NEWS Pickton Trial Develops Public now allowed to view court records Nicole Burton, News Editor opnewseditor@gmail.com The ongoing trial of Robert Pickton for the murders of 27 Downtown Eastside women continues at the British Columbia Supreme Court in New Westminster. But, in what is considered one of the most high-profile cases in the history of Canada, few developments have been revealed to the public since the trial began on January 30, 2006. In April, the court determined that members of the general public are now able to view court rulings at the court registry. Such rulings are still not available to be reproduced in the media. “There is no principled basis upon which to deny access to the substance of the rulings,” said Justice James Williams of the BC Supreme Court to media last month. He still maintains that the ban on media during the trial is to ensure Pickton receives a fair trial. A jury is expected to be selected for the case in the next few months. Students’ Union a Hothed of Fraud, Dysfunction, and Cronyism Ex-insiders Claim JJ McCullough, OP Contributor Two high-profile, outgoing members of the Douglas College Students’ Union have come out swinging against their former employer, painting a harshly critical picture of the organization in an exclusive interview with the Other Press. The two were contacted in response to a recent forensic audit of the Students’ Union, a report which alleged that the DSU has been engaged in widespread financial mismanagement, misuse of member funds, and deliberately deceptive bookkeeping for several years. Joel Koette, the union’s former Pride Liaison, and Jessica Gojevic, the former treasurer, both maintain that the con- cerns highlighted in the audit are symptomatic of the organization’s larger internal problems. Koette and Gojevic, who describe themselves as “friends and allies” united in a common cause, were largely unsurprised by the audit’s findings and are quick to charac- terize the DSU as being fundamentally “dysfunctional,” both organizationally and financially. “We have no accounting system per se, we have no filing system, we have deficiencies and inefficiencies all over the place,” says Gojevic. Their longstanding concern with the organiza- tion’s internal management eventually led the two to become the leading proponents of the April 2006 forensic audit, a move both agreed was long overdue. Despite the firmness of their own convictions, the DSU’s representative council—the organization’s primary governing body—was from far being universally sympa- thetic to their cause. The two describe the council as being “split right down the middle” into two distinct factions who have persistently refused to work together—on the audit or indeed most other matters. From their perspective, Koette and Gojevic view the rift in largely populist terms, characterizing their camp as the one willing to defend students’ interests, while their opponents simply defend the rights of their friends. “There’s one faction that is loyal to the membership and the other one seems to be loyal to this individual, and that seems to be where the split is,” says Gojevic, referring to the polarizing nature of Joey Hansen, the DSU’s embat- tled former finance and services co-ordinator who was sin- gled out by the forensic audit as being the employee at the centre of many of the most egregious allegations of finan- cial misconduct. While Govejic, Koette, and their follow allies on coun- cil Elizabeth Helps and Brandon Ferguson successfully managed to pass a resolution firing Hansen on April 19, the legality of the move has since been vigorously contest- ed by his supporters on council. “Tt doesn’t make sense to me,” said an exasperated Gojevic. “I can’t figure these people out. I don’t know what they’re being told. I don’t know what they’re being given. I don’t know how they’re being controlled. I don’t understand. But it’s clear, it’s blatant that they [the other members of the DSU] are protecting someone.” She admits it may be too early to ascribe purely malev- olent motivations, however. “I don’t know if it’s just com- plete ignorance or if it’s vindictive in some way,” she says. “If there’s some master plan, I have no idea.” The polarization of council does not just center around Hansen, however. Hearing the members speak, the roots of the current division frequently lead back to the DSU’s decision to purchase a new students’ union building back in January of 2005. The move was highly controver- sial at the time—the 2005 council election saw candidates running on pro- and anti-building slates—and the matter still divides opinions today. Gojevic and Koette—who both ran on the anti-build- ing slate—characterize the purchase as the trigger which ignited many of their suspicions. “We asked ‘where’s the money coming from, how are we going to pay for this, is this a smart idea?” says Koette. “We were told ‘yes, yes, yes. We were told that everything was fine. We were told our budget was fine. And that’s sort of when Jessica and I began asking questions.” Though the new building cost the DSU over a million dollars, according to the 2006 forensic audit, the documen- tation relating to the purchase was never formally released, leading to accusations that the cash used to secure the pay- ments was misappropriated from other areas of the DSU budget, notably the Health and Dental Plan. Since March of 2006, the Douglas College Board of Directors has withheld all student fees from the DSU, cut- ting off the organization’s financial lifeblood. The College continued on p. 5