Several board members engaged in a heated discussion at the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) Board of Directors meeting on Feb. 4, where concerns were raised over the use of in camera sessions.
At the meeting, VP student services Zied Masmoudi raised his concerns that personal comments had been made against him during the in camera session on Wednesday, Jan. 28.
In camera sessions occur when the board needs to discuss private information without members of the press or the public present. Although these sessions are confidential, Masmoudi referred to its proceedings at the end of the meeting on Feb. 4.
Masmoudi explained that he had been asked to discuss his plans regarding how to move on from the Special General Meeting (SGM) held last month.
“To my biggest surprise, the president responded [to my comments] in a very hostile way, and I was very offended,” he said during the meeting.
He continued, “If doing our due diligence is a reason for us to be accused of dishonesty and to be called shady, [. . .] then I am very concerned.
“I would like the president to apologize in front of all the board members.”
SFSS president Chardaye Bueckert asked Masmoudi to cite the specific instance to which he was referring. He replied, “In the in camera session last week, you called me dishonest and shady for presenting the plan in the in camera session.”
Bueckert responded, “I’m sorry if you interpreted that, but I have no recollection of using those exact words.”
She continued, “My concern, raised in the in camera session — which I guess we’re going to talk about publicly — was that matters that were not meant to be discussed in camera [. . .] were being discussed while concerned members stood outside.”
According to the SFSS bylaws, in camera sessions are to be used for discussion of staff relations, legal matters, or “matters of a sensitive or confidential nature.”
Bueckert told The Peak after the meeting: “While the first two [categories] are pretty clear, I think the third is fairly subjective, so it’s to the board as a whole to decide when and whether or not it is appropriate.”
Bueckert was concerned that these rules were not being observed when Masmoudi began to discuss matters related to the SGM.
After Bueckert explained this during the board meeting, VP student life Kayode Fatoba questioned whether Masmoudi’s request for a public apology was an appropriate use of board time. “Asking a person to offer an apology for something that was done in secrecy itself is cause for question,” he asserted.
Masmoudi defended his raising of the issue: “The attack was very personal, so I don’t care if it was in camera or ex camera.”
Bueckert returned, “So, if we’re done with public admonishments and requests for apologies, if there’s nothing further, can we move on from this?” The board then resumed discussing agenda items.
After the meeting, Bueckert declined to say whether she felt Masmoudi’s comments at the meeting were appropriate, but responded that “in camera sessions are confidential, the contents of which are not to be discussed publicly.”
VP external Darwin Binesh explained how confusion might occur between board members regarding in camera. “While some members of the Board may feel that a conversation is of a sensitive nature and should be in camera, others may not feel the same way,” he said. “This is where disagreements occur, which is natural when decisions are made through votes.”
When asked how the public can be sure that board members are discussing appropriate issues in camera, Binesh replied that all motions and decisions are public and have to be made ex camera.
Binesh also encouraged students who are not satisfied with the decisions of the board to contact them via email or during their office hours.
