Last Thursday, the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD) voted to immediately reinstate the Judicial Board (J-Board) in order to conclude the J-Board’s upcoming hearing as soon as possible. SSMU will also draft a student referendum question that will bring the J-Board into compliance with Quebec Law.
The meeting followed the Jan. 26 SSMU Council meeting where the J-Board was suspended due to legal concerns regarding SSMU’s structure. The J-Board, as SSMU’s highest authority, was operating against Quebec law, which mandates that the highest level of authority must reside with the BoD.
The J-Board was scheduled to hear a case last week submitted by former SSMU President Zach Newburgh and co-founder of the Prince Arthur Herald Brendan Steven, who are questioning the constitutionality of the fall referenda. The SSMU Bylaw Committee met Jan. 30 to discuss possible courses of action to maintain fairness to both Quebec law and to the petitioners.
VP University Affairs Emily Yee Clare said that the J-Board hearing will resume as previously planned, but that the J-Board’s decision will need to be ratified by the BoD.
“If we feel like there was unreasonableness due to the decision-making process, if 4/5 of us vote against this, then the decision can be overturned,” Clare said. “But the 4/5 is so high in order to ensure that there [is] a check, to make sure that people would have to have a very strong reason to vote against the recommendation of the J-Board.”
The decision to immediately reinstate the J-Board was largely determined by the semester’s timeline. While J-Board could present their rulings on the case so far, giving the BoD the opportunity to ratify or not to ratify the proceedings in compliance with Quebec law, this course of action would be complicated by the upcoming winter Referendum Period and would cause confusion over the BoD’s future role.
“[The Bylaw Committee has] concerns that this would set an unduly involved procedural precedent regarding the BoD with the J-Board, and it would take a very long time if the board had to meet to ratify every procedural decision of the Judicial Board,” SSMU President Maggie Knight said.
Conversely, waiting to reinstate the J-Board until after the winter elections period would mean that the J-Board’s findings on the case would be released as late as April, at which point there would be little time for the student body to discuss the outcome.
Members of the BoD are aware that the J-Board’s reinstatement only temporarily fixes their problems, which include the need to balance legality with SSMU’s need for an unbiased body.
“It must be very clear under what circumstances the board could decide not to ratify a ruling of the J-Board, because obviously the point of having the J-Board is to objectively and unbiasedly evaluate concerns, including potentially concerns about the conduct of members of the council or members of the executive,” Knight said.
For these reasons, the motion also called for the creation of a working group to investigate alternative democratic avenues for resolving issues currently under the jurisdiction of the J-Board. For example, Knight said that expanding the J-Board to include two students outside the faculty of law could expand the board’s perspective.
The motion passed with eight votes in favour, one vote opposed, and three abstentions.
Knight, who abstained from the vote, has attempted to distance herself from the proceedings due to potential conflicts of interest with the case, but said that she is pleased with the way that council has dealt with the matter.
“I [am] glad that the board was able to meet between meetings of council to address this issue in a timely fashion,” she said.
Petitioners Zach Newburgh and Brendan Steven declined to comment on the case.
