She states it was a year where the Board was not very experienced, and ultimately decided
to divide what was ratified in the election: the President, Vice-President Student Issues and
referendum question were ratified; the Vice-President Finance was thrown out. This choice made
that school year “a circus,” as it resulted in people being allowed to do whatever they wanted at
the board table. A by-election was then called in the following fall, and resulted in automatic
ratification of one individual for position of Vice-President Finance.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant asks for clarification on how the Board at that time decided to
call a by-election rather than a re-vote.

Margaret Ryan responds by saying that particular year was very complicated, many issues arose,
forcing the election to be pushed back. By the time everything was sorted out and ratified,
eventually there was not enough time for a re-vote.

[…]

Vice-President Finance Vaillant states […] that the Board can all agree that there have been
policy errors, and these errors are clearly grounds to invalidate the CRO report. As per the
constitution, the invalidation of the CRO report results in a re-vote. […] a new CRO must be
hired in order to hold a re-vote. If not then time will run out and a by-election will be the only
option.

GIC Director Ivany says that approximately seven years ago when the CRO at the time quit and
the DRO stepped in. He wants to know if this is a possibility.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant states that the problem is that the DRO is situated in Orillia. GIC
Director wonders what the possibility is of having the DRO step in for the CRO in Thunder Bay,
as a re-vote would not concern campaigning issues, only dealing with ballot issues, counting
issues and poll clerk issues. Vice-President Finance Vaillant wonders if the DRO will be willing,
and Margaret Ryan wants to know how long this will take to find out.

Director Munroe states that this suggestion seems like a good solution because it removes a lot of

9 of 17
conflict from Thunder Bay.

Director Ansari questions how much a re-vote will cost. Vice-President Finance Vaillant states
that it will cost $4000.00.

Margaret Ryan asks if there is $4000.00 available, and Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds
“no.”

GIC Director Ivany adds that finances should not be a huge dictating factor in making a decision
in regards to this election. Although he acknowledges that finances are clearly important.

Director Blandon-Becerra asks if this suggestion means that the DRO will move to Thunder Bay
to act as the new CRO. The members on Board answer that at this point, it is all speculation.
Margaret states the DRO is in Orillia, taking classes and with a family, which is a massive
inconvenience to have them come to Thunder Bay.

Chairman Hashemi asks for clarification on how long the LUSU voting period is.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds three days: one day for advanced polling and two days
of general polls.

Director Bates suggests the idea of a straw pull, to see where all board members stand
informally. No members object.

Chairman Hashemi explains that this vote is not binding as it is in camera and it is a straw pull;
people are free to change their mind as the night goes on. Chairman Hashemi states that the
motion to vote on is to ratify the report of the CRO, which also validates the results of the
election. No members are in favor of this motion, therefore Chairman Hashemi suggests that the
Board begin to think of actual solutions.

Director Spurvey asks if Chairman Hashemi has an opinion on the election issues that are
currently being discussed.

Chairman Hashemi says he does not know enough about the process to have a solid opinion.
Although he wishes there was a way to re-scrutinize the ballots to see what was spoiled and what
was not spoiled. He adds that a re-vote is only a three day process, and that finding poll clerks
should be no problem.

Margaret Ryan says another issue lies in if […] DRO in Orillia becomes CRO, then who trains
the poll clerks in Thunder Bay.

Director Shaughnessy asks if Orillia Campus Coordinator Castle from Orillia is allowed to train
the poll clerks.

10 of 17
Vice-President Finance Vaillant says that she probably can. […]

Chairman Hashemi wants to know if there is a laid-out process for the possibility of the CRO
quitting in the middle of an election. Members on board answer that this position would then be
filled by the DRO, and an Elections Committee member would then become the new DRO.
Chairman Hashemi then questions if the concern is that the CRO is perhaps not competent or that
the CRO is biased? […]

Director Blandon-Becerra asks the members on Board why there was no polling station set up in
the music building.

Margaret Ryan responds by suggesting that the claim was a lack of poll clerks, yet there was a
polling station open outside of LUSU (a decision not brought forth to the Board).

Ian Kaufman asks if there is anyone on Board to fill the position of the CRO, and or if that would
be appropriate.

Margaret responds by pointing out that any members on Board would have to resign before
becoming the CRO.

Director Spurvey states that a member moving into this position would be a problematic issue.
Many members on Board agree with this suggestion circling around problems of favoritism and
biased opinions.

Ian Kaufman disagrees with the idea that if a member is on Board with other people, they‟re
automatically biased, but he understands the issue.

GIC Director Ivany states that this may not be the best suggestion as there is a certain level of
objectivity and trust among members of the Board. He states that no one is perfectly unbiased, all
members know each other, but it is just assumed that members are going to be objective and
represent students and not their own interests.

Director Chiappetta makes a suggestion to the Board. He proposes that the DRO in Orillia
become the new CRO and stay in Orillia, and assign someone in Thunder Bay to be the new
DRO. He wonders if this is possible if it does not conflict with the constitution.

Director Shaughnessy would like to know why the CRO has to be in Thunder Bay.

Director Ansari refers back the legal option, and he wants to know if it is a fact that it will take
three to four weeks to hear back from legal advice, or if it is just a guess.

General Manager Callaghan responds that an investigation by the ombudsperson into the
allegations involves tracking people down, arranging interviews, interviewing, and then making

11 of 17
conclusions. Thus it could easily take three to four weeks to hear back from a legal opinion.

Director Blandon-Becerra re-states that policy was violated and the constitution was violated
with the last election. Therefore if the election is ratified, LUSU will be regarded as a “joke”.
[Inaudible.]

Director Shaughnessy replies that it should not matter how the Board looks - as long as the
Board is doing what they think is the right choice then nothing else matters, because people are
going to criticize the decision made either way.

Director Blandon-Becerra agrees that doing the right thing would be to not ratify the election
because it is important to abide by the constitution.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant states he has an issue with the CRO being stationed in Orillia.
He continues to say that the CRO is an officer of the corporation, and all officers are expected to
be at the head office which is in Thunder Bay.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant says that he personally had to move up to Thunder Bay to
perform his job, so the CRO should be expected to as well.

Director Shaughnessy responds to this by stating that it should not be an issue because it is now
down to a „time crunch‟, and the solution has to just work for the circumstances, regardless of if
Vice-President Finance Vaillant had to fly to Thunder Bay to fill his position or not.

[Inaudible.]

GIC Director Ivany says again that without a campaigning period there will be fewer issues.
Office hours will still be expected from the CRO, and they will have to deal with issues that arise
during the election, therefore it is not impossible to have the CRO in Orillia.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant agrees that as long as the CRO has the hours it is possible.

Director Shaughnessy asks what would happen if both the CRO and the DRO were both released
or quit.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds that people would have to be found to fill the Elections
Committee, and members from the Elections Committee would have to fill the positions of the
CRO and the DRO.

Director Munroe asks if this seems like the best possible solution: find a DRO from the Elections
Committee to act in Thunder Bay and have the old DRO become the new CRO and remain
stationed in Orillia.

12 of 17
Ian Kaufman asks if the Board is keeping in mind what happened at last week‟s meeting with the
Orillia ballots.

Director Munroe says that this problem will be fixed because there will be someone in Orillia
seeing that everything runs smoothly.

Director Shaughnessy says that she does not want to speak on behalf of the DRO, but she states
that the DRO had a lot of difficulties communicating with the CRO. The issues that arose were
from the lack of communication received in Orillia. She says she would not blame the DRO for
any issues, because they resulted from the direction the DRO received.

Ian Kaufman thanks Director Shaughnessy for the clarification.

Director Blandon-Becerra asks Margaret Ryan how knowledgeable she is or capable she is to act
as the new CRO.

Margaret Ryan responds that she works full time every day 7am to 3pm which is her biggest
concern. She adds that her work schedule has already been laid out for next 2 weeks, and so,
unless she can be guaranteed that her only hours will be next Thursday and Friday after 1:30 pm,
she is not sure how likely it is she can act as the new CRO. Margaret notes that she would gladly
step up to the plate to help the Board and the Student Union out, therefore she could attempt to
get the time off work.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant […] asks for the general direction that the Board is going in – do
members agree with a re-vote.

Margaret says she feels the need to speak about a problematic issue she has now. She says that if
a re-vote occurs and she successfully gets the time off work and she steps up to be the new CRO,
there is a large problem. There is at least one candidate who will openly contest this decision,
and Margaret believes that the Board will hear about this decision non-stop for the remainder of
the year. Margaret goes on to say that if she is the new CRO it will look like favoritism, and the
Board will be accused and asked why they did not go in an alternative direction.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant agrees and says that “fair hiring processes” has been an issue
lately.

Margaret ends by stating that this is fair warning for the Board, and if they want her to be the
new CRO, they must be prepared for the backlash.

[Inaudible.] General Manager Callaghan clarifies that the decision as of now is to not ratify the
CRO report, to go to a re-vote, and then to request that the DRO take over as CRO and have the
Elections Committee come up with a new DRO.

13 of 17
[…]

Director Cerqueira wants to know if a by-election is completely off the table now.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant says constitutionally the Board cannot have a by-election,
because it says that to invalidate the election results in a re-vote.

Chairman Hashemi explains that if the re-vote does not make quorum or screws up in other
ways, then the Board will then have to have a by-election in the fall. Chairman Hashemi says
that if a re-vote fails it would not results in another re-vote, as students would clearly get sick of
voting.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant says that all of this then calls into question the logistics of a re-
vote. He points out that a re-vote may result in students coming out to vote and slanting one way,
which (sarcastically added) is a great sample of democracy.

GIC Director Ivany says that the Board cannot investigate the individual intentions of every
voter, and several members on Board agree that results could go both ways.

Chairman Hashemi also points out that there is not much of an option, because if the Board
chooses not to do a re-vote, then they will have to validate the CRO report.

[Inaudible, Vice-President Finance Vaillant and General Manager Callaghan.]

Chairman Hashemi states that when the Board comes out of camera, that members will have to
vote on this decision right away. He reminds the Board that he will make a public announcement
again of what the process will be going forward. After that the vote should take place. Chairman
Hashemi then strongly recommends to the Board that after the vote, there should be follow up
motions which the Board should develop while still in camera. These follow up motions should
be the additional processes that the Board wants to put in place and that don‟t contravene the
constitution. He says that if the Board wants a new CRO they need a subsequent motion to do
that – the meeting could not just be adjourned. Chairman Hashemi finishes saying that in the
Board‟s best interest they should get all their in-camera issues sorted out now.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant states that it is a better idea to discuss all issues now. He says
that releasing the CRO is obviously on the table for […].

Director Blandon-Becerra wants to know if the CRO can be called into the room now privately.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant says that because he was hired in public, he has to be fired in
public.

Director Blandon-Becerra argues that this issue is personal however.

14 of 17
General Manager Callaghan states that the CRO is not staff of the corporation.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant suggests that the Board could give him a warning in camera that
he will be released. […]

Chairman Hashemi clarifies […] it can simply just read who the new CRO will be: “the CRO
will be so and so and the DRO will be so and so.” […]

[Inaudible, Director Blandon-Becerra.]

GIC Director Ivany wants to know the full process on what exactly happens.

Margaret Ryan asks if the DRO will be okay with being appointed as the new CRO.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant says that if this is an issue, the DRO could potentially resign if
she does not want to.

GIC Director Ivany says that hopefully that will not be the case.

Director Spurvey states that the Board should pre-plan who is going to motion and second, and
potentially word the motion.

Margaret Ryan and Vice-President Finance Vaillant agree that the CRO report will be failed, and
then subsequently a motion to hold a re-vote will follow. Vice-President Finance Vaillant states
that the motion will read “motion to have a re-vote within two weeks, with the CRO being Laura
McCreery, and the DRO being elected by the Elections Committee.”

Director Bates states the DRO is selected by the Elections Committee, and when they have a
vacancy on their committee they then have the ability to appoint a new person – although they do
not have to.

Chairman Hashemi points out that the by-laws read, under „removal of office vacancies of the
chief returning officer‟, “Should any member of the Elections Committee or the CRO being
accused of violations of the LUSU constitution, an emergency meeting of the LUSU judicial
review committee shall be convened within 36 hours.” Margaret Ryan states that this essentially
means the Board of Directors. Chairman Hashemi states because there is an absence of the
judicial committee, he would be surprised if there is a case law which states the Board would not
be allowed to make this decision in their absence. Director Bates states that the Board can turn
over any decision made by the judicial review committee. Chairman Hashemi continues to read
from the by-laws and states, “the CRO or any member of the Elections Committee may be
removed from office by 1. The Board of Directors. Removal may occur due to failure to properly
implement elections policy. This list is not exhausted. Removal must pass by 2/3 majority vote.”

15 of 17
He suggests that the board write the motion out so whoever is moving it is not free-styling.

Director Blandon-Becerra wants to know if the new DRO has to be from the Elections
Committee or can it be an outside student.

Margaret Ryan states that she believes it has to be from within the Elections Committee.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant reads the motion as it stands: “Whereas the 2011/2012 executive
election results were invalidated, be it resolved that a re-vote be held within two weeks, in
accordance with by-law 10B.9.1. Be it further resolved that the Board enact by-law 10A.7.2 with
Laura McCreery as the CRO. ” Vice-President Finance Vaillant wonders if the Board has to state
who will be the new DRO. Members on board agree that this is not required.

Margaret Ryan would like to know who will inform the DRO that she has a new position as the
CRO. Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds that it will probably be him, because it will fall
under the job of the President, but the President is in conflict.

Director Bates wants to very quickly weigh out the pros and cons of the decision made. He wants
to know if this final choice is less likely to cause problems. A member on board points out that a
new CRO means a new person in charge. Members discuss that the CRO trains the DRO and the
Board ultimately guides the CRO.

Director Shaughnessy wants to know the possibility of if Laura (the current DRO) cannot act as
the new CRO, can she keep her position as the DRO.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds that Laura McCreery will still remain as a part of the
executive Elections Committee and has the potential to be elected to the position of DRO again.
Also in the constitution it reads that the DRO simply steps up to fill the position of CRO, until a
new candidate is found (10A.6.4).

Director Shaugnessy then wants to know the possibility of if Margaret Ryan cannot fill the
position as CRO, is there anyone else besides Laura and Margaret that have the same
qualifications and background. The Board agrees that this is an issue to be resolved when it
arises.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant contemplates and wants to know if he should include

information about what will happen with the new DRO in the motion.

GIC Director Ivany states that the motion should stay as is [inaudible.]

Director Blandon-Becerra wants to know if the Board has to motion to take this motion out of
camera. Board members agree yes.

16 of 17
Margaret Ryan asks Vice-President Finance Vaillant if someone can get in contact with Laura
McCreery as soon as possible to find out her response.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant agrees “yes.”

Vice-President Finance Vaillant reads out the motion again, “Where as the 2011/2012 executive
election results were invalidated, be it resolved that a re-vote be called within two weeks in
accordance with the LUSU constitutional article 10B.9.1. Be it further resolved the Board enact
article 10A.7.2 with Laura McCreery acting as CRO of the Lakehead University Student Union”.
Vice-President Finance Vaillant asks if there is anything else that needs to be added.

A member of the board asks if the DRO part is being included in the motion.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant responds that this is not necessary because the new DRO will
just follow the rules of the constitution.

Members all agree that the motion Vice-President Finance Vaillant read needs to be taken out of
camera.

Chairman Hashemi states that he can just wait until he is out of camera to move the motion as if
it were a motion he cooked up on the spot.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant wants to know if he would be found as breaching

confidentiality, and Chairman Hashemi states that only the discussion is confidential, the motion
is fine as it is being made public.

Vice-President Finance Vaillant and members are satisfied.

Chairman Hashemi entertains a motion to come out of camera. Director DeLeo moves this
motion; it is seconded by Director Blandon-Becerra. The motion carries.

Out of Camera 7:43 pm.

17 of 17