As a past Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA) councillor, I feel I can provide some insight into the recent use of bylaw 1, section 2.5 d to remove councillors from council. It appears the vice-president (internal) has erred in the interpretation of this section.

Section 2.5 d states, "In the case of a Constituency Representative, if the incumbent fails to attend or send a proxy to two meetings during the summer session." This part of the bylaw creates a requirement of councillors to attend two council meetings during the summer session. A councillor who has attended the May and June meetings in person or by proxy has met the requirement of this section and will not risk losing his or her seat if they fail to send a proxy to subsequent meetings. Furthermore, as there is the possibility of additional meetings during the summer session, it is possible for a councillor who has yet to attend (or has attended one meeting) to meet the requirements of this bylaw. As this section is constructed, it is impossible for the vice-president (internal) to use it to remove councillors until the summer session of CUSA council has passed.

To support my interpretation, I would note that earlier sections of the bylaw use the term “absent.” If section 2.5 d was intended to be interpreted as the vice-president (internal) has, it would use terminology that is consistent with 2.5 c, which uses the term “absent.” Section 2.5 c causes a councillor to lose his or her seat if they are absent for three meetings, whereas section 2.5 d places the requirement that they attend at least two meetings.

I would also note that when I first became a councillor, bylaw 2.5 d stated, "In the case of a Constituency Representative, if the incumbent fails to attend or send a proxy to one meeting during the summer session." The bylaw was amended to change the requirement to two. If we were to apply the vice-president (internal)'s interpretation to the original bylaw, councillors would lose their seat for being absent or failing to send a proxy for any summer meeting. Clearly 2.5 d was intended to create the requirement that councillors attend or send a proxy to at minimum two meetings during the summer.



—Michael Monks
Carleton graduate/former CUSA business councillor