SFU students vote to impeach student executives

Impeached 7 to challenge decision in court

EARL TAPIA AND SEAN WILKINSON THE PEAK (SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY)

At a special general meeting that was called by Forum, a committee that oversees the management and affairs of the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS), more than 700 students voted on motions to impeach current members of the so-called “group of seven,” or G7. The impeachment motions passed easily during the Oct. 25 meeting.

The desire to call a special general meeting and to move to impeach the executives stemmed from dissatisfaction with how the investigation and subsequent firing of Hattie Aitken was dealt with during the summer.

Aitken, who has held four different positions in her 26 years working at SFU, was quoted in the Aug. 17 issue of Vancouver weekly the Georgia Straight as saying that during that time she has “never had any disciplinary action [placed upon her].”

Staff members inquired as to the motivations for the investigation and the actions taken, but few details were given by the SFSS labour committee, which oversees personnel issues.

The board’s official release states that the society’s formal discipline process requires a high degree of confidentiality on the part of the board, and that all details will be released on the conclusion of the formal discipline process.

Many students, including some board members, felt this was not a sufficient explanation. Various student groups, including a wide range of graduate caucuses and student unions, passed motions of non-confidence in the board.

SFSS president Shawn Hunsdale has resigned from his position since the vote, but like the other members of the executive maintains that the impeachment motions passed at the meeting were invalid.

“I believe that the meeting was not legitimate and that a court will uphold that view,” Hunsdale wrote in a letter to the Peak newspaper. “Having said that, I respect that there is a significant will for change and for responsibility to be taken for the past three months.”

The rest of the executive have obtained a letter from the student society’s legal counsel, Don Crane, which states that “the decision to hold the SGM arose from a gathering of Forum members who met at the site of a cancelled Forum meeting, and, in the absence of the directors affected by the motion, purported to schedule a special general meeting.”

The document goes on to state that the SFSS is planning to prepare a petition to the Supreme Court of B.C. to “seek a declaration that the purported impeachments are invalid.”

The letter also states that the bylaws of the society require a “minimum of four executive members in office between now and the byelection [to replace any impeached directors],” and so the current board will continue to remain in office on a caretaker basis, pending a decision of the court.

Bryan Jones, spokesman for Students for a Democratic University, the group which first raised concerns over Aitken’s firing, said his group is also planning to take the issue to the courts.

“Clearly these people [the executives] will not bend to the will of the students. We are going to have to rely on the courts to enforce what the students want,” Jones added.

Should it go to the courts, this issue may not be resolved until well past the term of the current board of directors.

In a letter sent last week addressed to the “Campus Community,” SFU president Michael Stevenson has stated that “pending a decision to the contrary by the supreme court of B.C., [the university] must respect the outcome of the Special General Meeting.”

The letter states that the university has been monitoring the situation closely. Although many students have asked them to step in and help protect the interests of students, the university states that any ability of the university to intervene is “severely limited” because the SFSS is an autonomous body constituted under the B.C. Societies Act.

The letter also states that while many students have asked the university to “freeze” the transfer of funds it collects on behalf of the SFSS, the university is required to transmit those fees under the University Act.

Margo Dunnet, one of the contested board members, said that the university’s position on the matter does not affect the so-called “Group of 7”’s efforts to deny the validity of the SGM.