Feds policies aren't very good and many people in the organization do not understand them. These two things caused another problem in this year's executive elections.
The Elections Committee "disqualified" Hamilton, but under the parts of the bylaws they were considering he was never eligible. As a part of their announcement they also publicised information about his academic record, which they should never have asked for and under UW policy 19 they should never have received.
After all that, he was eligible.
The committee "disqualified" him because he was not registered as a student and did not fit the definition of full membership.
Outside of the definition of full membership in Feds bylaws, there are two places that also grant full membership or the rights of full membership.
The description of the Board of Directors say that directors shall be full members for their terms of office. Since Hamilton was a director he was always a member.
The Corporations Act requires that directors be members and that directors cease to be directors when they cease to be members, but it leaves the conditions of membership up to the bylaws. The conditions of section 286 were not, however, ever fulfilled because of the description of Board of Directors in the bylaws.
The current structure that causes directors to stay as full members is necessary so that in cases where directors do not registerfor a term before the beginning of term that they remain directors.
This problem arose in 2002 when candidates were not on the voters list because they were not members at the beginning of the term and the elections committee did not check their eligibility. I wrote about it in a uws comment: Problem with Feds By-law definition of membership 13 Feb 2002. At the time I was also ignorant of the directors section that addresses the problem.
It just makes the weird circumstances and events around Hamilton all the weirder and emphasises the blandness of the other candidates, the ignorance of Feds Policy and adds another screwup in Feds elections and referendums.
IV. MEMBERSHIP A. Full Membership The full membership of the Corporation shall consist of: 1. Each full-time undergraduate student currently registered at the University of Waterloo; 2. Each full-time undergraduate student currently engaged in a co-operative work term; 3. Each full-time undergraduate student who is not registered in the current term but who was registered in the previous term and has shown intention to register in the next term; and 4. The President and Vice-Presidents of the Corporation. [...]
IV. MEMBERSHIP B. Full-time Staff Membership Full-time employees of the Corporation shall enjoy the rights and privileges of full membership except items 4 and 5 above. Full-time employees shall enjoy the rights and privileges of social membership.
VII. BOARD OF DIRECTORS A. Membership The affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by a Board of nine (9) Directors, each of whom at the time of his/her appointment and throughout his/her term of office shall be a full member of the Corporation. [...]
Corporations Act Qualification of directors, must be shareholders 286. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall be a director of a corporation unless he or she is a shareholder or member of the corporation, and, if the person ceases to be a shareholder or member, he or she thereupon ceases to be a director.Posted by Ryan Chen-Wing at February 15, 2004 01:32 PM
So what happens now?
Posted by: t at February 16, 2004 09:51 AMWhat about reading "shall" as a requirement not as something that is inevitable. See def 1b here. Then the wording doesn't grant full membership, it requires full membership, of which Hamilton no longer possessed and therefore he should not have been allowed to be a director since January.
Posted by: No name at February 16, 2004 10:15 AMdifferent interpretation
Ryan, thank you for looking into this matter, but I think that you have come to the wrong conclusion.
By-Law 1, Section VII A states "The affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by a Board of nine (9) Directors, each of whom shall be a full member of the corporation." You have interpreted this to mean that membership of the BoD confers full membership, while it truly implies that someone must be a full member of the corporation to be considered for (or ot sit on) the Board. If the By-Law was worded "...shall be considered" your interpretation would be correct; however, in its present form the intent of this section is to restate what is written in Section IV A, that only full members can be Directors of the corporation, and not that being on the Baord makes one a full member.
In the case of Mr. Hamilton, as soon as he ceased to be a full member of the corporation as set out in Section IV A, he ceased to be a member of council and of the Board (see IV A: Only full members may...). This same section also made him ineligible to run for an Executive position.
While the authors of the By-Laws may have used poor language in the case that you have identified, I do not believe that there is more than one valid interpretation in this regard.
Also, thank you for your suggestions regarding ammending the By-Laws to allow for continuous Board membership. I have a concern however. Board is a serious responsibility, and I don't think it is asking too much to require students who wish to be directors of the Corporation to maintain their membership in the Federation and to maintain their status as students. The Federation is first and foremost student government, for and by students. If Directors cannot maintain their status as students and as members of the Corporation, one must ask if they are fit to serve as Directors. I do not think and exemption should be made in this regard.
Posted by: Chris Edey at February 18, 2004 02:43 PMThese are good points. I acknowledge the ambiguity of the section on the Board of Directors.
I do not suggest an exception merely the course, which would have had the Feds not repeatedly breaking the law.
Posted by: Ryan at February 18, 2004 06:12 PM