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?

"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.   

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?

Innocence or Guilt?: The Possibility of Various Scenarios

So we have this video come out yesterday morning of a young woman in second year who was an official volunteer for Seamus Wolfe while at the same time the official representative for Iain Brannigan. Renaud Garner interviews this young woman for roughly 20 minutes, asking her some very specific questions and luckily for him, receiving VERY EXPLICIT AND DAMNING TESTIMONY.

It has become evident that if this is found to be true, every single defendant that walked out on SAC appeal that took place on March 6th, walked out and even further incriminated themselves. And if the people who testified in fact lied during their testimonies, SHAME ON THEM. Many of these people worked very closely with the SFUO during the past year and are on the inside (for the most part).

Once again, I shall reiterate that the plaintiff's accusations are only to this point alleged accusations. This means that the defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, let me bring forward some possible scenarios, one assuming the defendants are found guilty and the other if they are cleared of all wrong doing.

Suppose the defendants are in fact found to be guilty; What would happen to the SFUO's legitimacy? What possible punishment (if any) would the defendants be given?

Let's be completely clear on one thing here: the voter turnout during past SFUO elections has clearly indicated that many students aren't convinced of the SFUO's legitimacy. So, if this scandal is found to be true, the effects could be catastrophic. The end of the SFUO? Highly unlikely. Could this year's voter turnout once again drop to an all-time low next year? Chances are pretty damn good.

When it comes to punishing the defendants, again if they were found guilty of these accusations, I can only see one option. If they all truly have the student's best interests in mind, they should all write up a resignation letter and give up their positions. This is the only legitimate punishment. It's the only way to regain the student's trust (which was arguably already in jeopardy in the first place).

Now, let's assume that the defendants were in fact acquitted of any wrongdoing. Then what? Are the elections legitimate? Well, if they're innocent, then I would have to say that the elections' results are legitimate. What about a punishment? Personally, I think that the defendants could still face a moral punishment from the electorate. If the student's trust, as I alluded to before, was arguably already questionnable, then it will definitely be shakier than it was before the elections took place.

As for the plaintiffs, no matter what happends, it's an unfortunately harsh reality that they will be (and have somewhat already been) labelled as "shit disturbers" and "power hungry" individuals who contested the election results for the sole reason of being in a position of power. They won't be liked by many and will be despised by those who were accused by them.

It's too bad that it has to be this way. It's also very disgusting that these people who, according to the SFUO constitution, have every right to contest election results, will now be treated like shit because they actually had the guts to speak out when they believed that rules were broken and that the SFUO constitution had been compremissed.

In conclusion, for those who already have a grudge against the plaintiffs, it might be good to take a moment and ask yourself why you hold this grudge. If your reason for holding this grudge is due to the fact that you think that the plaintiff's had no business contesting the election results, well just remind yourself that they had every right to do so. There's nothing illegal nor immoral about what they did. If on the other hand your reason for being pissed at the plaitiffs is the fact that you're friends with the defendants, you should also get over it.

I know very well that no matter what anybody says, some people will hold these grudges against the plaintiffs for many weeks, many months and even possibly, for a miniscule few, many years. If you are honnestly pissed at these people for having legitimately brought forward possible campaign corruption, then you might want to think over what you consider to actually be legitimate.