Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Written by Adrian Morrow

The accusations started during the election campaign.

Ibrahim (Abe) Snobar and members of his Ryevolution slate cried foul when Chief Returning Officer Paris Cameron- Gardos gave them a ton of demerit points and fines for alleged infractions of the election rules, while handing out barely any to the rival Renew slate.

And last week, Snobar cried foul when Renew candidate Toby Whitfield was allowed to scrutineer the disputed election of Mal Sampa, one of Whitfield’s running mates.

Now there’s even more evidence that the election was slipshod. In an e-mail sent at the start of the campaign, Cameron- Gardos indicated that he would only impose fines when a candidate reached six demerit points. The next day, he gave Snobar a fine after the candidate got three demerits.

The CRO also instructed scrutineers not to campaign but several, including VP Finance Chris Drew, continued to do so.

And at least one poll clerk, not affiliated with either side in the election, has come forward to say election officials usually ruled in favour of Renew when a voter’s intention was unclear on the ballot. She also says that Renew scrutineers were aggressive when the ballots were being counted and one continually asked for recounts without any good reason.

The RSU’s executive voted to store the ballot boxes in the security office, but officials kept their location secret from everyone except RSU President and Renew supporter Nora Loreto.

It has finally become clear what a shit-show the elections were. But it can be fixed.

If the RSU could just stick to its own bylaws and appoint a CRO on time next year, they could find someone who won’t make the amateurish mistakes that damaged Cameron-Gardos’s credibility.

And they could amend the bylaws to provide a comprehensive list of fines and other penalties.

A few rules would go a long way towards ending the perceptions of bias and faulty rulings that permeated this election.

sourced from here at :

http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3597-RSU-elections-desperately-need-an-overhaul

Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Written by Julianna Cummins

Three of the four executives of the Ryerson Students’ Union have been threatened with a motion of impeachment by the board of directors.

The motion for impeachment would apply to president Muhammad Ali Jabbar, vice president education Rebecca Rose and vice president finance and services Toby Whitfield, forcing them to resign from their positions.

On Nov. 17, Rose, Whitfield and Jabbar, along with students from Ryerson and the University of Toronto, went to York University to support of CUPE 3909 members on strike.

This could be an impeachable offence, said Chandan Sharma, director for the Faculty of Business, in an email to members of the RSU.

“I am calling on the board members to tell the executives and understand themselves that being at this event will reap negative damage to the reputation of the RSU and our university,” Chandan wrote in the email.

“It should be noted that such an offence against the RSU’s reputation and integrity could be an impeachable offence.”

But Jabbar said he was just fulfilling his campaign promise of being a strong advocate for students across the province.

“Things that happen at York affect our students,” Jabbar said.

Jabbar also said hundreds of Ryerson students in the joint Communication and Culture Graduate Program are at York University completing their degree, some of which are members of the striking union.

In order to impeach executive members, a notice of impeachment would have to be served at a board of directors meeting.

At the following meeting the motion would be tabled, discussed and voted on.
The motion must pass with at least two-thirds voting in favour of the impeachment.

However, the original board meeting set for Nov. 24 was cancelled when not enough directors showed up and the meeting lost quorum.

Jabbar said any meeting held after Nov. 24 would be illegal, as it would not adhere to the RSU bylaws in terms of agenda passing, presentation, and notice of meeting of time and place.

And since there is no official chair for the board of directors meetings, the president must chair, he said.

Abe Snobar, former vice president student life and events 2007-2008, said the president does not need to be present for a board of directors meeting to be called.

The bylaws state that a board of directors meeting can be called to order by a president, any vice president, or any combination of two directors, Snobar said.

“Two directors took precautionary measures and called a meeting for today,” he said on Tuesday.

Whitfield and Rose had scheduled to attend the national meeting of the Canadian Federation of Students, but chose to stay back and attend the board of directors meeting.

Snobar said Jabbar would lose the board’s support on Tuesday.

“He never had numbers on the board, and now he’s not going to have them more,” he said.

Jabbar said he would not be available on Tuesday and said he did not believe a board of directors meeting should be held when two of the four executives could not attend. On Tuesday, Jabbar attended and chaired the meeting. At press time, the board was debating on the authenticity of the meeting.

sourced from here at :

http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3897-Three-RSU-executives-threatened-with-impeachment

Toby Whitfield is unavailable for comment. Toby Whitfield is not responding to interview requests before deadline.

Has Toby Whitfield taken a vow of silence when it comes to dealing with the press?

Attempting to get a hold of anyone on the RSU can be a strenuous task, but getting Whitfield to even pick up his phone is just downright daunting.

The other student union executives seem to have a grasp on this. I have never run into trouble when trying to speak with Liana Salvador, Lise de Montbrun or Jermaine Bagnall, who have often been very helpful.

Maybe Whitfield holds himself to a different standard. Regardless, it’s time for a reality check.

While Whitfield is notorious among reporters for dodging questions and ignoring voice mails, as of late he has been stonewalling the media altogether. And it’s not right.

As the RSU’s vice-president of finance and services, Whitfield is the gatekeeper of all things financial.

He is also obliged to speak with the media about financial matters, something he has been dutifully neglecting for the past few months.

Students have a right to know where their money is going — after all, his $27,000 paycheque comes courtesy of the Ryerson student body.

More than a few stories have stalled because of Whitfield’s reluctance or refusal to co-operate.

He openly denies student money is being used to cover his legal costs, however when The Ryersonian asked for a breakdown of the $60,000 legal fee section of the budget, he didn’t deliver.
How convenient.

Similarly, when asked for documentation of previous lawsuits against the RSU, Whitfield failed to cough it up.

These are not impossible or unfair requests, so why the resistance?

Previously, he would at least return the occasional phone call and offer a vague comment. Now no such luck.

He is evasive and unwilling to be the subject of any media attention.

Much like the leader of our Conservative government,  Whitfield has an aversion to the media and remains silent on important matters rather than addressing them.

Like Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Whitfield has been the subject of some negative press throughout his political career, but such is the nature of the journalist/politician relationship.

While we have no problem publishing pieces showcasing good work, we also have no qualms in nailing them should they get tangled up in a scandal.

So, while being pictured in the centre of a burning budget is by no means flattering, it is not a licence to avoid the campus press.

How he is continually re-elected is far beyond my scope of understanding. However, the fact that he will serve as the next RSU president should have everyone concerned.

How can the student body expect transparency and accountability from an organization while it is run by an individual who turns tail and hides when something unsavoury arises?

Darius Sookram, RSU presidential candidate of the losing LEAD slate, ran on a platform of creating a viable system of transparency and accountability within the RSU. And bravo to him for bringing the issue to the forefront.

Students need a union that is completely accessible and unafraid to deal with issues head on. They also need a union that will act fairly, allowing reporters to do their job and disseminate accurate information, be it positive or not.

Though these solutions would be a step in the right direction, the fact still remains, we aren’t going away. And you can’t dodge us forever, so just pick up your phone.
It’s not a difficult concept.

Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Written by Aleysha Haniff

Hillel @ Ryerson, the school’s Jewish Students’ Association is concerned that Jewish voices will be silenced on campus issues if the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) holds its annual general meeting on March 31.

Currently, the meeting coincides with Passover, a Jewish holiday.

“Passover is one of those fundamental keys of the religion that every single Jew celebrates, no matter how religious, no matter how secular. That’s how important it is,” said Maiya Keidan, president of Hillel @ Ryerson.

The annual general meeting, which allows full-time students to vote about any changes to the RSU, is a situation where every vote counts, said Adam Solomon, who does marketing and promotions for Hillel @ Ryerson.

Solomon said he learned of the scheduling conflict on March 8 and spoke to RSU president Jermaine Bagnall. He also sent an email.

In reply, Solomon said, he was informed that since the AGM was advertised to take place on a certain date, it would not be changed.

“It’s really important because every voice matters… and by having it on Passover it’s really just silencing a bunch of Jewish students,” he said. Bagnall was unavailable for comment. Solomon said that failing to reschedule the meeting discriminates against Jewish students under the Ontario Human Rights Code because it would impede their ability to vote or voice opinions. The code says protection against religious discrimination applies to unions.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s website states “where a rule conflicts with religious requirements, there is a duty to ensure that individuals are able to observe their religion, unless this would cause undue hardship because of cost, or health and safety reasons.”

If the meeting proceeds on March 31, Solomon said they plan to approach Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Services.

Keidan said that as a representative of a diverse Jewish group, she will not attend the meeting on March 31.

“I won’t be choosing because it’s not a choice. What I am sad for is that they put people in that position,” she said.

Sourced from here at :

http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/4511-Students-union-accused-of-violating-human-rights-code

Posted on Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Written by Carys Mills

The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) has been ordered to pay missing termination pay to seven former workers, following a probe by the Ministry of Labour.

Representatives met with the ministry last November after complaints about missing termination pay and claims of reprisal were filed against the RSU.

The claims, filed by eight former community service group workers, accused the RSU of breaking Employment Standards Act (ESA) requirements. The RSU has been ordered to pay about $1,500 in termination pay according to documents obtained by the Eyeopener.

Termination pay must be given to workers in lieu of notice of the end of employment under the ESA.
Disagreements between the employees and the RSU involved if contracts ended early and if termination pay was owed.

“It’s not just about the money, because the money is like nothing,” said Kiera Chion, one of the former workers.

The ministry didn’t find any other violations under the ESA.

“We made the claims and produced as much evidence as we could,” said Jesse Trautmann, a former community service group employee. He said reprisal claims taken to the Ministry of Labour are typically hard to prove.

According to the ministry documents, the RSU terminated Chion and Trautmann for willful misconduct, a reason for dismissal that cancels compensation pay.

This type of misconduct means an employee intentionally behaved in a way that justified ending their employment without compensation, according to Avner Levin, law and business professor.

“You don’t end up winning those things, statistically speaking,” said Levin.

He said it’s easier for employers to dismiss an employee, compensate them and hire someone else.

The ministry found that Chion and Trautmann’s actions weren’t willful.

“In our view, we were not willful and it really helps to have the ESA investigator now back us up,” said Chion.

The former workers and the RSU have 30 days to appeal the decision made by the Ministry of Labour.
“We’re going through and reviewing,” said Toby Whitfield, RSU vice-president finance and services and president-elect.

“It’s hard to comment.”

Whitfield wouldn’t say whether the RSU is considering appealing the decision made by the Ministry of Labour.

According to Trautmann and Chion, they don’t plan to appeal the ministry’s decision but they’ll have to get involved again if the RSU decides to appeal.
“I would like to just put it to rest,” said Chion.
“I don’t want to have to defend it any further.”

sourced from here at :

http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/4486-Ministry-of-Labour-orders-RSU-to-pay-former-workers

Two of the plaintiffs in a defamation lawsuit against the Ryerson Students’ Union have been banned from the Student Campus Centre.

More than a month after serving court documents to current and former RSU executives and staff, plaintiffs Jesse Trautmann, former outreach co-ordinator for RyePride, and Frank Nyitray, former employee of RyeAccess, are no longer welcome in any RSU-run space, including the Student Campus Centre (SCC).

This is the most recent action after claims of libel, slander, defamation and vilification were filed against Toby Whitfield, current vice-president of finance and services, Rebecca Rose, former vice-president of education, and executive director of communications and outreach Denise Hammond, by Trautmann, Nyitray and another former community service group employee.

Trautman and Nyitray were  in the lobby of the SCC last Thursday when an Oakham House manager told them Eric Newstadt, general manager of the SCC, would call the police if they didn’t leave immediately.

“I’m an alumni, so technically I have rights to still be a part of the Ryerson community,” said Trautmann, adding that since Nyitray is still a student, he shouldn’t need a reason to be in the SCC.

“We actually have no idea why we were banned from the Student Centre,” said Nyitray.

Letters were passed between Davis LLP (the RSU’s lawyers), Trautmann and Nyitray on Dec. 21, saying the two were no longer authorized to enter any space owned or operated by the RSU.

A letter obtained by The Ryersonian, addressed to Nyitray from the Student Centre, says he is “no longer authorized to be in any space owned or operated by the Ryerson Student Centre.”

The letter also says he will be removed by security if he returns, and suggests that legal action could be taken in that scenario.
Nyitray said he never received this letter.

The letter also says that if he needs to be in the SCC he must first receive written permission from the general manager.

The letter was signed by Newstadt, who Nyitray alleges assaulted him last month while he was trying to serve Hammond court documents.

The ban also prevents Nyitray from using student services provided within the building.

“I identify as a student with a disability, as such I use RyeAccess,” said Nyitray. “I do not have access to purchasing a discount bus pass, and no longer have access to CopyRITE, which I use for academic assignments.

“It’s a personal vendetta,” Nyitray said about the ban.

Newstadt said that the foundation that runs the SCC had recieved complaints.

“We have a duty to provide a safe working environment for our staff,” he said.

The lawsuits, which were filed in November, involve a Facebook message sent by Hammond, a letter and memo sent by Whitfield and a Facebook message sent by Rose.

“What we really want to get out of this is to see in effect real change in the RSU,” said Nyitray. “We’re not out to destroy the RSU because this school needs a good strong students’ union with good strong leadership that places Ryerson students first and not their own personal agendas.”

Trautmann said the lawsuit is about protecting their reputations.

“As a new person entering the workforce, the allegations they’re making are seriously damaging to my professional and personal reputation, that’s why we’re fighting back on this.”

While the defendants will have counsel through their RSU insurance, which is partially funded by student fees, the three plaintiffs will be representing themselves.

“We have to,” said Trautmann. “We don’t have the money for a lawyer . . . we have to put a lot of faith in the judge who handles our case.”

Whitfield declined to comment on the case while it is before the courts.

Hammond and Rose could not be reached.

The plaintiffs will meet with Whitfield, Hammond and Rose on Feb. 1 for the pre-trial settlement meeting.

http://www.ryersonian.ca/article/2954