Resignation prompts review

Committee leaders may be forced to sign contracts

The infamous Senate Contract for Orientation Leaders may see an increased number of required signatures if changes currently being discussed by Orientation Roundtable (ORT), and members of the AMS are passed.

While currently the more commonly referred to “leader contract” is signed by all frosh group leaders, according to AMS Internal Affairs Commissioner Scott Courtice, Dean of Student Affairs Robert Crawford and AMS Campus Activities Commissioner Ryan Hum, the contract may be extended to upper level orientation committee members and the three members encompassing the ORT — the body who oversees each faculty societies’ frosh week activities.

“The logical thing is if you’re on ORT and you’re supposed to be enforcing a contract, is you should abide by it,” said Courtice. “This was something brought up by Dean Crawford and I think he had a pretty good point.”

An alcohol related infraction involving ORT Financial Facilitator Evan Nicol during frosh week may have brought the issue to the forefront.

Nicol, a third-year commerce student, voluntarily resigned his position following a meeting with AMS Vice-President University Affairs Janine Cocker, ORT Speaker Travis MacDonald, and Courtice following the incident, which he says compromised his position on the ORT.

“I resigned because I felt it was the best course of action for all parties involved. I guess for the benefit of frosh week in general.”

While Nicol’s actions did not violate the leader contract written by the ORT, it ran counter to the Queen’s Code of Conduct, which appears alongside the leader contract in Spirit With Responsibility — the orientation leaders handbook.

Although the details of the incident could not be released until the completion of the judicial committee review, Courtice says because the incident was so minor, it will likely be settled sometime next week outside of a formal hearing of the judicial committee.

As Chief Boss of last year’s commerce orientation week, Nicol says he takes the ten sanctions of the leader contract extremely seriously.

“I’m an advocate of the leader contract… When I was a frosh, I saw a lot of these guys violating the contract, even my leaders. As Chief Boss last year the contract was something I took very seriously and made sure all my leaders followed… I am a firm believer in the contract because it sets out guidelines for a good week.”

For Courtice, the potential change may heighten the Internal Affairs Commission’s profile next year.

“From my perspective this would involve trying to integrate leader contract violations into [judicial committee’s] structure… As it stands, faculty societies would deal with broken contracts and they would be de-leadered on the spot. There is talk for next year that if a broken contract arises, it would go directly before judicial committee… Before if someone broke the contract it was like, ‘what’s the worst thing that could happen?’ We’re trying to give leader contract a little more teeth and show SOARB that students can take care of themselves.”

According to Courtice, the debate on the contract issue is pending the completion of a report being prepared for the senate detailing the history of orientation week. It is scheduled to be released at the end of the month.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Queen's Journal

© All rights reserved.

Back to Top
Skip to content