Constitutional Interpretation by Judicial Council of the Alma Mater Society

KINGSTON, ONTARIO – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLIC RELEASE

Please note that the Secretary of Internal Affairs has released a statement complemntary to the decision, which can be accessed here.

On Wednesday, April 16th, the Judicial Council convened to respond to three questions that required Constitutional Interpretation as initiated by the Secretary of Internal Affairs.

The council members in attendance included the Nursing Rep, Arts Rep, Commerce Rep, and the Science Rep, who served as chair as the chair/vice-chair had an excused absence. The Incoming Judicial Council Chair was also appointed to the Council given the hearing arose during the exam period, and to ensure quorum can be met.

Question 1: That the Judicial Council provide an interpretation of “Society or Corporation event” as stated in 8.2.10 of the Constitution.

Sec. 8.2.10 states “At least two (2) AMC personnel shall be admitted free of charge to any Society or Corporation event which AMC management considers to be of sufficient interest to be included in the Tricolour Yearbook or other AMC production.”

To provide an interpretation of “Society event” as stated in section 8.2.10 of the AMS Constitution, the Judicial Council has reviewed instances in which the term “event” or “society” appear in the Constitution, to determine the scope of the language used.

According to sec. 1.1.1 of the AMS Constitution, the name of the student association representing undergraduate students is the Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University, which is referred to as the “Society.” Interpretation #1 of the Constitution, further defined Society as “the Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University (the abbreviation of which is “AMS”), that is, the unincorporated association whose membership consists of Society members.” As such, the Judicial Council has determined that the term “Society” is generally interchangeable with “AMS.” While there were a few instances reviewed where “Society” refers to the broader membership of the AMS, the Judicial Council has restricted the meaning of the term and calls on the incoming team to review all instances of its usage and to update the Constitution to reflect the proper intentions of the Constitution.

With respects to the term “events”, sec. 6.5.2, 8.2.13, and 12.3.4 depict an understanding where events ran by members of the Society must undergo the AMS Event Sanctioning Process by obtaining formal approval from the Campus Affairs Commission to be considered and AMS event. Whereby “Society” and “AMS” are interchangeable, the use of “Society events” can be reasonably be interpreted as referring to AMS-sanctioned events, this means that sec. 8.2.10 can be read as “Society event” or “AMS event” or “AMS sanctioned events” which the Judicial Council has ruled are interchangeable.

No further comments or clarifications are required for “Corporation event” as the term “Corporation” is clearly interpreted in the Constitution (interpretation #2).

Question 2: That the Judicial Council make a ruling on whether 8.2.10 applies to the Engineering Society Orientation-Week events.

Furthermore, the Judicial Council has reviewed the applicability of sec. 8.2.10 of the AMS constitution on the Engineering Society’s Orientation Week and has ruled that it does not apply. The interpretation of “Society event” requires that events have undergone formal sanctioning procedure and approved by the Campus Affairs Commission. At this point in time, the Engineering Society Orientation events are not required to go through this process.

Question 3: That the Judicial Council determine whether EngSoc submitting their own content to the AMC undermines the editorial autonomy of the AMS Media Centre as guaranteed by section 8.2.8.

Section 8.2.8 states that “The editorial autonomy of AMC is guaranteed by the AMS Corporate By-laws and Constitution. It shall be honoured by all Officers of the Society, the Corporation, and the University. Opinions expressed by AMC shall not necessarily be those of the Society, the Corporation, the University, or any officer thereof. AMC shall regularly bear notice to this effect.”

To answer this question, JCOMM must first determine the correct interpretation of “editorial autonomy” to issue its proper application. To do so, the Judicial Council relied on the definitions proposed by the Canadian Association for Journalists’ paper on Editorial Independence and the “Editorial Independence in an automated media system” published by the Internet Policy Review, a peer reviewed online journal which discusses internet regulation in Europe. The Judicial Council was satisfied that the proposed interpretation

consolidated based on the two sources determined in consultation with the Editors-in-Chief of The Queen’s Journal captures the essence of the term. In addition, the Judicial Council has determined that the principles of editorial autonomy require that content not be shown to “anyone” not just the advertising sales representative or clients as stated by the Canadian Association for Journalists.

Henceforth, editorial autonomy refers to the ability in non-business functions to control the production, publication, and dissemination of content free from external influences in alignment with the mission and mandate of the publication with respects to what to cover, how to cover, and where to place the content in the publication. It is understood that the business function should not assign or determine the content or tone of a publication, and that editorial content should not be shown to anyone prior to their publication.

Based on the understanding above, the Judicial Council has determined that although EngSoc is free to make submissions of content to the AMC, any expectation that such submissions completely replace creative production by the AMC would be considered a breach of editorial autonomy as guaranteed by sec. 8.2.8. Editorial autonomy, as discussed above, requires that the editors have the freedom to choose how to cover content, which in this case, is understood to be, how photography produced and used in the yearbook captures the “pictorial and written summary of life and events during the year at the University” (sec. 8.2.7 (I)). For further clarity, the Judicial Council agreed that at the discretion of the AMC, EngSoc may submit content, and that the editorial autonomy allows the AMC full autonomy in determining whether to include the submissions, including the complete rejection of the submissions made. However, to preserve the editorial autonomy of the AMC in principle, the Judicial Council has determined that the creative production of photography is required to foster the editorial autonomy of the yearbook.

While collaborative communication between stakeholders is both welcomed and encouraged, final editorial decisions remain under the sole discretion of the AMS Media Centre editorial staff, preserving the independence and integrity of media publications.

Any questions pertaining to this decisions should be directed to the Secretary of Internal Affairs at , who serves the Judicial System as the public representative.