Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Les francophones/francophiles encore laissés de côté par la FÉUO

Le Comité d'arbitrage étudiant a publié un rapport portant sur la légitimité de la question référendaire du UPass le 18 février 2010... seulement en anglais. Voici ce que le rapport dit concernant la publication du rapport dans la langue française :
NOTE SUR LE FRANÇAIS : Si vous avez soumis votre demande en français, veuillez s'il vous plaît m'envoyer un courriel pour recevoir une réponse en français. La décision officielle devrait devenir disponible dans les deux langues officielles, lorsque la FÉUO procède à la traduction.
Qu'est-ce que DEVRAIT veut dire exactement? Quelques jours...? Quelques mois...? Jamais...? Peu importe si la demande a été faite en anglais ou en français, un rapport publié par le Comité d'arbitrage étudiant devrait toujours être publié dans les deux langues officielles aussitôt que celui-ci est rendu public. Je suis certain que si une demande serait faite seulement en français que le rapport serait traduit afin que le rapport soit disponible en anglais et en français dès sa publication.

La FÉUO a besoin de se réveiller et arrêter d'aliéner sa population étudiante francophone/francophile!

N.B. JE NE DIT PAS QUE C'EST LA FÉUO QUI A ÉCRIT CE RAPPORT. JE DIT QUE LA FÉUO EST RESPONSABLE POUR LES PUBLICATIONS (OFFICIELLES OU NON) QUE SES SERVICES PRODUISENT.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Les résultats de mes sondages électoraux / My Election Poll Results

Comme étudiant/étudiante, est-ce que la FÉUO est importante pour toi? / As a student, is the SFUO important to you?

54 votes

Yes / Oui: 28 votes = 52%
Non / No: 15 votes = 28%
Un peu / Sorta: 9 votes = 17%
C'est quoi la FÉUO? / What is the SFUO?: 2 votes = 4%

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Après le débat, qui sera le prochain président de la FÉUO? / After last night's debate, who will be the next SFUO president?

75 votes

Bruno Gélinas-Faucher: 19 votes = 25%
Tyler Steeves: 45 votes = 60%
Sébastien St-Amours: 6 votes = 8%
Amalia Savva: 5 votes = 6%

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Est-ce que les élections de la FÉUO devraient continuer sans DG? / Should the SFUO elections go on without a CEO?

67 votes

Oui / Yes: 23 votes = 34%
Non / No: 36 votes = 53%
Indifférent / Don't care: 4 votes = 5%
C'est quoi un DG? / What's a CEO?: 4 votes = 5%

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Devinez le taux de participation aux élections de la FÉUO / Predictions of this year's SFUO elections' voter turnout

118 votes

100%: 11 votes = 9%
50%: 6 votes = 5%
27,2%: 31 votes = 26%
10%: 70 votes = 59%

Friday, February 12, 2010

Vigorous and Thorough Elections' Results Analysis

Now that the SFUO elections have come to an end and a new executive has been chosen to lead the student body at the U of O into the future, I would like to share some final thoughts on the campaign in general and the final outcome. Also, I will venture into the future and predict the challenges that await the executive-elect.

Let me start by saying that, as many had predicted, this year's voter turnout took a nose-dive in comparison to last year's embarrassing 27,3% voter turnout. Only 21,88% of the eligible undergraduate student population casted their (online) ballots in this year's elections. This not only seems shows that students don't care how their money is spent, but it also demonstrates the continuation of a dangerous trend that has plagued campus elections: students have come to be disengaged with the SFUO. It is getting to the point that people are now wondering if future existence of the SFUO as a representative body of the student population. For now, let's get to last night's elections' results (according to the Fulcrum's article):

Referendum results

English Debating Society: NO 69.8% (Yes 30.2%)


Green Campus: YES 54.2% (No 45.8%)

U-Pass: YES 64.3% (No 35.7%)

2010-11 BOA-elect

Faculty of Arts: Danika Brisson, Mel Large, Gillian Lessard, Logan Ouellette, Martin Schoots-McAlpine


Faculty of Law, Common Law section: Hannah Draper

Faculty of Law, Civil Law section: Emilie Lemieux-Guenard

Telfer School of Management: Eric Hampel, Andrei Huranchyk

Faculty of Science: Rosy Fournier, Chouaib Redouane

Faculty of Health Sciences: Julie Brezden, Adrian Herod, Hafsa Khan

Notice that the results for the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Faculty of Engineering are missing. After having announced the results to the crowd, the Chief Returning Officer Elizabeth Doneathy took the microphone and had this announcement to make: 
This afternoon, the Elections' Office noted certain irregularities in ballots casted in the Faculties of Social Sciences and Engineering. There was an insufficient number of irregular ballots to affect the outcome of the executive races, referendums or Senate. However, an investigation will have to be conducted before the results of the Social Sciences BOA and Engineering can be determined (Before repeating this announcement in French, she proceeded to roll her eyes at the rowdy crowd)
2010-11 University of Ottawa Senate-elects

Faculty of Arts: Martin Schoots-McAlpine


Faculty of Law: David Girard

Faculty of Engineering: Luc Lendrum

Telfer School of Management: Andrei Huranchyk

Faculty of Medicine: Andrew Boozary

Faculty of Science: Chouaib Redouane

Faculty of Health Sciences: Kyle Ryc

Faculty of Social Sciences: Sarah-Jayne King

2010-11 SFUO executive-elects (according to La Rotonde's article)

President

Tyler Steeves 55,9%
Amalia Savva 28,3%
Bruno Gélinas-Faucher 10,5%
Sébastien St-Amour 5,2%

VP Finance

Sarah Jayne King 46,5%
Sydney Loko 30,3%
Maureen Hasinoff 23,2%

VP Communications

Paige Galette 63,6%
Denommée 36,4%
VP University Affairs

Ted Horton 45,9%
Osama Berrada 29,9%
Stephanie Marentette 24,3%

VP Student Affairs
Amy Hammett 55,8%
Nicole Tishler 44,2%

VP Social

Alexandre Chaput 86,7%

For those who didn't know, I will begin by saying that I'm in the Faculty of Social Sciences. I will also say that I volunteered for Lynne Lessard, a candidate who ran for the lone Social Sciences' Senate seat. Lessard ran against Matika Lauzon, Sarah Jayne King and Maureen Hasinoff. King and Hasinoff also both ran for VP Finance with King having come out on top in that race. That's all fine dandy, but here's my problem: did anyone notice how none of King's (or Hasinoff's) posters said she was running for the Senate? If students weren't on the ball, (and obviously most weren't with a 21,3% voter turnout) they would have been led to think that the only candidate running for the Social Sciences' Senate seat was Lynne because she was the only candidate who had a posters pertaining to the Senate candidacy. Not taking away anything from any other of the candidate's campaigns, I for one know that Lynne spent all her time on campus during the campaign period doing class presentations from 8:30 am until 7:00 pm and meeting with students in between those class presentations. I realize that her opponents probably also had similar schedules for their campaigns, only Matika Lauzon's website mentions that he is also running for the Social Sciences' Senate seat. What is unfortunate is that King, being more preoccupied with her campaign to become SFUO's next VP Finance, only had a short, uninspired platform (compared to her lengthy platform for VP Finance) on the SFUO's Elections' website. She still somehow managed to get elected to the University of Ottawa's Senate seemingly with little to no effort.

Getting back to the SFUO executive-elects, I was pleased to learn that Tyler Steeves came away with the win having received over 50% of the popular vote. I, myself and others weighed in on the elections' results via the La Rotonde's live blogging page where a lively crowd of participants exchanged their own thoughts. What immediately shocked me was the fact that Amalia Savva placed a far off second in the presidential race. Furthermore, she DOUBLED the votes fetched by Bruno Gélinas-Faucher. One participant, who went by the pseudonym Frenchie, said: "Wow Savva a plus de votes que Bruno il doit y avoir ereur". Another participant, Josiane, had this to say: "ah ouach, même Savva a dépassé Gélinas-Faucher?!??! J'arrive pas à le croire!!" And finally, Anonyme said: "Amalia en 2e place ??????? QUOI !!!!" Is this a case of bad publicity is better than no publicity? Well apparently 28,3% of the 21,88% thought so...

The VP Finance results weren't at all what I had expected them to be. Clearly, out of the 3 candidates, Maureen Hasinoff was by far the most experienced out of them all. She had a clear vision for the SFUO's businesses and managed to communicate that students could count on her to be responsible with their money. Somehow, through her broken French (although I do give her credit for trying), Sarah Jayne King was able to pull off what I consider to be one of two upsets in these elections (I'll get to the other obvious one in a second). From what I witnessed during the elections' debate, King had very little experience, was very hesitant with plans to renovate 1848, and would rather see an additional Café Alt station opened at SITE. Keep that last point in mind for next year; with an already indebted Café Alt (which if I may add is ridiculously expensive), she claims that she will "save you money" by opening a Café Alt "satellite" station in SITE. Now that financial prudence!

The second major upset, in my opinion, is the race for VP Student Affairs. Amy Hammett won by the slimmest of margins with 55,8% over Nicole Tishler. When Tishler replied to Hammett's claim that Chartwells throws out good, packaged food, I thought for sure Hammett's campaign was over. Tishler said she had spoken with one of the managers from Chartwells and that Hammett's claim was unfounded. Even if this was true, Chartwells would obviously be throwing out the food because it was NOT FIT TO EAT. So, Amy, why would you suggest that you would arrange for Chartwells to give their "garbage" to hungry students?

Probably the surest race of them all (other than Chaput's, of course) was Ted Horton's 49,9% victory over his opponents Osama Berrada and Stephanie Marentette. They just couldn't compete with Ted's experience and successes in the past year. I mean common, the guy was very influencial on the Fall Reading Week file which will come to be for the first time in the 2010-11 academic year! Not to mention the work he has put into the U-Pass project.

Alexandre Chaput's sailed to smooth victory with the overwhelming majority (86,7%) favouring a second mandate as VP Social which will be much longer than his current mandate. You may remember the by-election that took place back in October 2009 when Chaput was handed the reigns, replacing Jean Guillaume who resigned as VP Social amongst immense controversy.

Speaking of controversy, don't think that everything's over just yet. It's almost certain that some sort of result contesting will be brought forward, plus the Dubois-Savva saga will make for some interesting days and weeks to come.

Des résultats inattendus...

Je ne sais pas encore comment je me sens au sujet des résultats des élections de la FÉUO. Je crois que je vais me coucher et analyser les résultats officiels demain.

Avant de partir, supposément qu'il y a eu des irrégularités dans les résultats pour les sièges du CA pour les facultés de Sciences sociales et de Génie. Très bizarre.

Revenez demain pour mon analyse complète et rigoureuse...

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

All these committees are making me dizzy!

Source: Photo

Thanks to some of my readers' comments, I've been able to clarify the role and current members that make up all these committees that have been referenced throughout the election campaign.

Disciplinary Committee members: Sarah Jayna King (president), Kyle Ryc, Marie-Ève Bérubé and Richard Mah (Bruno Gélinas-Faucher and Dennis Stark are the designated alternatives).

This committee only deals with complaints logged against current SFUO executive members when it comes to upholding the SFUO Constitution, particularly the articles pertaining to the rules dealing with current executive involvement in current candidates' election campaigns. (i.e. the complaint made against Roxanne Dubois accusing her of having been involved in Amalia Savva's election campaign). The members of this committee are determined by the BOA.

Elections Committee members: Seamus Wolfe, Laura Rashotte, and Khadija Kanji.

According to the SFUO Constitution, this committee is charged with selecting the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chief Returning Officer and in turn bringing their recommendations to the BOA. Once the recommendations have been received by the BOA, a 2/3 vote of present directors is necessary in order to ratify the recommended nominees. According to "Article 4.2.4" of the SFUO Constitution:
The Election Committee may, upon request of the Chief Electoral Officer or the Chief Returning Officer, provide advice on matters pertaining to the elections.
Elections office personnel: At the beginning of the elections, Julien de Bellefeuille held the position of Chief Electoral Officer (but has since resigned) and the current Chief Returning Officer position is held by Elizabeth Doneathy. These two elections' officers together compose the Executive of the Elections' office.

The powers and duties of these elections' officers are enumerated in the SFUO Constitution under articles 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.12.2, 4.12.3, 4.12.4 and 4.12.5. Furthermore, additional powers and duties are included in the SFUO Elections 2010 Electoral Regulations: articles 1.6, 2.2.2, 7.2, 8.1.2, 11.2.3, 11.4.9, 16.1.2, 16.1.3, 16.2.3, 17.3.2, 18.1.2, 18.2.2, 18.2.4, 18.3.5, 18.5, 19.1.3 and 19.2.5.

I must clarify what the Elections' Committee apparently suggested in their report during Monday night's BOA meeting. This report apparently suggested that Khadija Kanji, a current sitting member on the BOA, be appointed the new CEO of the SFUO elections. The constitutionality of this recommendation was supposedly put into question by some of the Board members and rightly so according to article 4.13.2 of the SFUO Constitution:
An outgoing faculty director cannot be hired as an election officer. 
So, now that that's straightened out, let's continue with what happened after the Elections' Committee's recommendation was turned down. Apparently, the Elections' Committee suggested that it should oversee the elections in the place of an actual CEO. This too was apparently turned down by the Board. At that point, the Elections' Committee apparently recommended the status quo (that it continue to oversee the elections) which was also turned down by the BOA due to the number of abstentions. Finally, the case was refered to the current SFUO Executive who then in turn decided that the status quo was to continue as recommended by the Elections' Committee.

Would the status quo not technically mean that all the powers and duties of the CEO would be transfered to the Elections' Committee? If that is the case, the status quo, according to the SFUO Constitution, (which, if I may add, always assumes that the Chief Electoral Officer position is filled) is unconstitutional; article 4.13.1 states:
A member of the outgoing Executive cannot be hired as an election officer […]
I understand that Seamus Wolfe is a legitimate member of the Elections' Committee. That's not the issue. If the Elections' Committee is overseeing the elections and its process, he is seemingly in a position of conflict of interest because he is obviously an outgoing Executive.

I'm not expecting anything to change with the currect elections but, for what it's worth, here is my suggestion for future elections:

Amend the SFUO Constitution to stipulate that the position of Chief Electoral Officer plays an essential role in overseeing the electoral process and MUST AT ALL TIMES be filled. In order to avoid a similar situation in the future, there should be a provision in the SFUO Constitution that stipulates that at least 2 CEOs (1 to fill the position and 1 as a backup) and 2 CROs (1 to fill the position and 1 as a backup) are to be hired using the same process as currently stipulated in the SFUO Constitution.

This is simply a suggestion, but it couldn't hurt to have a backup CEO and CRO in the case that a similar situation was to arise again in the future.

YOUR TURN: If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please feel free to post them as a comment. There has to be a better way, right?

It is now February 10th... still no f****** PIN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Alright, so I'd have to agree with Virginie's comment (on one of my earlier posts) that I am legitimately starting to be concerned about this apparent "delay" in the system. It's 12:03 am on Tuesday February 10th 2010 and I still haven't received the email containing the PIN I need in order to vote in the SFUO elections. Last year, there was a minor glitch in the system which was to be expected since this whole e-voting business was all new to the organisers. So, I think it's fair to have given them a bit of slack last year.

However, a whole voting day has passed and I still haven't received my PIN. I went around the cafeteria today, just for the Hell of it, to see how many people actually KNEW that an election was taking place and that they could (and probably should) consider voting. To my surprise, most of the people I approached were at least aware that something was going on! I would explain to them that if they checked their @uOttawa.ca email accounts, that they would find an email that contained a PIN Number which they would need to enter once they visited the specified website.

As I was leaving the cafeteria, a couple young ladies I had spoken to a few minutes called me over to their table and asked "Are you sure everyone got that email you mentioned?" Knowing of course that every single undergraduate student was to have received an email, I obviously replied: "Of course! I'm sure it will pop up in the next hour or so!" That was over 12 hours ago. I really do hope at least they got their email...

So, what's the problem here? Is this due to a lack of preparation or organisation by the elections' office? Is it because the CEO resigned that things have turned for the worst? Is is possibly due to a lack of planning? Was there not some sort of report compiled by last year's elections' team after last year's elections that would have helped the avoid this a repeat of past mistakes?

The election campaign is stressful enough without having to deal with this unnecessary confusion. In my opinion, this is BULLSHIT! Not only are students confused about this whole e-voting fiasco, they're also asking who in the Hell is overseeing these elections, and rightfully so! Even more so after the apparent suggestion made in the Elections' Committee's report, which was presented at the Monday February 8th (IN CAMERA) Board of Administration meeting, that Khadija Kanji be named the new CEO of the elections.
P.S. Just before having published this post, I once again checked in my uOttawa.ca email account to find it empty. It is now 12:53 am on Tuesday February 10th 2010. That is all.

Note: Thanks to Michèle for the clarifications regarding all these different committees and such! Her information enabled me to correct the conflicting sources of information!

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

WTF: Bureau de la FÉUO et COMITÉ DES ÉLECTIONS?!?!?!


Donc, non seulement est-ce que les mises à jour du groupe Facebook des élections de la FÉUO sont seulement en anglais, il nous informe de "just wait an hour or so"... à 7h10 ce matin. Cette situation est ridicule! J'ai envoyé un courriel au Bureau des élections de la FÉUO et voici la réponse dont j'ai reçu:

Les NIP sont envoyés par cohorte. Comme ils ont été envoyés de façon massive, certains délais résultes. D'ici la fin de la journée d'aujourd'hui, tout le monde devrait avoir reçu son NIP.

Thank you for your understanding.

Elizabeth Doneathy
Directrice du scrutin
Chief Returning Officer
Fédération étudiante de l'University d'Ottawa
Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
tél: 613-562-5800 x2625
téléc./fax: 613-562-5969  
Merci de m'avoir répondu Elizabeth! Par contre, il reste qu'un grand "chunk" de la population étudiante aura au minimum une journée de moins pour voter. Lorsque la FÉUO annonce que les journées de vote seront le 9-10-11 février, cela ne veut pas dire le 10-11 février. À mon avis, une journée de plus DOIT être ajoutée afin de compenser le « délai ». Si le Comité des élections a l'intention de tenir des élections justes et transparentes, il est important qu'il ait 3 jours de vote complets comme les affiches l'annoncent depuis le milieu du mois de janvier.

De même, en parlant de justesse et de transparence, qu'est-ce que le Comité des élections a à cacher en ce qui concerne le rapport « secret » qui a été présenté hier soir, lors de la rencontre d'urgence du Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO? Au début de la réunion qui a eu lieu à Café Alt, quelqu'un a demandé à Federico Carvajal si le rapport serait quand même disponible si la motion de tenir la réunion à huis clos ne passait pas, Carvajal a évidemment hésité de répondre. Après avoir reçu le signal négatif de la part de Seamus Wolfe, il a informé les membres du CA que le rapport serait dispersé aux membres du CA seulement si la réunion se tenait à huis clos. Pourquoi est-ce que la population étudiante ne peut guère avoir accès à ce document qui est composé de supposément 2 pages.
Donc, je demande publiquement et ouvertement au Comité des élections de rendre publique le rapport qui a été dispersé hier soir lors de la rencontre du CA. Si le Comité veut être vu comme légitime (ou même s'il ne veut pas), il ne devrait pas avoir rien à cacher de la population étudiante! J'ATTENDS VOTRE RÉPONSE!   

A message from Amy Kishek on behalf of the EDS

A Love Letter to the EDS


I started debating in my first year at the University of Ottawa. It was the one club that I was the most excited about joining. We didn’t have any extracirriculars at my high school other than sports and a severely underfunded band and choir. I had heard about the English Debating Society before even accepting my admissions offer to uOttawa as the EDS was prominently displayed on the homepage of the University for having won Worlds that year. Wow. Now that sounded like a great experience and something I thought I could really be good at.

At my first EDS meeting we were taught some debating basics, and then given a resolution with which to try our hand. The resolution was (recall this was in 2006), This House Believes that Israel’s response to Hezbollah was measured. Amazed at the audacity of this resolution, I voiced my reaction: “Wow. As a Palestinian, I do not want to debate either side of that!” Sure enough the senior members of the club enlisted me to debate the side of the Israeli government to my complete shock.

Now I can debate nearly any side of any argument (or so I I’d like to thing), with the complete confidence of my persuasiveness (more or less).

In an academic institution debate, the ability to critical analyze, as well as to take a position, is crucial. Academics engage in debate throughout their entire careers from writing undergraduate paper, defending a master’s thesis, to applying for research grants, to ultimately defending one’s research. Fields like philosophy, sociology, political science, and even evolutionary science are centered on academic debate. As a student, debating a range of topics and positions, in addition to developing debate skills, has been crucial to my success in essay writing, seminar presentations, and certainly on my general outlook to my academic discipline.

As a student leader and activist, these skills and experiences have gone even further.

Debate has been one of, if not the (don’t get offended fellow SFUO lovers!), most meaningful experiences of my time here at the University of Ottawa. Having attended the World Debating Championship on behalf of uOttawa in both 2008 and 2009, I have been immersed in the debating experience through and through, and have been enriched greatly by it, in ways that may be difficult to explain.

The dedication and hard work debaters put into mastering their craft is impressive by any standard. In order to train for Worlds I attended a debate tournament every weekend for 5 weekends in a row in the Fall semester of 2007 and 2008. These are not mini-vacations. They are grueling challenges wherein you debate 6 rounds in two days, and after each round your ego gets a terrible beating. We practice two times a week as a club, and individually study and prepare cases on a regular and frequent basis. It’s not easy to become a strong debater, but it’s certainly worthwhile.

Now, why should you fund my debating habit (because yes, it is addictive!)?

Debate is accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of skill level, and is in fact a useful skill or tool to being successful in your academic studies. In this sense, any member of the University of Ottawa community can be a member.

Debate takes a lot of resources. In addition to booking 4+ rooms a week on campus, debate does not work if you never compete, not to mention learning to compete against people with different debate styles and backgrounds in the States and overseas, or even in other parts of Canada. In light of this, there is no fundraising activity that could pay for all of this! What you may not know is that each debater pays $50 to attend each tournament, and can only attend two tournaments a semester using EDS funding. This is very prohibitive to many of our members, and certainly many potential members. Moreover it’s necessary to note that the EDS does receive funding from the University, and that if students fund the EDS through a levy, EDS funding can be stable (no more begging the Faculty of Social Science to send us to Worlds), and the money the Faculties previously provided can go back to students and other activities.

Ultimately debate is a practice that is inherently competitive. Without the experiences of rigorous competition it is difficult to learn to debate. Moreover, success in debating is not simply enriching and necessary to us as an individual member of the EDS and of the University of Ottawa, but it’s necessary for the community as a whole. Some of the greatest universities have the greatest debate clubs fostering tomorrow’s leaders. Benazir Bhutto competed on the Oxford debate team, for example, and in Canada Michael Ignatief and Bob Rae were debate partners at the University of Toronto.

Lastly, it’s important to recognize what debate does in terms of providing a culture of debate on campus. What is a culture of debate? It’s exhibited in such things as the EDS debate sponsored by the SFUO on the Drop Fees campaign, in the EDS debates during Green Weeks. On other campuses the debate clubs publicly debate a range of issues and bring in a variety of speakers in order further this culture of debate. Recently Carleton hosted Paul Dewar and debated the question of accountability regarding Afghan detainees. To those of you who have been frustrated by the SFUO’s stances on some issues, or share the sentiment that there isn’t room for debate in campus politics, I think supporting the EDS is one of the best things you can do.

I’d like to leave you with one final thing. This fall the EDS celebrated it’s 130th year reunion by hosting a debate during homecoming featuring esteemed alumni Senator Hugh Segal (Conservative), Member of Parliament Mauril Belanger (Liberal), Anne McGrath (NDP, Jack Layton’s Chief of Staff) and Erik Estaugh (World Champion 2005).

Here’s a video from that debate.

http://www.homecoming.uottawa.ca/videos.html

Amy Kishek
Undergraduate Representative, Board of Governors,
University of Ottawa

President,
Equal Voice: National Capital Youth Chapter

Vice-President,
English Debating Society, 2007-2008

EDS Member 2006-2010

Referendum questions adding to the student debt?

Today is the first voting day of 3. Similarly to last year, the email that every student is supposed to have received in their @uOttawa.ca account (that contains the PIN Number that is necessary to vote online) hasn't arrived yet. Hopefully everyone will be receiving it soon! The SFUO's Elections Office is saying that the delay is caused by the listserv program, which supposedly only sends out 1000 emails per hour.
Anyways, this post has a very specific purpose. While weighing in on all 3 referendum questions that will appear on this year's "virtual" ballot, I will also be explaining why, when I vote online, (if I ever receive that email) I will be voting against ALL 3 referendum questions.

English Debating Society (EDS) Referendum: I think that the 2 representatives that were present at the debate presented weak arguments as to why every single undergraduate student should financially support the EDS. We're talking about roughly 40 or so people who participate in their debates and I can personally say I've never seen ONE POSTER on campus pertaining to the EDS. The representatives constantly referred Francophone students to the Société de débat francophone (and claimed that the Francophone equivalent of EDS had enough funding to support their activities). I also think that it was quite pitiful of them to complain about how much money they have to spend out of their own pockets in order to participate in out-of-town debates. I have one suggestion: stop whining and do some fundraising! Why do you think that every single undergraduate student should fund your activities when they get nothing in return! I don't care if they were only asking for 5 cents per student. If I am to contribute more money than I already am in order to support a particular initiative, I want to be able to see how my contribution will benefit ME! I refuse to contribute to an initiative that will use my contribution to cover their travel costs. That is all.

U-Pass Referendum: I know for a fact that I'm not the only one that has no use for OC Transpo. The fact that there is no "opt-out" option here really sucks. $145/semester cannot be justified for students who live on campus, who own a vehicle, who choose to use alternative transportation such as riding a bike, skateboard, rollerblade or who simple choose to walk. Since the beginning of this academic year, I have used OC Transpo a grand total of about 15 times.

So to demonstrate, I'll assume for fun that I'll have to use OC Transpo 5 more times before the end of April:

20 bus rides x $3/ride = $60

Now, if the U-Pass does in fact go through, here's what I'd be forced to pay:

$145 x 2 semesters = $290/academic year

At the moment, I spend approximately $60/academic year. If the U-Pass goes through, this is how much money I will be forced to spend on a useless U-Pass:

$290-$60 = $230

Also, apparently (correct me if I'm wrong; I looked for the motion passed by City council on the City of Ottawa website) this U-Pass will not be inter-provincial will mean that students deciding to live in Québec will not benefit from this plan.

I'm definitely not against the concept of having more affordable transportation for students. What I don't like about the current proposal is that it's being forced upon many students who, like myself, rarely use OC Transpo's services and who would rather "pay per ride" or purchase the odd sheet of bus tickets. That is all... for now.

Green Referendum: Let me be clear, I'm definitely not against green initiatives. I will be voting against this referendum question because I think $4/year is quite frankly extravagant. I would agree to contribute $1/semester ($2/academic year). That would be a more reasonable amount to ask for. This is just a little side note: I quite enjoyed when David Suzuki spoke in the University of Ottawa's gymnasium 2 years ago. This year, to my surprise, for a second consecutive year, the SFUO's keynote speaker during Green Weeks was none other than David Suzuki who spoke at the Bronson Center on November 23rd 2009. I applaud the SFUO's initiative to bring in an excellent, famous speaker such as Mr. Suzuki. On the other hand, it's quite obvious that he didn't come to Ottawa for free. The fact that the SFUO decided to have him for its keynote speaker for two years in a row seems to be slightly wasteful when it comes to spending student's money. That is all.

Get your ass out and vote! / Sortez et votez 'stie!

VOICI COMMENT VOTER!
Pour voter en ligne, verifier votre courriel @uottawa.ca pour obtenir votre NIP. Ensuite visitez live.everyonecounts.com/app/733/1325 pour voter. Votre numéro d’étudiant est requis pour voter. Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas de communiquer avec le bureau des élections à elections@feuo.ca ou au 613-562-5800 x 2625.

Bureaux de vote le 9, 10, 11 février :
Tabaret  9h-17h 
Desmarais  9-19h 
Simard 2ième étage 9h-17h
UCU Tim Horton's 9h-17h 
UCU à l'extérieur du Caféteria 9h-17h 
UCU bureau de la FÉUO 9h-19h
Montpetit 2ième étage  9h-17h
Fauteux  9h-17h 
Marion sous-sol 9h-17h 
Colonel By sous-sol 9h-17h
SITE Caféteria 9h-19h 
Sports Complex  9h-17h 
Roger Guindon 9h-17h

HERE'S HOW TO VOTE!
To vote online, check your @uOttawa.ca email to acquire your PIN number (Personal Identification Number). Then login to live.everyonecounts.com/app/733/1325 to cast your vote. Your Student Number is required to vote. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to communicate with the Elections office at elections@sfuo.ca or 613-562-5800 x 2625.


Polling Stations for Feb. 9, 10, 11:
Tabaret  9-5 
Desmarais  9-7 
Simard 2nd floor 9-7
UCU Tim Horton's 9-5
UCU outside Cafeteria 9-5 
UCU SFUO office 9-7 
Montpetit 2nd floor 9-5 
Fauteux 9-5
Marion basement 9-5 
Colonel By basement 9-5
SITE Cafeteria 9-7
Sports Complex 9-5 
Roger Guindon 9-5

Monday, February 8, 2010

WTF: elections.sfuo.ca

So, I'm not going to lie and say this year's SFUO elections' website was pretty to look at, well organised  nor will I complement SFUO's webmaster either because, in all honnesty, the site is ugly, is not user friendly and simply lacks information.

If the elections' rules state that every candidate must add the voting days and the SFUO elections' website url on their posters, then the website should in turn actually POST EVERY CANDIDATE'S PLATFORM, PICTURE AND CAMPAIGN VIDEO.

So let me break it down for you:

No campaign video posted: Osama Barrada, Alexandre Chaput, Brandon Bay, Bassam Javed, Andrei Huranchyk (both BOA and Senate sections), Christine Moncrieff, Sarah Jayne King (Senate section) and Matika Lauzon (Senate section).

No campaign video, no picture posted: Hannah Drapper, Eric Hampel, Rosie Fournier, Nick Lendrum, Joy Umoafia and Lynne Lessard.

No platform posted: Emilie Lemieux-Guénard.

No information posted: Chouaib Redouane (both BOA and Senate sections), Hafsa Khan, David Girard, Martin Schoots-McAlpine (Senate section), Mycke Mugashi, Andrew Boozary, Kyle Ryc and Maureen Hasinoff (Senate section).

I realize some of these candidates are running for more than one position and/or some may not have made a campaign video, but the fact that some platforms aren't posted or that NO INFORMATION is available for certain candidates is, in my view, unacceptable. Each and every candidate had to hand in a platform, so at the least every candidate should have that readily available on the SFUO elections' website. I also understand that many of these candidates are also running unopposed. But, it isn't an excuse not to post their platforms or pictures/campaign videos.

Rencontre du Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO à huis-clos

Immédiatement après le début de la rencontre du Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO, Federico Carvajal a demandé pour une motion afin que la rencontre soit à huis-clos (in-camera). Kyle Simunovic s'est porté volontaire de présenter la motion et la motion a immédiatement passé après le vote.

Donc, personne aura le droit de voir le rapport du comité électorale qui sera présenté lors de la session à huis-clos. C'est malheureux parce que la population étudiante devrait avoir le droit d'accéder ce rapport afin de comprendre pourquoi certaines décisions sont prises par rapport aux élections de la FÉUO.

BOA Special meeting... in an odd place

Seeing as some bureaucrat fucked up the paper work, the BOA meeting is not taking place in the Senate Chambers but rather in... wait for it... CAFÉ ALT! Stay tuned... It's live right now!

Mes prédictions

Voici, à mon avis, les résultats probables des élections de la FÉUO :

EXÉCUTIF DE LA FÉUO

Président


C'est beaucoup trop difficile de prédire qui sera le prochain président de la FÉUO: si je regarde les résultats du sondage qui apparaissent sur mon blogue, il me semble que Tyler Steeves pourrait gagner par quelques votes. Par contre, je n'ignore pas Bruno Gélinas-Faucher qui, à mon avis, recevra le vote de la population francophone et qui a proposé des idées novatrices comme la décentralisation du pouvoir de l'exécutif de la FÉUO vers les corps fédérés. C'est TROP SERRÉ!

VP aux finances

Je crois que Maureen Hasinoff serait la meilleure candidate pour ce poste en raison de son expérience et de sa confiance. Aussi, l'idée d'avoir un plan stratégique de 5 ans pour chaque business de la FÉUO semble avoir beaucoup d'allure.

VP aux affaires étudiantes

Nicole Tishler, à mon avis, serait la meilleure candidate pour ce poste.

VP aux communcations (oops, c'est communications)

Paige Galette, à mon avis, serait la meilleure candidate pour ce poste.

VP aux affaires universitaires

À mon avis, Ted Horton serait le meilleur candidat pour ce poste en raison de son expérience et de sa neutralité lorsqu'il y a eu des sujets controversés dont la plupart de ses collègues ont pris position.

VP aux affaires sociales

À mon avis, même s'il n'y a pas eu beaucoup d'effort dans sa plateforme, Alexandre Chaput serait le meilleur candidat pour ce poste (même s'il est le seul candidat qui se présente).

CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION DE LA FÉUO

Pour cette section, je vais seulement commenter sur les facultés dont il existe un véritable concours.

Faculté des sciences sociales

Peter Flynn, Amanda Marochko, Amanda Iarusso, Matika Lauzon, Matthias Brennan et Armel M. Agbodjogbé seraient les meilleurs candidates/candidats pour les 6 sièges représentant la faculté des sciences sociales au sein du Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO.

Faculté de génie

À mon avis, Brandon Bay serait le meilleur candidat pour le siège représentant la faculté de génie au sein du Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO.

SÉNAT DE L'UNIVERSITÉ D'OTTAWA

Faculté des sciences sociales

À mon avis, Lynne Lessard ou Matika Lauzon seraient les meilleurs candidats pour le siège représentant la faculté des sciences sociales au Sénat de l'Université d'Ottawa.

École de gestion Telfer

À mon avis, Andrei Huranchyk serait le meilleur candidat pour le siège représentant l'École de gestion Telfer au Sénat de l'Université d'Ottawa.

Faculté de génie 

À mon avis, Mycke Mugisha serait le meilleur candidat pour le siège représentant la Faculté de génie au Sénat de l'Université d'Ottawa.

Saturday, February 6, 2010



Amanda Iarusso - Board of administration of the SFUO (Social Sciences)
http://www.amandaiarusso.ca/

Friday, February 5, 2010

Aside from the SFUO Elections, the current SFUO president is arrested

Part 1



Part 2

"I'm not making a joke of these elections, these elections ARE a joke"

I honestly don't know where to begin after tonight's second and last session of debates in this fourth day of the SFUO elections campaign.


VP SOCIAL

Alexandre Chaput: He didn't have that much to say other than he would benefit from having more time to organise Winter Challenge and that he would like to plan the complete social calendar for the whole academic year throughout the summer.

Winner?: Well, obviously Chaput is the lone candidate for this position. Although, I was somewhat disappointed with his lack of new ideas. I know he'll do a great job, but would have liked a little bit of innovation.

VP STUDENT AFFAIRS

Amy Hammett: Alright so she brought up the fact that, according to her, Chartwells throws out a ton of good food every day. She was also asked about the legality of Chartwells donating that food to the SFUO's Food Bank. Hammett made reference to a "Good Faith" law that ensures that companies who donate food cannot be held liable in the case that someone who ate that food became sick. So, I decided to look further into this apparent law. There is in fact a provincial law in Ontario entitled "Donation of Food Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. 19". This law reads as follows:

Liability of donor

1. (1) A person who donates food or who distributes donated food to another person is not liable for damages resulting from injuries or death caused by the consumption of the food unless,

(a) the food was adulterated, rotten or otherwise unfit for human consumption; and

(b) in donating or distributing the food, the person intended to injure or to cause the death of the recipient of the food or acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. 1994, c. 19, s. 1 (1).
So I can only guess that if food is being thrown out by Chartwells, it obviously must not meet article 1.a. On other issues, Hammett said she would be in favour of holding francophone-only events for the 11 000 francophone students studying at the University of Ottawa.

Nicole Tishler: In answering to Hammett's claims, Tishler said that she spoke with one of the heads of Chartwells and was told that the company receives daily shipments of fresh food. Tishler continued on to say that she was told that it was very uncommon for there to be any food left over at the end of the day. This is why I tend to think that Tishler won the debate. She also put forward an interesting idea: to put in place a Committee of carbon neutrality at the University of Ottawa which would work towards diminishing our carbon footprint.

Winner?: Nicole Tishler was prepared, had spoken to the right people (head of Chartwells), and completely shot down Hammett's claim that Chartwells throws out enormous amounts of good food daily. Although having had a bit of trouble with her spoken French, she was prepared, confident and open to many of the suggestions that came from the floor.

VP FINANCE

Saryah Jayne King: I will begin by saying I'm not quite sure how King passed the bilinguism test. I say this because almost every time she spoke in French, I had a very hard time following what she was saying. I understand nerves might have been a factor. She said she was very much into transparency, budgetary consultations with students and making course packs available online. King said in the case of a budgetary surplus, she would like to ensure that students were consulted on how that money was spent. She also said that she didn't want to move too fast with plans for expanding 1848. She also added that she would not eliminate the $180,80 fee for renting 1848, but would like to see that fee brought down.

Sydney Loko: His message was simple: students are poor, the price of food is extremely expensive and the SFUO must ensure, first and foremost, that students are able to get by. He said the SFUO must be prudent with students' money. He also brought up how he'd like to see students getting paid if they successfully promote events: i.e. events held at 1848. He ensured that if he was elected, the budget would be made available on the SFUO website for all to see. He has extensive experience in this field but I won't get into that here. When asked if he would be willing, if needed, to close an SFUO business, he answered he absolutely wouldn't hesitate to shut down Café Alt. Loko also said he would eliminate the $180,80 1848 rental fee. He was very confident throughout the debate and had a "simple fix" answer for every question. Loko concluded with a "left-right" blow at the CFS saying he thinks that the "Drop Fees" campaign was a waste of students' money and that it produced little to no results.

Maureen Hasinoff: Although not being as bad as King, Hasinoff had a little trouble with her french. On numerous occasions, she spoke of her extensive experience that easily set her apart from her opponents. She put forward an innovative idea about managing the SFUO businesses: 5 year business plans. Seems like a very prudent way to start recovering SFUO deficit-ridden businesses. She also said she would ensure that she presented a budgetary update at every BOA meeting. Hasinoff was not in favour of completely eliminating the 1848 rental fee, although she did say she would like to make it cheaper to rent the student bar.

Winner?: Loko would have won this one mainly because of the confidence he demonstrated in elaborating on his somewhat unrealistic, redistributive platform. In this case, I would have to give the victory to Hasinoff. Substance-wise, the 5 year business plan for all SFUO businesses is a great idea; her experience speaks for itself and the emphasis she put on ensuring the SFUO implement a contingency fund shows prudent management.

Note: At this point of the debate, I stopped taking notes.

PRESIDENT

Tyler Steeves: He was very "Obamalike" in the way he spoke confidently. Also, taking another page from the Obama playbook, when answering after another candidate, he often would compliment him or her on their idea and how he would build off of it. He made a point to say he wanted to unite the faculties in a "Faculty Showdown". He acknowledged that SFUO wasn't accessible to all students and he pledged to ensure that this changes.

Bruno Gélinas-Faucher: He is the candidate that surprised me the most. Most of the time, he spoke in French, which will ensure him a good chunk of the Francophone vote. His major platform point is the decentralization of power from the SFUO executive to the federated bodies. This is a refreshing idea but will most likely be difficult and might even go against the SFUO constitution (although I haven't had time to look into the constitutionality of decentralization of power). Gélinas-Faucher also took a stab at the CFS saying that the organisation is unorganised and at the moment is wasting students' money. He went even further calling out the current SFUO executive by saying they live in an "ivory tower" and are very much so disconnected from the students.

Amalia Savva: The current president of PIDSSA seemed to be on the offensive for most of the debate. When asked if she thought the current SFUO executive was disconnected from students, she defended the SFUO executive's record. Even Steeves admitted that it would be insane to say that the SFUO executive WASN'T disconnected from students. She reiterated that her past experiences were what influenced her decision to run for the SFUO presidency. Savva said she would like to partner up with Greyhound Bus lines and VIA Rail in order to sell tickets directly at the SFUO office. Working with the University of Ottawa administration and Ottawa city hall councillors in working towards a student housing policy was another key part of her platform (A little bit off subject and slightly critical but WTF is up with her wardrobe selection for her Zoom Production's campaign video?)

Sébastien St-Amour: I don't want to waste your time (or mine in fact) in explaining what a complete fool he made of himself last night. I will say that the introduction brought me to my feet but it was all downhill after that. He took a big blow at Roxanne Dubois saying he called her so she could help him with his debate speech but that she hadn't returned his call. He is also the one who said "I'm not making a joke of these elections, these elections are a joke" hence my post's title. A little bit before half-way through the debate, he began to embarrassed not only himself, but other candidates and people with whom he has worked with before.

Winner?: I would have to say it was Gélinas-Faucher followed by Steeves in a very close second. I think Savva demonstrated that SHE HERSELF was disconnected from students in trying to defend the current SFUO executive which I predict will be a turning point for the worst in her campaign.   

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Campaign video 6



Peter Flynn - Candidate for a seat on the Board of administration (Social Sciences)
http://www.peterflynn.ca/

ATTENTION: The posting of any candidates' campaign video on this blog does not necessarily mean I support that particular candidate.

SFUO Campaign Videos brought to you by Zoom Productions via Youtube

I searched on Youtube and finaly found the campaign videos that were produced by Zoom Productions. For some reason, these video are not yet posted on the SFUO elections' website. Enjoy!

UPDATE: All campaign videos are now available on the SFUO elections' website; click on the respective candidates name and voilà!

M. Allan Rock vous encourage de voter!



Un message d'Allan Rock, le recteur de l'Université d'Ottawa.

Campaign video 5



Tyler Steeves - candidate for the position of president
http://www.tylersteeves.ca/

ATTENTION: The posting of any candidates' campaign video on this blog does not necessarily mean I support that particular candidate.

Campaign video 4



Sydney Loko - candidate for the position of VP finance
http://www.sidneyloko.com/

ATTENTION: The posting of any candidates' campaign video on this blog does not necessarily mean I support that particular candidate.

Campaign video 3



Osama Berrada - candidat pour le poste de VP aux affaires universitaires
http://www.osamaberrada.ca/

ATTENTION: The posting of any candidates' campaign video on this blog does not necessarily mean I support that particular candidate.

Vidéo de campagne 2



Amy Hammett - candidate pour le poste de VP aux affaires universitaires
http://www.voteamy.ca/

ATTENTION: Les vidéos dont j'ajoute à mon blogue ne sont que ceux qui me sont soient envoyés par courriel ou qui sont postés sur mon mur de Facebook. Cela ne veut pas nécessairement dire que je supporte le candidat ou la candidate.

Vidéo de campagne



Page Galette - candidate pour le poste de VP communications de la FÉUO
http://www.pagegalette.com/

ATTENTION: Les vidéos dont j'ajoute à mon blogue ne sont que ceux qui me sont soient envoyés par courriel ou qui sont postés sur mon mur de Facebook. Cela ne veut pas nécessairement dire que je supporte le candidat ou la candidate.

Le comité d'élection remise en question

Sébastien St-Amour, un candidat pour la présidence de la FÉUO, a remis en question l'impartialité du comité d'élection hier dans un message qu'il a envoyé à tous les candidats et à toutes les candidates.

Faisant référence à la démission du DG Julien de Bellefeuille et les accusations envers Roxanne Dubois, il se demande si le comité d'élection devrait, même si supposément les règlements électoraux laisse à interprétation, véritablement avoir les pouvoirs de gérer les élections.

Même si Sébastien est supposément un "candidat blagueur", je crois qu'il demande une question LÉGITIME. Pourquoi les gens le ridiculise pour avoir demandé cette question me semble hypocrite.

En tout cas, une petite parenthèse: Matika Lauzon, Alexandre Chaput et Joy Umoafia ont tous (finalement) affiché leurs "posters" électorales (à Desmarais).

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

It getting more sketch by the day...

It's being reported that Julien de Bellefeuille, the SFUO Chief electoral officer, has resigned.

So now, I will make a comparison of what the situation looks like now with a CEO in the picture. In an email sent out by Seamus Wolfe to all the candidates, this sentence really scares me:
Since the constitution stipulates that the elections committee has the power to review all rulings made to the CEOs decisions, in the absence of a CEO, the committee will now be directly dealing with decisions normally made by the CEO.

So, let's think about this: Seamus Wolfe, president of the SFUO, sits on the elections' committee. The email sent out also says "We will also be assigning a liaison to the elections office who will receive complaints, appeals, and any other communications required." That's all fine and dandy. BUT Wolfe will now oversee the electoral process and address (if he feels like it) any complaints that (will most likely) arise.

The president of the SFUO is (obviously) on the SFUO executive and on the elections committee. That in itself is troubling enough. Now that the CEO has resigned and assuming there won't be an effort made to replace him, the elections committee will now oversee the electoral process.

I guess the only unbiased oversight of these elections is the Board of Administration of the SFUO. Oh wait, that doesn't seem to be much better because many candidates are SITTING on the BOA. So does Wolfe. Wow!?! How can this be legitimate? If I was a candidate right now, I'd be worried and questionning the decisions that have been and that will be taken in the next day concerning this fucked up scenario that has arised.

By the way, IT'S ONLY DAY 3 OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN!?!?!?!? FML!!!!!!!!!!!

kj360 Live stream of today's debate

Free TV : Ustream

What are their ideas for the SFUO? Let's debate!


















Debates are today! Get your asses out to the SITE Cafeteria and ask the tough questions to your future student leaders. Make your vote an informed one! Here's today's schedule:

In the SITE Cafeteria


11:00-11:30 – UPass

11:30-12:00 – Environment

12:00-12:30 – VP Communications

12:30-1:15 – VP University Affairs


Tuesday, February 2, 2010

RÉPONDEZ-MOI S.V.P.!!! (et une petite correction...)

J'ai retirer mon dernier blog s'intitulant "C'est ridicule" en raison d'une erreur parmi mes sources. Donc, pardonnez-moi pour ce poste! 

Parlons plutôt au sujet du site web des élections de la FÉUO. Plus spécifiquement, parlons de la section "Vidéos et blogs". Parlons finalement au sujet du contenu de cette section qui, depuis cette après-midi, a été enlevé et remplacé par « Cette section du site Web n'est plus disponible ». J'attends une réponse du bureau des élections à ce sujet. Je vous informe aussitôt que quelqu'un me répond.

Why do campaign rules exist? pt. 2

Here's what the SFUO Constitution 2008-2009 has to say about slates:

4.7 Slates

4.7.1
No candidate for a position on the executive or the Board of Administration may form a slate with one or more other candidates running for positions on the executive or the Board of Administration. To that effect, no candidate may:

a. spend money together with one or more other candidates; or

b. participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates.

So, if I may direct your attention to the above screen shot of Sameena Topan's BOA campaign website and then to article 4.7.1.b. Is it fair then to say that Topan having Hammett's campaign video on her website (even though when you try to play the video, a black screen appears and says "This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender's friend request" would contravene article 4.7.1.b?

SURPRISE!?! L'implication de la FCÉÉ aux élections de la FÉUO?


















Comme mentionnée sur le site web de La Rotonde, la campagne électorale d'Amalia Savva est en danger de prendre le bord. Le reportage explique que deux membres de l'exécutif de l'AÉÉPID, Peter Flynn (VP aux affaires financières) et Greg Smith (VP aux affaires académiques - Science politique), ont découvert la plateforme électorale à Savva sur un ordinateur dans le bureau de l'AÉÉPID qui avait supposément été produite sur l'ordinateur professionnel de Roxanne Dubois (présente VP aux affaires financières de la FÉUO). Il faut souligner le fait que Mlle Dubois est la trésorière-élue de la Fédération Canadianne des étudiantes et des étudiants (FCÉÉ). 

Évidemment, ceci n'est qu'une allégation. Il reste que les accusées sont innocentes jusqu'à ce qu'il soit prouvé autrement. Selon l'article, il semble clair que Flynn et Smith déposeront une plainte au comité disciplinaire de la FÉUO.

Par contre, si c'est vrai que Dubois a aidé à la création de la plateforme à Savva, cette dernière DOIT se faire disqualifier. Si c'est bien le cas, cela donnerait malheureusement une mauvaise image à l'AÉÉPID, dont elle siège actuellement à la présidence.

Monday, February 1, 2010

La Rotonde du 1 février 2010

Les candidates/candidats qui se présentent aux postes au sein de l'exécutif de la FÉUO présentent leurs idées: p. 9-12





Site web ENCORE en construction????

Il est maintenant 14h et la campagne électorale se passe depuis déjà 24h +. Il y a certains candidats et certaines candidates qui ont "oubliés" d'initier leurs site web:

Iain Brannigan
Martin Schoots-McAlpine
Osama Berrada
Sarah Jayne King
Nicole Tishler
Maureen Hasinoff
Amalia Savva

Est-ce un manque d'organisation ou une "stratégie" de campagne? Peu importe la raison, c'est une erreur grave pour ceux et celles qui tentent de s'informer!

Ummm... WTF?

I was browsing through some of the campaign websites... more specifically I was on Sameena Topan's page... Under campaign video, this is what's posted... like... really!?!

Une stratégie intéressante...


Aujourd'hui, vers 12h45 au Centre Universitaire, des bénévoles travaillant pour Sidney Loko ont croisé mon chemin. Je crois qu'ils étaient environ 4 ou 5 et étaient tous habillés en noir. Une personne portait même un masque blanc comme vous pouvez voir dans la photo. Les bénévoles à Loko passaient des cartes semblables à celle dans la deuxième photo.

C'est une stratégie intéressante. Au moins, quelqu'un essaie rejoindre la population étudiante. Bravo Loko!

Avec un peu de recherche, voici d'autres candidates/candidats

Amanda Marochko - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Sciences sociales)

Matthias Brennan - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Sciences sociales)

Logan Ouellette - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Arts)

Eric Eryou - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Sciences sociales)

Peter Flynn - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Sciences sociales)

Amanda Iarusso - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Sciences sociales)

Bruno Gélinas-Faucher - Président

Sameena Topan - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Sciences sociales)

Martin Schoots-McAlpine - Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO (Arts)

Blog Archive