Michael Paolucci

Michael Paolucci

A motion to censure SSMU VP External JoÃl Pedneault failed at SSMU Council’s meeting last night, March 29, with a narrow vote of 11 for, 11 against, and one abstention.

The motion, submitted to the floor by nine movers, cited several reasons for censuring Pedneault, such as using SSMU funds to print materials promoting a student strike, granting students and CLASSE members after-hours access to the SSMU office, and participating in picket lines for other Montreal universities. The motion also referenced that this week Pedneault was banned from the university campus for five days.

The motion was addressed during confidential session and then debated at an open session in front of a full gallery, which included members of campus political groups, including the Mobilization Committee (Mob Squad) and the Moderate Political Action Committee (ModPAC). Despite a subsequent vote, Council did not vote in favour of debating in confidential session.

Kady Paterson, education representative and a mover of the motion, said that the motion was drafted on the day of Council.

“It’s us [movers] trying to keep our executive accountable and make sure that our constituents’ opinions are heard,” Paterson said.

SSMU president Maggie Knight opened the debate by emphasizing the gravity of a motion to censure.

“Censure implies misconduct. It implies that policies, rules have been violated-not that somebody’s actions were disagreed with,” Knight said. “Regarding the concerns around VP Pedneault’s political actions, I think it’s very importantfor the SSMU as it goes forward [to consider] that no executive, councillor, or any other member of the society be a scapegoat for policies people disagree with.”

Senator and VP University Affairs-elect Haley Dinel explained her rationale for being a co-mover of the motion.

“It’s because of the actions, not because of the person,” she said. “It’s mainly because a lot of students this year have felt that the way the VP External portfolio [sic] has acted and has not [represented] undergraduates as a whole.”

Several councillors were vocal about their concerns with the motion.

“I feel that this resolution to censure VP Pedneault would effectively mandate him to not do his job, which to me [is] a contradiction of what we should be promoting the executives to do,” Carol Fraser, VP Clubs and Services, said.  “The pull of Council is to promote executives to do their job. If this resolution passes, I don’t know exactly what VP Pedneault is expected to do.”

Arts representative Justin Fletcher described the atmosphere during debate as tense and emphasized the small margin of the final vote.

“It was crazy to hear that it was a tied vote with one abstention,” he said. “I think it reveals some of the divided sentiments on campus.”

Following the meeting, Pedneault said he was surprised that the motion was submitted.

“A lot of concerns they raised I never had even gotten an email about,” Pedneault said, referencing the clauses regarding after-hours use of SSMU facilities. “The most shocking part of it was the allusion to disciplinary proceedings against me on campus,” he added.

“The discussion at SSMU is ‘do we censure JoÃl Pedneault, in part because he was censured by the university in some way?'” he said. “I don’t see how it makes any sense in terms of challenging power dynamics and abuses of power, and I think it’s a real shame that that’s the discussion we have tonight instead of ‘do we condemn the university’s arbitrary exclusion of three students from campus for no clear reason and no clear procedure?'”

Both Fletcher and Paterson noted that the debate might have been different had it occurred in a confidential session.

“I think it’s fine that [the motion] didn’t pass,” Paterson said. “I think the point was to voice our concerns and air our problems, and actually give them some weight … I think that’s what we’ve done. Passing doesn’t matter.”

Pedneault noted that he will continue to support the strike and the Quebec student movement against tuition increases.

“If the censure motion had passed, I think I still would have been able to walk with my head high,” he said. “I don’t see myself as having committed anything wrong, overstepping any boundaries or going against SSMU mandates.”