In a previous post, I lamented how Carleton University repeatedly failed to provide its Board of Governors with a legal opinion to support proposed bylaw changes. The closest the board got to a legal opinion was an advisor to the Board stating at the 25 June 2015 Board meeting, when the bylaw changes were being discussed and debated in so-called open session, that his verbal words constituted the university’s official legal opinion. At that 25 June meeting, once the motion to vote electronically on bylaw changes passed, the chair of the Board refused to entertain further discussion of or amendment to the proposed bylaw changes. On 26 June 2015, the chair of the Board rejected my point of order claiming that the motion to vote electronically violated the Board’s bylaws. Finally, an hour after the chair’s rejection of my point of order, the Board was provided with a written legal opinion from an advisor to the Board. Yes, you read that correctly: Only after all discussion and debate of the bylaws were completed and all further amendments were foreclosed did Board members get to read a legal opinion!
Making this tactic seem even more brazen and shameless, the belated written legal opinion was marked “privileged and confidential”, even though it purports to merely reflect what was said at a so-called open session of the board.
What I can, however, legally provide (because they were discussed in open session and were never marked as being confidential or privileged) are links to the proposed bylaw changes. Click the links below for:
- Spreadsheet of recommended bylaw changes
- Track-changes version of Board BYLAWS
- Track-changes version of Board PROCEDURES
The electronic vote on these proposed bylaw changes opened on 26 June and closes on 30 June 2015.
Note added 14 August 2015: The electronic vote on bylaw changes was suspended after this blog was originally posted on 29 June 2015.
Note added 14 August 2015: I would like to retract the statements that appeared in my blog post on 25 June 2015 regarding Carleton University’s general counsel, Steven Levitt. The statements were not made with any malicious intent to lie or defame Steven Levitt or any other member of the Board of Governors. I completely retract the false information and apologize for the mistake.