A Charlatan investigation
WARNING: This article contains topics of sexual harassment and sexual violence. Those in need of support can call the Sexual Assault Support Center of Ottawa Crisis Line: 613-234-2266, the Mental Health Crisis Line: 613-722-6914 (within Ottawa) and 1-866-996-0991 (outside Ottawa), the Ottawa Distress Centre Crisis Line: 613-238-3311, or the Youth Services Bureau 24/7 Crisis Line: 613-260-2360 or 1-877-377-7775 (toll).
On April 17, the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) Clubs Oversight Commission struck down efforts by the Carleton Improv Association to remove a member’s status on “exceptional behaviour” grounds. These grounds included sexual misconduct, which the former 25-year-old member said are “serious false allegations.”
Almost seven months later, the improv association has yet to receive a hearing date for its appeal of the April 17 decision.
In the decision, CUSA held that “CUSA Clubs do not have the authority to remove a member on the grounds of sexual harassment or sexual violence. The only governing body on campus that can prohibit a student’s membership in a CUSA Club on the grounds of sexual violence or sexual harassment is the Carleton Sexual Violence Review Committee.”
CUSA’s position that CUSA does not govern club membership removal cases involving sexual violence contradicts messages delivered by Carleton’s media relations officer.
Carleton’s media relations officer Steven Reid wrote in a Nov. 2 statement to the Charlatan that CUSA clubs and “student groups cannot participate in a complaint process” under the department of equity and inclusive communities’ (EIC) sexual violence policy. EIC’s sexual violence policy governs the Carleton Sexual Violence Review Committee.
Reid wrote that CUSA is the only governing body with “policies and procedures that govern student club membership.”
CUSA and the university are each pointing to the other as the correct body to govern the issue, resulting in no official routes for campus clubs to remove members on the basis of sexual harassment or violence. If a campus club experiences an instance of sexual harassment or violence, there are no clear procedures at the university to remove the perpetrator’s club membership.
“Clubs have no autonomy over their own organization,” said Beth Kimmett, the improv association’s current president.
Some club leaders who have spoken to the Charlatan say their clubs have left, or are considering leaving, CUSA in light of these new developments. Students also point to unclear CUSA guidance about club constitutions and the appeals process as barriers to safe club environments.
Additionally, Carleton ombudsperson Melanie Chapman supported CUSA’s new membership removal directions, according to documents and interviews obtained during the Charlatan’s investigation.
CUSA’s April 17 decision
On February 7, a 25-year-old student submitted a complaint against the improv association to the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission.
The complaint included that the 25-year-old student was “unfairly” banned from the improv association for exceptional behavioural circumstances involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
The 25-year-old student sought an apology letter from improv association executives, indicating that “rumours” were spread about them, causing them negative experiences. The 25-year-old student also sought increased training for all CUSA club executives.
On February 27, the improv association submitted a response, outlining how club executives followed their approved constitutional procedures when removing the 25-year-old student and took a survivor-focused approach. The improv association also highlighted the age difference between the 25-year-old student and underage first-year members.
On April 17, the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission released its written decision.
CUSA found that the improv association correctly followed its CUSA-approved club constitution when banning the 25-year-old student. However, CUSA wrote that improv’s constitutional procedures were vague, unfair and did not adhere to Carleton’s sexual violence policy.
CUSA wrote that no club or CUSA executive has the authority to remove a club member for sexual harassment or violence concerns. According to the April 17 decision, only the Sexual Violence Review Committee has the authority to remove club members for these reasons.
CUSA decided the improv association’s removal of the 25-year-old student was “null and void” in the April 17 decision, stating the student could have their membership reinstated if they wished. CUSA wrote the improv association “should take accountability for their actions, recognize the negative impact that these actions have had and offer an apology to the Complainant.”
Responses to this decision from the improv association, students and EIC are found below.
Membership removal on sexual violence grounds
The proposed path for clubs seeking membership removal on the basis of sexual harassment or violence is unclear. Messaging from CUSA contradicts the message delivered by Carleton’s media relations officer and EIC.
CUSA says all club membership removal requests on sexual violence grounds must be handled by EIC’s sexual violence policy, yet the university says CUSA is responsible for governing club membership.
No governing body is claiming the power to remove club membership on sexual violence grounds.
On Nov. 3, CUSA vice-president internal Aiden Rohacek wrote to the Charlatan that individual clubs and CUSA “lacks the authority to handle cases of sexual violence” because “as per s.6.4 of the sexual violence policy, EIC is responsible for handling all non-emergency disclosures of sexual violence.”
In the April 17 decision, CUSA held that only the Carleton Sexual Violence Review Committee can “prohibit a student’s membership in a CUSA Club.”
The Carleton Sexual Violence Review Committee is part of EIC and governed by Carleton’s sexual violence policy. However, EIC staff have advised the sexual violence policy does not apply to club membership cases involving sexual harassment or violence, seemingly leaving instances like the improv club’s in a grey area.
“Epifano said, ‘We have no jurisdiction over CUSA Clubs … We would not have been able to tell you what you should’ve done in this situation,’” recalled Eris Hector, current improv association vice-president internal.
In a May 14 email addressed to the improv association and obtained by the Charlatan, Epifano wrote that EIC’s sexual violence policy would not be relevant for the improv association’s appeal.
Despite several attempts by the Charlatan to conduct an interview, Epifano declined to speak on the record on July 8, stating any questions should be directed toward Carleton’s communications department.
In a Nov. 2 statement to the Charlatan, Reid wrote on behalf of Carleton’s communications department, “The scope of the [sexual violence] policy does not include third parties, and therefore student groups cannot participate in a complaint process under the policy.”
Reid also wrote that CUSA is the governing body with “policies and procedures that govern student club membership.”
In light of CUSA’s and EIC’s positions, Hector said there is a significant discrepancy in sexual violence protocols at Carleton.
“CUSA has now taken the step forward to direct all sexual assault affairs in clubs to third-party resources that are unable to assist,” Hector said.
Alumnus, a recent graduate and student leader formerly employed by CUSA who has requested to remain anonymous to avoid professional repercussions, said CUSA has an obligation to “take care of their clubs and support them.”
“[CUSA] has to be held responsible when these sorts of things happen,” Alumnus said. “What they’re doing is sort of a blanket. They’re wrapping a blanket around a really spiky situation and trying to act like it’s not showing.”
Unclear expectations for club constitutions
Following the April 17 decision, club leaders are also confused if they can be punished for following their CUSA-certified club constitutions.
Beyond allocating funding to clubs, the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission also provides “guidance, support and accountability to CUSA Clubs.” At the time of the April 17 decision, commission members included Rohacek, Hannah Whale, Logan Breen, Zayn Tucker, Burteseten Ariunbold and Louis Yoon. Yoon has previously contributed to the Charlatan.
Whale was the 2023/2024 student groups administrator and is now the student experience manager. Breen was the 2023/2024 CUSA vice-president internal.
“It’s so clear CUSA didn’t take the nuances of the situation or even listen to us,” Hector said.
Improv association executives said they are frustrated with CUSA’s retroactive rationale.
“Don’t punish us for doing what you allowed us to do,” Hector said.
“This [constitution] was approved by CUSA multiple times,” Kimmett added. “If we’re not allowed to follow our constitution approved by CUSA, what are we supposed to do?”
In her analysis of the judgment, Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, an adjunct professor in Carleton’s department of law and legal studies, said the improv association met the procedural fairness standard through abiding by its approved constitution.
“I think [CUSA’s final] decision is incorrect. If indeed there is a rule that was approved in the constitution of this club … then it doesn’t make sense that this person cannot be expelled,” Bromwich said. “If the club followed its own process, then the duty of procedural fairness within the club has been met.”
When asked if CUSA-certified clubs can be reprimanded for abiding by their approved club constitutions, Rohacek wrote to the Charlatan, “As the Commission reviews complaints on a case-by-case basis, I cannot responsibly give a yes or no answer to this question. Generally, if a club follows its constitution and it is not deemed invalid by overriding policy, the Commission would not have grounds to issue a sanction.”
When asked by the Charlatan if clubs should continue to follow their approved constitutions, Rohacek wrote, “Clubs should follow their constitutions insofar as they comply with CUSA club procedures and Carleton University policies.”
He added “the improv association was not sanctioned for following its constitution.”
From a conflict resolution perspective, Bromwich added that “closed-door settlement” without ongoing dialogue with the involved parties can infringe on people’s rights. She questions where CUSA is drawing their power to override an approved club constitution.
“On what basis does CUSA have the ability to overturn that? Maybe they have some sort of overriding provision in the constitution of CUSA that says they can retroactively amend club constitutions, but I don’t see how that would make sense. I think this is bullshit.”
Appeal still unheard
Believing CUSA’s decision hinders the nurturance of a safe environment for improv association members, improv association executives appealed CUSA’s decision in early May.
Appealing the decision included submitting a Google Form and Google Doc outlining errors the improv association believed CUSA made. These errors included that the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commision: made a mistake of fact, made a decision that is unreasonable, made a mistake of legal interpretation and committed a miscarriage of justice.
CUSA’s appeals committee, formerly known as the students’ tribunal, will hear the improv association’s appeal of the April 17 decision — a decision Rohacek helped deliver when serving on the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission.
According to a June 6 email obtained by the Charlatan, Rohacek is currently reforming the appeals committee to “make the committee more effective.” A June 24 CUSA council meeting document outlines that Rohacek undertook this reformation because, “an overhaul is required to have a functioning appeals system within CUSA.”
When asked by the Charlatan if there will be any conflict of interest in the hearing of the improv association’s appeal, Rohacek responded that as vice-president internal he does not have a seat on the appeals committee. He also wrote, “The Committee will be chaired by an impartial lawyer from CUSA’s legal counsel to ensure the body remains fair.”
In a Nov. 3 statement to the Charlatan, Rohacek wrote “there are two vacant positions for students-at-large on the appeals committee that need to be filled before the body can begin meeting. Unfortunately, no student has put their name forward as of yet.”
Rohacek did not respond when asked by the Charlatan when the appeals committee will hear the improv association’s appeal.
Rohacek also did not provide a response when asked how long after submitting an appeal before students could expect their case to be heard.
Given the bureaucratic gap of no university body claiming governance over membership removal cases involving sexual misconduct, it is also uncertain how improv’s appeal will be decided.
New membership removal directives
Certification by CUSA enables campus clubs, associations, academic groups and societies to receive funding, marketing opportunities, campus space bookings, co-curricular record recognition and more. In order to be certified, clubs must have their constitutions approved by CUSA and abide by CUSA directives.
Prior to the April 17 decision, CUSA-certified clubs had autonomy to revoke their own members’ status, subject to procedures in their respective club constitutions.
After the April 17 decision, CUSA modified how certified clubs must approach membership removal and club executive impeachment with two new directives over the summer.
The first directive, presented during a June 11 clubs meeting, informed clubs seeking recertification that they must remove anything from their constitution permitting membership removal on the basis of sexual harassment or violence. This directive came four days before the deadline to submit club recertification applications.
When asked by the Charlatan if this was an appropriate time frame for communicating information, Rohacek responded, “Clubs are not expected to make constitutional amendments prior to the recertification deadline. Any constitutional changes requested by the Clubs Oversight Commission are communicated to clubs after they’ve submitted a recertification application.”
Alec Saper, current improv association vice-president external, said this manner of communication over the summer “gave people minimal time to make a very important decision.”
“We need certification to be considered reputable,” Saper said. “CUSA forced clubs to either protect your members or sacrifice your club’s ability to function properly.”
On Aug. 6, CUSA directed clubs seeking recertification to amend their constitutions to abide by new membership removal procedures which were later said by Rohacek to be drafted “in consultation with ombuds.” Development of the new membership removal procedures also involved consultation with numerous unnamed Carleton stakeholders, according to Rohacek’s Nov. 3 statement to the Charlatan.
These procedures state that the newly created CUSA Clubs Membership Removal Committee is the only entity empowered to decide whether club membership removal or executive impeachment can be undertaken.
“This committee was created to help guide club leaders through the membership removal process and ensure that decisions would be made with full understanding of the relevant CUSA and university policies,” Rohacek said in his statement.
When a club wishes to revoke someone’s membership, that club’s executive must submit an email request to the membership removal committee. According to the new procedures, the membership removal request should include detailed information about the incident, any witnesses or other evidence, as well as a citation of what CUSA bylaw was violated.
In his statement to the Charlatan, Rohacek wrote that the membership removal committee “does not make decisions, rather it provides recommendations to club leaders.”
However, Whale emailed a CUSA-certified club on Aug. 6, requiring the club to amend its constitutional procedures, according to evidence obtained by the Charlatan. Part of Whale’s constitutional requirements were that the club could only proceed with membership removal if CUSA’s membership removal committee gave the green light.
The membership removal committee will review membership removal requests within 10 days of receiving the request, according to the new CUSA clubs membership removal procedures.
Yet during a Sept. 22 CUSA clubs presidents’ meeting, current CUSA student groups administrator Eman Elnaidany said there is no definitive turnaround time for the membership removal committee to provide clubs with a decision on their request, which also contradicted Rohacek’s statement about CUSA not making membership removal decisions.
“Case-by-case basis,” Elnaidany said. “It depends if a club comes with documentation. It depends on the membership removal committee’s availability and making sure we’re following the right steps. Again, this process might take long but to make sure that … we’re being fair is the most important thing.”
“The [membership removal committee] will attempt to provide a recommendation as soon as possible but certain cases may require more consultation to ensure that the [membership removal committee] can give a properly informed recommendation,” Rohacek wrote on Nov. 3.
‘Backlash from every single club and society who’s upset’
Navreet Sidhu, a fourth-year political science student and recipient of the 2023/2024 CUSA Club Leader of the Year award, said CUSA’s new membership removal procedures and unclear timelines do not match the realities of running a campus club.
“CUSA isn’t able to get a full understanding of club dynamics. It gets kind of out of control if club members are not kicked out,” Sidhu said. “I feel like the clubs are better equipped to handle member removal if they’re able to do it quickly.”
“[The new procedures] give CUSA the ability to veto any membership impeachment and to impeach club executives … It infringes on clubs’ autonomy to handle these issues internally,” added Sean Mcbride, co-president of the Carleton University Geography and Environmental Studies Student Association.
In response to these critiques, Rohacek wrote to the Charlatan, “the only requirements are that clubs update their constitutions to reflect the role of the [membership removal committee] and contact the [membership removal committee] prior to taking any action on removing a member.
“If a club decides to go against the recommendation, they are responsible for any consequences that may result from their decision.”
“Clubs are losing their autonomy through these rulings. They’re assimilating to a structure that’s causing more harm and bureaucratic confusion,” Alumnus said. “It’s making clubs inaccessible and unsafe for the students running them, and the students participating in them.”
Rohacek wrote the new membership removal procedures “makes clubs safer by ensuring that if a club removes a member following the recommendation of the [membership removal committee], they can have confidence that the former member will have significantly less recourse to challenge the decision on procedural fairness grounds.”
Mcbride said his club is contemplating leaving CUSA because of the new procedures. He cited the procedures’ “vague wording” and time frame as key reasons for leaving, adding that a CUSA-run committee doesn’t know what’s going on in each club.
“It’s more bureaucracy that we don’t like,” Mcbride said. “CUSA oversees so much already. It’s much easier and quicker to handle member removal in-house.”
In response to this critique, Rohacek wrote, “The [membership removal committee] was created to dispel confusion around removing a member and provide guidance when navigating the process.”
Mcbride added his club is concerned the vague wording of the procedures could impact the ability to safely advocate for socio-political causes, or remove members whose values don’t align with the club.
For example, the Carleton History Undergraduate Student Society (HUgS) previously removed members on grounds of hateful opinions and perspectives.
Following the introduction of the CUSA Clubs Membership Removal Committee, HUgS held a referendum on Aug. 15, unanimously voting to separate from CUSA.
“We believe that this subcommittee removes a great deal of our autonomy and ability to self-govern,” wrote Marcus Mosley, co-president of HUgS, in an official statement to the Charlatan.
Mosley wrote that due to HUgS’ large membership, which includes all undergraduate students with history as a major or minor, the club wished to retain their ability to comprehensively navigate membership removal.
“As we have had previous situations that required the removal of executives and regular members for inappropriate and bigoted behaviour and due to the aforementioned large membership, it was in our best interest to ensure that we maintained the right to autonomy surrounding removal and impeachment.”
The Charlatan asked Rohacek if he has spoken with any clubs who have left CUSA, or if he would like to provide any additional information regarding these recent departures.
While citing he could not “provide specifics due to confidentiality,” he wrote that “student groups have the autonomy to decide if they will go through the certification process to be recognized as a CUSA Club.”
During a Sept. 30 CUSA council meeting, engineering and design councillor Dana Sayed Ahmed voiced concerns she’s heard from clubs regarding the new membership removal procedures.
“I am witnessing what is an insane backlash from every single club and society who’s upset about the membership removal process,” Sayed Ahmed said. “And it is coming to myself because they don’t understand why that membership removal process is the way it is.”
Mcbride said “some clubs will be impacted more than others” by these new procedures, as academic societies have the option to instead receive funding from their departments.
“Unlike other clubs where if they’re not CUSA-certified they don’t have options, academic societies can survive on their own,” he said.
Beyond the isolating options for non-academic clubs, students are concerned how the new CUSA procedures will impact club safety.
Sidhu said the new procedures could endanger victims of harmful behaviour.
“It’s very hard for people to actually be held accountable for this stuff at all. It becomes even harder … when it gets to a larger body that doesn’t understand the patterns.
“It prolongs that process and, for the time being, it’s especially worse for the victims.”
When asked by the Charlatan how CUSA will protect victims of harmful behaviour during the time frame between club request submission and membership removal committee response, Rohacek responded, “Depending on the nature of the complaint, the membership removal committee will recommend an appropriate body to refer the concern to or for the club to proceed with its impeachment procedure. If someone is experiencing an immediate threat, we would recommend they call emergency services.”
Sidhu said she believes a third-party committee would only be beneficial in scenarios where club executives are not adequately supporting victims.
“I think they should reverse the ruling and instead implement a measure where if people feel like their club isn’t being adequately supportive, they can go to CUSA,” she said.
While Sidhu said she doesn’t think “the Clubs Oversight Commission’s intent was necessarily bad,” she holds practical concerns about the operations of the new membership removal committee.
“Logistically, this is going to be backlogged so much.”
Rohacek said the committee is currently “not experiencing any backlog.”
Sidhu also said that because certified clubs receive funding from CUSA, when member removal applications are rejected, students engaging in harmful behaviour could receive financial support via club routes.
“It becomes a financial thing, too. We get a levy from CUSA. Are we going to spend Carleton University tuition [on] this person because we can’t kick them out? Where do Carleton students want their tuition to go?”
Alumnus said CUSA’s April 17 decision, along with the new directives, raises concerns about the power the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission possesses.
“Who is allowed on this committee and why does this committee exist? Because if it’s just to make decisions on how funding should go, then I think CUSA Clubs are better off being a bank of money, not this high-and-mighty resource.”
“Not only do we believe that this situation is unjust to us, but there’s a lot of other concerns that have been raised throughout this,” Hector added. “CUSA has this power that I don’t think they should be allowed to have. It’s too much power.”
Featured graphic by Alisha Velji/the Charlatan.
