Board of Administration of the SFUO - Sunday February 28th 2010

Note: I appologize about the audio at certain points in the video; my thumb was covering the microphone.

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.

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%

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...

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!

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!