Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) passed a motion to clarify the process by which council members may be recalled by petition, at the council meeting on Aug. 20.
 
The motion amends Section 2.5 of Bylaw 1 of the CUSA bylaws.
 
“I hope this clarifies the process and brings us into line with other student unions,” said Erik Halliwell, CUSA president and mover of the motion.
 
The motion includes a clause that would prevent a council member from being “petitioned for recall more than once during their term in office.”
 
“If there is going to be a petition of recall it’s got to be serious because it actually costs the association quite a large sum,” Halliwell said. Costs to the association include the hiring of poll clerks and a Chief Electoral Officer, as well as the printing of ballots, he said.
 
“I almost got recalled three times last year,” former CUSA president Brittany Smyth said, adding that it would have cost “$20,000 per referendum.”
 
One of the motion’s whereas clauses contained factually incorrect information, stating that council members can send a proxy to every single council meeting and still maintain their seat. However, current CUSA bylaws prevent a councilor from sending a proxy to more than two consecutive meetings and still hold their seat.
 
There was also some confusion over the implications of the clause, which some councillors argued could essentially grant immunity to councillors if petitions failed.
 
“I will be filing petitions of recall for everyone I don’t want kicked off council. That’s the problem,” said Brandon Wallingford,
proxy for engineering and design councillor Brian Mattock. “It has the potential to be abused.”
 
An amendment was proposed by Dean Tester to clarify the clause to read: “No member may be subject to a referendum of recall by petition more than once during their term in office.”
 
“It closes the loophole by which someone could start and then recall a petition” to achieve immunity, Tester said. “This fixes it so it’s not open to interpretation. There should not be loopholes available for people to prevent recalls.”
 
Halliwell and Smyth spoke against the proposed amendment, arguing it “means the same thing.” The amendment was defeated.
 
The clause would only come into effect in the event of a successful petition resulting in a referendum, Halliwell said, which hasn’t happened in recent years.