In a June 24 decision, the Students’ Society Judicial Board dismissed the petition put forward by the McGill chapter of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights against Zach Newburgh, the former speaker of SSMU Council.
In the factum submitted last March, SPHR claimed that as chair of last winter’s General Assembly, Newburgh, who is now the SSMU president, placed himself in a conflict of interest. The factum alleged that this conflict of interest stemmed from the fact that at the time of the GA, Newburgh simultaneously held the position of speaker and president of Hillel Montreal. Because of this, SPHR claimed that Newburgh did not act impartially, particularly during debate over the motion re: The Defence of Human Rights, Social Justice and Environmental Protection.
More specifically, SPHR took issue with the allowance of amendments to preamble clauses, which broke precedent from previous GAs. Newburgh contended, however, that Robert’s Rules of Order, which the SSMU Constitution binds GAs to follow, permit such amendments.
During the case, the J-Board sought to determine first and foremost whether or not Newburgh fulfilled his constitutional duty as speaker. They asserted that only if it was found that Newburgh had violated Roberts’ Rules would they investigate whether this failure to do so was the result of bias or a conflict of interest. Citing specific clauses from Roberts’ Rules that allow for preamble clauses to be amended, the J-Board determined that Newburgh had fulfilled his duties as bound by the constitution, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Newburgh, for his part, was happy with the decision on a personal level as well as for the clarification it provided regarding GAs.
“I’m glad that my name has been cleared of wrongdoing, and I think that a little more light was shed on the conflict of interest policy that we have,” he said. “This was a re-affirmation that General Assemblies and our various governing bodies are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order and not by precedent.”
Justyn Teed, SPHR VP finance, said that although the organization is disappointed that their petition was dismissed, they hope that the incident will serve as a tool for preventing similar disputes in the future.
“While we are disappointed with the decision, we understand that it was a complicated issue, with many different factors coming into play,” Teed wrote in an email to the Tribune. “We hope that we were able to raise awareness about the potential for bias within the General Assembly procedures to prevent any occurrences in future years.”
In addition to the specific decision in the case, SPHR v. Newburgh may have a larger impact on the rules that govern the J-Board as a whole. J-Board rules state that any petition must be submitted within 10 days of an incident. However, after consulting with the Board within a week of the GA, SPHR filed their initial factum after the 10-day period. While such an extension is under the purview of the J-Board, Newburgh said that a committee will be formed this year in order to examine the rules that govern the J-Board as an institution.
“There were many issues with the J-Board from the last year, and in particular the acceptance of this case,” he said. “So we’re going to be working over the course of this next year to set up a committee to look at the rules that govern the judicial board, for the reason that they should be accountable to certain rules and procedures.”
Ivan Neilson, last year’s SSMU president, agreed that the arbitrary nature of the rules that govern J-Board often provide the justices with too much discretion.
“The rules are fairly out of date simply because they haven’t been looked at in depth for a long time. Particularly last year, we saw where, or how much, discretion is really left to the Judicial Board,” he said. “We have a whole series of rules, and then what happens depends on the circumstances. the J-Board can choose to ignore those rules altogether.”
Despite the result of the case, Teed said he was confident that SPHR will be able to work productively with the SSMU during the school year.
“The Judicial Board made its ruling and we have accepted that ruling; we have no reason to believe that Zach will let the J-Board influence his future decisions and we are looking forward to a professional relationship in the coming year,” he said.
Newburgh echoed the sentiment, and assured that SSMU would hold no personal vendetta against the group.
“I think now that the case is settled, there is now headway for us to really build a strong relationship and I hope that SPHR will take the opportunity to get close with this year’s executive,” he said. “Just like every other club on campus they are a very integral part of our community, and if we’re going to build a community together we’re going to need their hand in partnership.”
