A correction to "Connors as Advocate"

In my last post I wrote that "The StFX Disciplinary Code clearly works under the presupposition that all students are guilty until proven innocent." Pat and I are in disagreement about this issue. I just spoke with him on the phone about this disagreement and it became evident to me that the article in reference (the preamble to Article III) to the community code is neither "clear" nor "evident".
The point is that I stated that Pat Connors misinterpreted something pretty clear and said this partially debunks a major part of the foundation on which he stands for leadership. When we talked Pat made it agreed that the Community Code is written in a way that one can be confused. However, most laws aren't written that clearly (it is why a law degree is hard to obtain).
Pat has been advised by the Dean of Students, the RLM, and others that he should interpret this article to read "innocent until proven guilty".
I told Pat on the phone that I would apologize for misconstruing the point. I realize now that this is not the case. I have not entirely missed the point. Pat trusted some people close to him and he can't entirely be blamed for their wrong interpretation or misleadings.
I would like to apologize to you, all candidates, and specifically Pat for making his inaccurate statement about "innocent until proven guilty," seem to be entirely his fault. As a result I came down to harshly. I should have also blamed a partially corrupt University Disciplinary System for some of the fault that resulted in this interpretation.
However, in our conversation and my subsequent contemplation on the issue I realized that, ultimately, the onus still falls on Pat. As a defender of students he shouldn't have accepted the explanation of the Dean of Students or the RLM at face value. He also should admit where he is wrong.
I was wrong as well. The Community Code isn't "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty". The Code specifically reads,

"Finding of innocence or guilt under The Rules of Conduct is decided on the basis of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, not on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt."

This means you begin the process in a gray area. When I was an advocate I took a harsher stand in the defense of students and approached all cases as though the student was already assumed guilty. This forced me to argue more convincingly and be more prepared to defend the innocence of students.
I don't know how effective Pat is as a Student Advocate. What I do know is that he used other people's interpretations of an important rule instead of his own. He used the opinion presented to him by the people in direct opposition to the Student Advocate office (The Dean and the RLM) rather than really questioning their agendas. Finally, I know that Pat would rather argue than listen and not admit that he is wrong.
I am sorry that I accused Pat with an overly aggressive post. We both were wrong in this issue. I thought the code was black, Pat though it was white, when really it is gray. However I am happy that right before posting closes and the polls open I was able to call a spade a spade and Pat is still trying to bluff when he doesn't have a full house.

Connors as Advocate

One student asked: Student Disciplinary Trials are closed to the public. Do you think this should change and why?

Connors took the lead on this response by stating: "Trials are innocent until proven guilty," and went on to say they should thus remain closed.
Connors has stood firmly on his role as Student Advocate as a demonstration of experience and leadership.
While Connors may or may not be a good Advocate, he does not know fully how the disciplinary structure at X, or any Canadian university, operates. The StFX Disciplinary Code clearly works under the presupposition that all students are guilty until proven innocent. All Canadian Universities operate with this directive. The fact that Connors, a student advocate, does not know this I think partially debunks the foundation on which his claims to leadership stand.

LIVE from MORRISON HALL - INTERACTIVE

The guy who got put on the spot to answer a question says he's feeling alright.  Not really sure what this whole thing is about but asking questions.

Table full of bitter girls!

SuperStar Girl #1:  I just feel that both candidates are talking about getting students involved with the union, yet before they run it in their platform, they need to be informed about the union.

SuperStar Girl #2:

They only reason Pat and Scott about societies is because there was a girl at their platform meeting explaining societies.   Especially with the environment, they don't understand what Lise has accomplished already. 

#1:  They are misinformed.  They don't know the current policies.

SUPERSTAR GIRL #1 and SUPERSTAR GIRL #2 for PREZ and VICE PREZ!

**the opinions in the interactive section of LIVE from MORRISON HALL do not reflect those of Sarah Furey but direct quotes from students.

My thoughts thus far...

There are a tone of posts coming out. There are a tone of questions and answers being given. It is hard to get everything typed out. A lot of similar questions are being asked:

• What have you done in the past?
• What are your skills?

I don't know if students feel they aren't getting the answers they want, or maybe they are running out of things to ask.
Some knew questions arise about:

• What conflict resolution skills do you posses?
  
• How will you work with the Rez Staff?
• If you were an animal which one would you be and why?
• What is something you will do that hasn't been done in the past?

All candidates handled the conflict question well. They've been responding but giving me little to comment about. Why does this matter? It matters because if I don't feel particularly decisive about one candidate or another than I loose confidence in the future of theU. Non-indicative answers do the students little good. I wish these candidates really boiled this down to the real point and took student questions more seriously. There were a lot of students paying attention but now the room is filtering out. I think if a real connection was going on I would have different sentiments.