Recall Rick Telfer

Responsiblity of Power: Casual Finances

2009-12-03T06:24:00.000-08:00

"With great power comes great responsibility" - Stan Lee (Creator of Spider-Man)
The President of the Society of Graduate Students (SOGS) has numerous responsibilities that cannot be taken lightly. Included in these [1-3], is the responsibility of the President for the overall operation of the Society including signing all contracts (unless otherwise determined by Council), and signing cheques.

Since the President has taken office, there have been times where the current President has failed to responsibly exercise his power. The following article details two instances that we are aware of.

As noted in a previous post [4], the 2009-10 SOGS handbook was over budget by more than $1,000. We refer the interested reader to the discussion on the dayplanner [4] for details of this overage. However, we note that during the September 2009 Council meeting, the President moved to replace a motion to pay for this overage, with a motion to amend the budget as follows [5]:

BIRT the handbook editor expense line item from the 2009-2010 SOGS budget be revised to an allocation of $0;
BIFRT the handbook printing expense line in the 2009-2010 SOGS budget be revised to an allocation of $18,035;
BIFRT the handbook printing expenditure overage of $35 be deducted from the 2009-2010 SOGS budget contingency fund.

One would have expected the President to be aware of SOGS Bylaw 12.6 [6] which states:

Proposals for amendments to the budget shall be received by the Vice-President Finance and shall be referred to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee shall present the proposals with the Finance Committee's recommendations to Council within eight weeks of the Vice-President Finance's receipt of the proposals.

SOGS practice has been that amendments to the budget are made only when changes to the status quo occur. For example, if the number of graduate students were to surge mid-year due to a change in Western admission policies, then the resulting increase would warrant an amended budget since it would be reasonable to expect that the increase in the number of fee-paying graduate students would not be a one-time occurrence; a singular budget over-run would not warrant a budget amendment. The budget is a record of how we planned to spend money as a Society, but the actual amount spent will be different by some (generally small) amount. This fact can be observed by comparing the Societies budget v.s. actuals for years past . You do not amend the budget to match what you spend, to try to make your spending match the budget. If a failure happens then that outlier is something to note, and examine, and consider in the formation of the next budget. A significant amendment might lead the crafters of some future budget to consider the increase in expenditure commonplace, as opposed to an anomaly that should be investigated and corrected. Amending the budget mid-year would decrease the transparency of the Societies finances, and the accountability of its officers.

Earlier in his term, the President demonstrated a similarly causal attitude to the monies administered by the SOGS bursaries. In the August 2009 council meeting the President provided an Executive Report [8], during which included his in his submission that he had been:

"Providing ongoing support and information in response to a member’s need for assistance pertaining to loss of the member’s physical mobility."

S. Beasley commented on the events the President was referring to (Executive Section of [7]) and observed that the support and included intervention in what was normally a blinded bursary selection process:

"[..] as a member of the bursary committee, I was infuriated by the email, that was advocating for a specific individual were as the bursary committee guidelines are based completely on anonymity and assistance is given to students with the greatest need with no favouritism shown."

Rick Telfer's use of his influence as President to try and affect what had been designed to be an anonymous adjudication process is an extremenly dangerous precedent that should not be allowed to pass without comment.
All graduate students pay fees to the Society of Graduate Students, and we trust that the people we elect to administer the distribution of those fees will do so in a fair and transparent manner. Checks and balances exist in the form of Councils and committees, however not all expenditures are brought to council and in the month between council meetings we have to trust that the dispersal of funds is occurring as SOGS policies and bylaws dictate.

Rick Telfer has demonstrated a lack of concern regarding the ethical handling of graduate student funds.

[1] SOGS Bylaw 12.5

[2] SOGS Bylaw 12.5

[3] SOGS Bylaw 12.5

[4] Dayplanner Discussion

[5] Sept 2009 approved minutes

[6] SOGS Bylaw 12.6

[7] August 2009 Approved Minutes

[8] August 2009 Council Package

Ballotting Completed

2009-11-30T16:32:00.001-08:00

Balloting is done, and the recall failed to pass. For the record, no conservative is pulling our strings, nor are we in any way affiliate with any organized group of political anything.
Not one of the article contributors is a member of the Conservative party, on campus or otherwise. In the last provincial or election we voted for every major Ontario party except the Conservatives (including Green). We posted the articles anonymously for the (not unfounded) fear of being sued, but for this reason we can't actually prove our lack of political affiliations.

The whole left/right division is a false dichotomy that has been crafted to mobilize students. It did a good job, but its nothing more than or less than a convenient falsehood.

Communication with other Student Societies

2009-11-30T05:54:00.000-08:00

We haven't had time to polish an argument surrounding this issue. However, please consider if this is the way we want to be represented to the students of other universities. The following letter was sent to Rick Telfer on October 22nd .

Misplaced Priorities: Allow Personal Interests to Conflict with Responsibilities

2009-11-27T10:52:00.000-08:00

Conflict between his multiple commitments and affiliations have caused him to neglect his responsibilities to the SOGS membership.

A president can be expected to have personal opinions. Student politicians run on a platform and have their own personal motivations for pursuing elected positions. After the election, the winner is entrusted with the responsibilities of the position they ran for, and the execution of those responsibilities has to be a priority. As SOGS members, we pay our elected officials a monthly stipend, in appreciation of the work required to fill the role, and to recognize that these graduate students are sacrificing the time they might have spent pursuing coursework or research for their degree, or devoted to some other goal.

It is accepted, and expected, that Rick Telfer's political flavour would colour his tenure as President. Rick Telfer's preferences could (and should) emerge in terms of the projects he chooses to pursue, his perspective as President, and the knowledge he brings to debate. Since taking office, however, Rick Telfer has repeatedly failed to prioritize SOGS core services, and the representation of grad student's concerns, above his other commitments or political affiliations.

This failure has been repeatedly demonstrated during his tenure. He voiced strong opposition to the health insurance provider that was selected by the Health Plan committee and voted on by Council. He then jeopardized our coverage by delaying the finalization of the contract [1]. He also voiced strong support of the Graduate Student Employee unionization drive, then refused to effectively communicate the concerns of the Membership regarding it when asked to do so by a resolution at a General Meeting [2].

As a third example, he has asserted himself as a pro-CFS activist [3]; then, when more than 1 in 10 SOGS members indicated that they wish to have a debate and vote regarding Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) membership via a petition (the only way to do so meaningfully under the CFS bylaws) , he produced and personally circulated [4] a petition to nullify that request for debate and vote on continued CFS membership.

He was not expected to support the CFS-referendum petition, nor remain silent on his pro-CFS views. However, his “counter-petition” attempted to marginalize the voices of more than 10% of the graduate student body and obstructed their request for democratic process and academic debate. Spearheading a counter-campaign would be reasonable from a pro-CFS activist with no other commitments, but not from the president representing all graduate students.

Finally, past presidents have found it challenging to hold the position of President while satisfying their advisory committees that they are making sufficient progress towards completion of a thesis. The job of President is time consuming; it takes skill and dedication to juggle both graduate-level research and the large commitment that the President has made to the Society. Rick Telfer holds a part-time instructor position at Fanshawe College [5]; in addition has to fulfill the course and/or thesis progress requirements for graduate school and execute his UWO teaching assistant responsibilities. His lecturer work takes him off campus during working hours, making it difficult or impossible for him to meet his bylaw-mandated office hours.

The role of a SOGS President could reasonably include a responsibility to 1) hear and support the concerns of the SOGS electorate (not third parties); and 2) promote informed debate. If the SOGS President has a conflict of interest on an issue then he should have made a choice. Rick Telfer could have chosen to continue to be a strong activist and wade right into the middle of the hot debate on membership in the CFS, and resigned his position as the head of SOGS. Alternatively, he could have reaffirmed his role as the SOGS president and committed to ensuring that both sides of the argument had a chance to be heard. In using his power to attempt to kill the debate (by nullifying the petition) Rick Telfer committed to his role as an activist but failed to resign, and this brought his ability to continue as President in doubt.

His unwillingness to concede to consensus and prioritize SOGS needs make him ill-suited to the process of governance.

[1] - Minutes including his argument against the HPC decision
   - Minutes regarding his failure to sign the contract
   - Full Health Plan Argument
[2] - Letter sent to the Union
   - Full Union Argument
[3] - Final Paragraph of "Wonder Who..."
[4] - Gazette article on the counter-petition
[5] - Blogger Profile of Rick Telfer
   - Fanshawe college staff listing, search for "Telfer"

Ineffective Management: Endangerment of the Society Health Plan

2009-11-25T16:14:00.000-08:00

He cannot be trusted to set aside his personal politics when required to effectively manage the day-to-day affairs of the Society.

The health plan is perhaps the most important and most expensive service the Society of Graduate Students (SOGS) administers for graduate students. The Health plan committee (HPC) reviews and critically compares different health plans before voting on a plan. The Committee has been entrusted pick, what they consider to be, the best plan for SOGS and makes this recommendation to SOGS council; council subsequently chooses either to accept the recommendation of the Health Plan Committee, or to send the proposal back for further consideration.

The plans provided by Morneau Sobeco and Campbell and Company Insurance were the top two contenders. In the end the committee agreed that Campbell and Company Insurance provided the best healthplan for SOGS. Only two members of the committee disagreed, one of these members (with ex-officio membership) was the current SOGS President Rick Telfer. The President presented an unscheduled minority report at the SOGS Council meeting held on May 2009, when the committee's health plan decision was being presented for approval by Council.

One issue he presented was that the coverage provided by Campbell and Company Insurance would only return 50% of any surplus where as Morneau Sobeco would return all of the surplus. What Rick failed to mention was that in the case of a deficit, Campbell and Company Insurance would completely absorb the deficit, whereas Morneau Sobeco would expect SOGS to cover 100% of a deficit. [1] The committee had considered the risks and benefits offered by both schemes and had chosen one way as the best option for SOGS, and Mr. Telfer disagreed.

Mr. Telfer has the right to disagree and a right to voice that disagreement both as President and as a SOGS member. The concern emerges when you realize that months later, by the August 2009 Council meeting, the health plan contract for the 2009-2010 school year had not yet been signed [2], even though it had been approved by Council. At the start of September, Graduate Students did not have the guaranteed health coverage they had paid SOGS for.

According to SOGS bylaws [3], the President must sign all contracts. The health plan contract was not signed until the end of September, and well after the coverage period began.

Rick Telfer should no longer be President as he cannot put his own opinions aside and look out for the best interests of the Society and its members.

[1] May 2009 SOGS council minutes : http://www.uwo.ca/sogs/About/Mailouts/May2009-Approved-Minutes.pdf
[2] August 2009 SOGS council minutes: http://www.uwo.ca/sogs/About/Mailouts/August2009-Approved-Minutes.doc
[3] SOGS Bylaws 12.5

Inattentive Leadership: Failure to Address Society Concerns on the Unionization Drive

2009-11-25T16:09:00.000-08:00

He cannot put aside his personal politics to fulfill the will of the Membership.

On Thursday July 30th, 2009, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, with support from the Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTA) union held a vote on unionizing Graduate Student Employees (GSEs). Specific details surrounding the time and date of the vote were distributed to graduate students employed as teaching assistants with less than 24 hours notice. Many Graduate students employed only as research assistants, especially at the Lawson research centre and Cancer centre received either no official notification, or were notified by their department admin assistant during balloting, as news of the vote spread. Further, the day of the vote, the GTA union website had no information on the union drive.

On August 12th, 2009, during a General Meeting (GM) of the Society of Graduate Students (SOGS), a motion was adopted by the assembly directing the President of SOGS to write a letter expressing the great displeasure of graduate students over the lack of notice and information posted online. The motion is as follows:

Whereas on Thursday July 30th, 2009 a vote was held at Western on whether graduate student employees should be represented by a union and
Whereas many graduate students who may be effected were given less than 24 hours advanced notice and
Whereas many graduate students are unhappy with the lack of information in advance concerning the vote date, as well as information on the PSAC and GTA union websites, respectively.
BIRT the SOGS’ President writes a letter, to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and the local GTA Union, expressing the great displeasure of SOGS’ members over the way the campaign for the voting for the GSE unionization was conducted including the lack of notice and public information online.
BIFRT this letter be written and mailed within 14 business days and be publicly displayed on the SOGS website for a period of no less than 3 months.

A Speaker's ruling was subsequently requested by SOGS's VP Finance, Jonathan Meyer, questioning the admissibility of the business adopted at the General Meeting. The SOGS Speaker ruled in favour of sustaining the business.

On September 24th 2009, SOGS President Rick Telfer challenged this decision in Council. Council voted to uphold the Speaker's ruling regarding the motion adopted at the GM. Finally, on October 8th, 2009, nearly two months after the initial motion was adopted by the General Membership, SOGS President Rick Telfer drafted the following letter: http://tinyurl.com/yd5sxve. In the letter the President communicates the motion as adopted, but then negates the message through the expression of his personal opinion: "While I, personally, felt that the process in question was entirely fair and reasonable, [..]". Such expressions of personal opinion do not have a place in official communications when they destructively interfere with the objective. The letter fails to effectively communicate the message mandated by the Membership because of the insertion of the Presidents personal politics.

It is possible to draft an effective letter without including a personal missive (http://tinyurl.com/yzge5qc). In this letter, Mr. Pisters fulfills the direction of the membership by complying with, and upholding the spirit of, a motion adopted at the February 12th, 2009 SOGS annual general meeting despite holding personal views to the contrary. The President should be capable of putting personal politics aside when dealing with official SOGS business.

Rick Telfer cannot be trusted to take direction and fulfill the will of SOGS members in effectively overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Society except where the directions line up precisely with his priorities.

Unilateral Action: Dayplanner Hijacking

2009-11-25T16:00:00.000-08:00

He unilaterally discarded the document designed and approved by the committee entrusted with producing the planner in favor of a third-party design.

The SOGS Dayplanner is a document that contains information about SOGS and is given to every graduate student who picks up a bus pass or asks for a Dayplanner. The Dayplanner costs the Society approximately $17,000 and is put together by the Orientation Committee (OC) with help from the executive.

In 2007 the Canadian Federations of Students (CFS) Dayplanner services had been used. They contain pre-written content about the CFS but allow for the Organization to put in their own information. For the 2008 and 2009 planner the OC decided to discontinue use of the CFS services, and instead chose to design their own, and contract out the printing. The OC chose to not included the CFS insert as it has received many complaints about extraneous content referring to the CFS information.

The decision to exclude the CFS content was not made lightly, after all SOGS is a member of the CFS. However, the committee debated the issue and a choice was made.

The approved design for the 2009-2010 dayplanner was based on the template of the 2008-2009 planner, and in order to reduce cost, and stay within budget colour printing was confined to the front and back covers. This decision was once again committed to by the OC as a committee. If you look at your 2009-2010 planner and compare to the 2008-2009 planner you might wonder how this is possible, in fact you might even find it look very much like the 2007-2008 planner (the one produced by the CFS). If the committee decided to keep the same format as the 2008-2009 planner and leave out the CFS information then why does the current planner both a)resemble the 2007-2008 planner, and b) contain a 35 page full colour section called the "CFS exercise book"? Why does the handbook contain full colour anywhere? And where did the fold out covers with the large map of campus go?

The formatting changes and the addition of the CFS exercise book, was done by the current President Rick Telfer. During the final stages of the handbook develepment the OC had a formatting issue, the current President Rick Telfer offered to troubleshoot this challenge and help the OC complete the Dayplanner. However, the President changed more than the page numbers and sent the final version of the handbook to the printers without permitting proofing by any other member of the committee. As the President had changed the content of SOGS related articles included in the text, the lack of external editing resulted in the omission of important sections from the final document, including summaries regarding sociological information, peer support groups, and services for students with disabilities.

The President requested the quote (from the printers) for the colour printing costs only days after he had offered to help the committee, but he did not show the results of his inquiry to any member of the executive or the OC. The addition of colour printing lead to the planner project coming in $1000 over budget, surprising considering that the Dayplanner printing was on a two year contract.

The President cut both the committee and the VP Student Services out of the process of planner production, ignored the consideration of student feedback that went into designing the original version of this years planner, discarded the work done by the volunteers of the Orientation Committee, and spent student money on a planner that was only seen and approved by himself.

Rick Telfer should no longer be SOGS president because he breached the trust of the OC and the VP student services when he included unapproved information in the SOGS Dayplanner, a document that is handed out to all SOGS members and cost the Society over $17, 000.00, for his own personal agenda.

For more information on the Dayplanner see the orientation committee report on page 26 of the November 26, 2009 councilor package:

Removing Challenges: Destroying the efficacy of council

2009-11-25T15:40:00.000-08:00

His political tactics explicitly erode the neutrality of the Speaker, decreases Council's efficacy, and, in doing so, silence the voice of the departmental representatives elected to Council.

The role of the Speaker should be one of an adviser and, at times, a judge, for council. Ideally, the Speaker has to have an excellent knowledge of the Bylaws of the Society as well as Robert's Rules of Order, which cover processes not explicitly laid out in the Bylaws. The Speaker is supposed to assist councilors, the executive, and especially the president in preparing their motions for council because of the large body of knowledge that needs to be considered in the crafting of these submissions. The Speaker's assistance is intended to ensure that the motions have the intended effect and stay within the rules governing the Society. When a dispute arises, the Speaker acts as judge, applying and interpreting the rules of the Society as best he can. They are not, however, permitted to participate in debate. This restriction puts them at a unique disadvantage in any focused attack, because in order to remain neutral they can only respond to criticism and ad hominem attacks by reiterating the rules of the Society, and explaining the logic of their decisions. Within the context of the Society, the Speaker is the authority on the Bylaws [1], not a political figure. In this context, politicization of the Speaker is a dangerous tactic. It destabilizes the Society and erodes the membership's trust in the rulings made. A lack of trust can lead to the proliferation of challenges that clog up meeting proceedings and block the business of the Society.

Rick has repeatedly used this strategy on a succession of Speakers. Both prior to being elected President and as President, he attacked the Speaker's motivations, without moving for her recall [2] [3] [4]. While this behavior is troubling in a candidate who aspires to office, it is more debilitating to a Society when it arises from a sitting President. It appears that Speaker Pro-Tem was also subject to intimidation and misrepresentation, as evidenced by the Speaker's Ruling that was a result of the political maneuvering of that month[5].

Finally, the current Speaker has been subjected to polticization by the President. Rick Telfer has initiated challenges to her Speaker's Ruling on a General Meeting in Council [6], subjecting a them to a vote by a Council that presumably has a less of knowledge of the SOGS processes than the Speaker who made the decision. An incompetent or biased Speaker should be recalled on the basis of her knowledge and job performance, not intimidated and threatened into acting against her better judgement.

The fallout from these actions has been blatant and unfortunate for the democratic functioning of SOGS. Meetings have become acrimonious and debate frivolous. Executive reports have not been reached or read, and the elected officers of the Society have not had to respond to questions regarding their portfolios in months. In the meetings since Rick Telfer has become president, quorum has been quickly lost, and the business of committees, the working backbone of the Society, as died on the floor as Council has lost it's ability to function.

It's the responsibility of the President to set the tone for discourse. He sets the example in Council for behavior in meetings and towards the Speaker. When the President walks out in the middle of debate [7], causes the meeting to lose quorum, and defies the Speaker, he paves the way for anarchy.

We need a President who works to support the mechanisms that allow SOGS to function, not one who derails them through the misuse of political tactics aimed at our Speaker.

If members can't question or challenge the Executive, because their councilors can't get motions to the floor, and meetings are a mess then we have a dictatorship not a democracy.

References and Footnotes:

[1] Bylaw 2.2.2 : "shall advise the Society on matters of procedure and shall be final authority in the even of a dispute over the interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws"

[2] Minutes of the March Meeting (in April Council Package)

Bottom of Page 14

[3] Minutes of April Meeting (in May Council Package)

Top of Page 7

Bottom of Page 11

Top of Page 16

Bottom of Page 17

[4] Speakers Resignation Letter (in May Council Package)

Page 32

[5] Speakers Ruling: May Meeting.

The linked Speakers rulings were made during the June meeting of council, and distributed to all councillors present.

[6] Minutes of September Meeting (in October Council Package)

Bottom of Page 7, under Speakers Ruling

[7] September Council Meeting

Communication: Threats, Intimidation, and Harassment

2009-11-25T13:33:00.000-08:00

His written communications as President have alienated and intimidated SOGS students, members, and staff.

Written communication can be difficult, because the lack of social cues and body language can cause the intentions of the author to be misconstrued by the reader. Poorly crafted e-mails have the potential to exacerbate existing tensions and cause unintended insult. With this in mind the SOGS Executive have traditionally had policies in place to ensure that mass communications from the Society are vetted and approved by a majority of the Executive [1], although mistakes still do happen.

While sitting as President, Rick Telfer has ignored and circumvented these policies. His communications have had the unfortunate effect of driving a wedge right into the middle of the Society and alienating members.

Rick has, on multiple occasions, sent unapproved mass mails to the Society's councilors and members. On Friday May 1st, 2009 Rick sent a memo to SOGS councilors warning against defamation [2]. Given that the context of the e-mail was discussion that had occurred at a Council meeting, the language used in the e-mail was perceived as a threat and a warning against any open criticism of the President. Rick Telfer has already demonstrated his willingness to employ his lawyers and had served a Notice of Libel to SOGS [3]. Thus, Councilor's fears of legal persecution based only on concerns voiced at council meetings were not entirely unfounded. Rick went further to personally warn individual members [4] in private rather than protest the debate in a timely manner during council. These targeted communications, though not specifically threatening, were intimidating as they removed the individual councillors from the context of council meeting in which the concern was raised and escalated the tone of the disagreement from a public discussion on policy to a personal attack.

Prior to the May meeting, Rick unilaterally sent out a package of Council material that was un-vetted by the Speaker Pro-tem (which is the job of the Speaker as the Chair of the Meeting), and unapproved by any other member of the executive. The package, as circulated by Rick, contained errors in the transcription of the submitted motions, and included an additional missive written by the President and inserted after the package deadline[5].

In early October, Rick Telfer sent a mass e-mail to the members of Society of Graduates Students, as their President, expressing his political support for the CFS and opposition to a currently circulating petition [6]. Again, Rick used his access as President to propagate his personal political platform, in direct contravention of the policies binding the SOGS Executive. At that time he was more than five months into his term and it is unlikely that he was unaware of the policy. He chose to ignore SOGS policy in favour of the urgency of his message.

Near the beginning of his term, Mr. Telfer was granted administrative access to a SOGS Facebook page, created by the former VP External, as a member of the SOGS Executive. With the newly granted privileges as administrator, he deleted the SOGS page, leaving the only SOGS presence on Facebook a page he (Rick Telfer) had created and remained sole administrator of. When instructed by council [7], Mr. Telfer did as directed, and recreated a Facebook group for SOGS, with the Executive as administrators. He also changed the name of the original Facebook group to "SOGS PRES NEWS AND VIEWS" to forward his personal political agenda, free from the oversight of council or the Executive.

Several e-mails have been sent to "SOGS PRES NEWS AND VIEWS" group members which have specifically mentioned certain faculties, and blamed others departments for political upheaval [8][9]. His messages imply (although do not state outright) that, as graduate students, our personal political affiliations are aligned by our academic divisions and that that he stands with his fellows. Although probably not the intent, communications such as these serve to drive a wedge through SOGS, along lines that should be purely academic and bring into question who, specifically, Rick is supposed to represent, his department, or all graduate students.

Finally, Mr. Telfer has used his personal blog to publish ideas about individual students, SOGS members, and staff [11]. He seems unconcerned for how his words might affect his working relationship with these people. In his blog post about the CFS [10], the President engaged in ad hominem attacks, used quotes whose context cannot be verified, and posted personal pictures that are either unrelated to the argument (and potentially humiliating) or drawn so far out of context as to be confusing.

While Rick Telfer is entitled to his political opinions as a person and an individual, it is difficult to see how such arguments can in any way further positive discussion. As the President of the Society, Rick Telfer speaks for every graduate student, and a dismissal of "Not my President" cannot suffice when this man represents us to the University administration, other student societies, and on the provincial and national political stage. Rick Telfer has demonstrated an inability to moderate his tone in his communications so that the substance of his arguements can emerge without insulting or angring anyone who doesn't see precicely eye to eye. Nor has he availed himself of editors who could help make sure that his intentions shone through his rhetoric. "If you're not with us, you're against us" was unproductive when communicated by a US president, and it is unproductive in communications from our SOGS President.

His language may be useful for an activist mobilizing masses against a political opponent, but for a president charged with governance, creating an "other" within his constituency of graduate students is effectively working at cross-purposes with the members of the Society. The perceived urgency of his message cannot balance the mistrust his misuse of written media has engendered. Rick Telfer's written communication continue to alienate SOGS members, students, and staff.

[1] This policy was discussed in the May Meeting, 2009. R. Telfer and D. Jaques referred to the executive policy as already being in place. (Minutes Page 9)

May Minutes

[2] Defamation e-mail sent to councilors included on the left (click to enlarge)

[3] Telfer discusses submission of notice of libel in Minutes of February council meetings (page 6); Actual text of Notice is no longer available.

[4] E-mail to individual member shown on right (click to enlarge)

[5] Package as distributed by Rick

[6] E-mail to the membership regarding CFS shown on right (click to enlarge)

[7] Discussion regarding SOGS Facebook August Minutes (Page 8)

[8] SOGS Pres News and Views message to group (on right) (click to enlarge)

[9] SOGS Pres News and Views message to group (on right) (click to enlarge)

[10] "Wonder who..."

[11] "Off with my head!"