Last week, the Judicial Board (J-Board) of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) ruled to uphold the Winter 2012 referendum for the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS). Chris Bangs, U3 arts, filed the case against former AUS president Jade Calver and former AUS Chief Returning Officer (CRO) Victor Cheng last March.

“We recognize that the Respondents were at fault for violating the by-laws,” the verdict reads. “However, we do not find that these violations were so severe as to undermine the voting system and require the invalidation of the AUS Winter referendum.”

In his petition, Bangs raised concerns about alleged violations of six AUS by-laws. He argued that these violations compromised the results of the election, and asked that the J-Board invalidate the two questions for which he chaired the ‘No’ committee. One motion mandates the online ratification of decisions made by the AUS General Assembly (GA), and the other increases the number of votes needed to amend the AUS constitution to a two-thirds majority.

The J-Board found that three of the six alleged by-law violations were justified. The AUS failed to ratify motions in both French and English, to give a minimum of six days for campaigning, and to advertise the elections in a student publication.

The J-Board explained that the third violation is “serious.” The AUS advertised the information in its listserv, which does not count as a student publication, according to AUS by-laws.

“Listservs, unlike newspapers, are not a medium through which students can voice their opinion,” the verdict reads. “Listservs do not have a reply mechanism equivalent to letters to the editor, for example. The very informational nature of listservs is therefore not conducive to debate in the way that newspapers are.”

However, the J-Board found these three violations provided insufficient grounds for the invalidation of the referendum, because the “reasonably informed voter” would still have had sufficient time to learn about the issues. In addition, the AUS by-laws allow Elections AUS to exercise its discretion when dealing with violations.

“The Respondents’ conduct, though not free from scrutiny, was indicative of a person mindful of its role in preserving the integrity of the elections all the while ensuring that the process runs smoothly,” the verdict reads.

Bangs expressed concerns over the verdict after the ruling was issued. In its consideration of the AUS’ failure to ratify the motions in both languages, the J-Board argues that Bangs did not submit the referendum questions, which meant that the J-Board could not assess the differences between the two.

“I do not have an official copy of the referendum questions, which were never sent out to the members,” Bangs argued. “That is something the decision did not recognize—I could not submit copies of the motion to the Judicial Board.”

Bangs said he is grateful the case has been resolved, but is also worried about the implications this ruling has for the AUS.

“While the CRO cannot, according to the Judicial Board, just ignore the by-laws, the J-Board believes that it falls on the members of the AUS to inform themselves of the minutia of the by-laws and document complaints at every infraction,” he said. “This leaves the AUS unaccountable for poor decisions.”

AUS President Devon LaBuik said that the J-Board case only affects the AUS in that this semester’s referendum period and GA were delayed. If the J-Board case had been successful, the delayed referendum period would have allowed movers of the invalidated motions to re-submit their questions.

LaBuik said the case has also affected the AUS’ approach during the referendum period.

“We’re being much more careful in acknowledging … the electoral by-laws,” he said.“We’re being very careful this time around and ensuring we’ve followed every rule in the book.”

Calver and Cheng could not be reached for comment.

On Oct. 22, members of La Table de Concertation Étudiante du Québec (TaCEQ) met for a preliminary meeting in Quebec City to discuss the upcoming Quebec education summit, which the provincial government has slated to occur in early 2013. As the provincial summit draws closer, McGill students are also working to organize campus discussions of key issues regarding education.

TaCEQ is a federation of students associations—of which the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) is a member—that aims to promote the interests of Quebec students regarding post-secondary education. Other members of TaCEQ include Laval University and Sherbrooke University.

“Universities are crucial for the future development of Quebec,” TaCEQ General Secretary Paul-Émile Auger said in a press release in French. “It is necessary to identify the real issues and get to the heart of the challenges facing post-secondary education. The actors who will tackle this challenge will put forward the interests of Quebec … this is the only way we can identify priorities for the future.”

While the Quebec education summit is still in its preliminary planning stages, and does not yet have a definite date, SSMU Vice-President External Robin Reid-Fraser said that SSMU is moving ahead with plans for an education summit at McGill. This would consist of several events taking place throughout November.

On Oct. 19, Reid-Fraser met with executives from the undergraduate societies for law, music, science, arts and science, and physical and occupational therapy to discuss the roles that faculties could play in McGill’s summit.

Reid-Fraser said the discussion resulted in a goal to have smaller, more informal events hosted by faculties during the first few weeks of November. Following these events, Reid-Fraser will bring a list of themes to SSMU council, which will represent the main topics students want to see discussed at the education summit. SSMU would also use these themes as the basis for a series of formal sessions that will resemble last year’s Strategic Summits.

“Most of [the faculty executives] feel like their members wouldn’t necessarily come to a big, structured SSMU [event] but might be down to stop in for coffee and a chat,” Reid-Fraser said. “They can at least start to get a bit more of a sense of the issues that their members are thinking about.”

Reid-Fraser also expressed hope for an interactive website or blog that McGill students could access during the events, although this is still in preliminary stages.

SSMU will then compile the information collected at McGill events into a document which they may either present to TaCEQ, or to the Quebec education summit itself, if SSMU is invited to participate.

Finola Hackett, president of the Bachelor of Arts and Science Integrative Council (BASiC), said BASiC Vice-President External has been holding office hours to hear students’ opinions on tuition increases and other topics of discussion for the Quebec education summit.

“It’s important for us to get a good idea of what BA.Sc. students’ views on the issues are before taking further steps on BASiC’s involvement in the summit,” she said.

Last Tuesday, Nikhil Srinidhi was appointed as another one of two student senators representing the Engineering Undergraduate Society (EUS) following the resignation of the previous senator, Edward Chiang, on Oct. 3.

Chiang resigned because his internship this semester at Research in Motion in Ottawa made it difficult for him to attend EUS and Senate meetings. Haley Dinel, Vice-President University Affairs for the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), said she and Chiang had attempted to work around his schedule throughout September.

“I worked out a plan with [Chiang], during the summer months …  to [arrange] a feasible schedule, with the understanding that he would be on probation during September,” Dinel said.  “During that month, I consulted with EUS [executives] and council, as well as Senate caucus—which informed my decision to ask for his resignation.”

Chiang agreed with the decision and is appreciative of Dinel’s and EUS’s cooperation throughout the process.

“Not being physically on campus was becoming an issue,” Chiang said. “I tried to Skype in on the first EUS council, but it was hard to communicate properly. It was impossible for me to travel to Montreal from Ottawa twice a week. The general consensus from EUS [was] that I simply [could not] fulfill my role effectively.”

According to Dinel, the resignation of senators has occurred frequently in the past. Although faculty representatives to Senate are usually elected, the SSMU bylaws mandate that, in the case of a resignation, a new senator is chosen through an application process. SSMU senators interview candidates, and then select someone for the position by a majority vote.

Srinidhi said he looks forward to working on the Senate, and that his goals include improving the classroom experience of engineering students.

“I believe this will be the perfect way for me to work with like-minded colleagues at the helm of the student body,” he said. “I want to be a voice for the students at McGill—a voice through which they can see their concerns being addressed in a sincere yet effective way.”

Last Tuesday, the Asia Pacific Law Association of McGill (APLAM) hosted Pitman Potter for a lecture on the criminal case of Bo Xilai and the political and legal issues that surround it. Bo Xilai, a former Chinese politician who is now at the centre of the country’s biggest political scandal in decades.

Potter is a legal professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and HSBC Chair in Asian Research at UBC’s Institute of Asian Research. Holding advanced degrees in political science, law, and theology, Potter’s research focuses on Chinese trade and investment, dispute resolution, intellectual property, and human rights.

Known for both his charisma and ruthless ambition, Bo Xilai served as the Communist Party secretary of the Chongqing municipality until March, when he was removed from his post. Allegations against Bo include corruption and abuse of power. In August, his wife Gu Kailai was found guilty in the murder of Neil Heywood, a British citizen and family friend of the Bo’s. On Friday, the Chinese news agency Xinhua announced that a formal criminal investigation into Bo Xilai’s actions is underway.

In his lecture, Potter used the Bo Xilai scandal to exemplify the many ways in which political, social, and legal processes interact in China, which often differ from these interactions in the West. Much of the talk focused on dichotomies in the Chinese system, such as balancing guanxi (personal connections) with the desire for a legitimate and objective legal system.

“Guanxi tends to be a gap-filler for the imperfections in the regulatory system,” Potter said. “There has always been this tension between how much you can bind officials by formal regulations, and how much you allow officials to have discretion in their decision-making, based on their training [and on] on their virtue.”

Another debate involves the health of markets versus public well-being.

“China places great attention on the right to development and the right to subsistence … which invites us to think about what sort of development [we are] talking about,” Potter said. “Are we talking about accumulation, or are we talking about distribution?”

Potter also highlighted the ways in which Western norms deviate from traditional Chinese social practices.

“If we look at the governance structures of [international institutions], they tend to be driven by European and North American norms of liberalism,” he said. “But that norm … is not universal. And it certainly [is] not traditional in China.”

“In the liberal paradigm, governments are responsible to the people,” he added. “In China, governments are responsible for the people.”

According to Potter, corruption is one aspect that is different in Chinese culture from Western cultural norms.

“We need to understand the embeddedness of [corruption],” he said. “And we need to understand without making value judgements … I think we have to look at local conditions, and we have to be very careful not to be judgemental about it because there’s a discourse in the West that says ‘all corruption is bad’ … I’m not saying it’s good, but I think we have to be really careful in understanding the embeddedness of this in a historical context.”

Many audience members reacted positively to the lecture. Colin Monk, third-year law, was particularly interested in Potter’s argument of the need to contextualize corruption.

“I liked when he was talking about how we should not understand corruption and transparency through our Western eyes,” Monk said. “We shouldn’t judge corruption as an [automatically] bad thing.”

Kai Shan, a second year law student and Vice-President Events for APLAM, said she approved of Potter’s method of inquiry, noting that his approach was “explanatory … instead of a judgmental one.”

“I really liked how Professor Potter used the Bo Xilai case to … contextualize the legal system of China,” Shan said.

Potter also offered some recommendations for those seeking to work and live in China.

“Always be [alert] to the fact that local conditions are not going to fit neatly into our little conceptual frameworks—and that’s a powerful and liberating experience.”