If you haven’t already been informed – it looks like Blake Frederick’s disqualification has been overturned.
More details to come.
Update 1: Hopefully the president elect will see to it that members of the Appointments Committee be chosen carefully, and the hiring of the EA happens, like, yesterday.
Some blogs are updating with live coverage- check out the Radical Beer Tribune or the UBC Spectator. So far, Blake, Ale, and Tristan have all laid out their cases. The latter two candidates were punished for slate-like behaviour by being fined $200 each. Most of the confusion/disgruntlement seems to stem around a couple of issues:
-what constitutes slate-like behaviour: candidates were told that they were allowed to make announcements together, yet at the same time not in a way that could be construed as slate-like (personal note: I saw several of these announcements, at no time did I feel like these candidates were a part of a slate. Nothing they said or did suggested that they were running together, and each candidate presented their own platforms only). Candidates said that they made announcements together between 5 and 10 times (out of between 25 and 50 announcements that each candidate made individually).
-being notified of disqualification: the EA did not notify Blake in person, and the other two candidates found out only about 1 week later that they had been disqualified. There seem to be some issues with email communication in general.
-Cookiegate and how many votes can be garnered in this way (i.e. by going door to door- the EAC tried it and got something like 4 votes in more than 2 hours, while the allegations were of 50-800 votes being made). Also, Cookiegate and how evidence was handled, whether or not people spoke with one another, and whether or not witnesses were friends of other candidates and were thus biased.
-the impartiality of the EAC and general bias
Decisions that were made:
-the Chief Justice will be looking at code, and a by-election for the SLFS could occur. I’m not totally sure why, but it looks like things may have been muddled with the nomination process- please correct me if I’m wrong, as I wasn’t there.
-the Chief Justice also said that Sonia’s appeal took too much time. From what I gathered, there was no evidence to substantiate her claims.
All in all, there are 4 appeals taking place- one about the SLFS (launched by Ed Durgan), one about the VP Academic/Uni Affaris race (launched by Sonia Purewal), one about the presidential race (launched by Blake Frederick), and one about the VP Finance race (launched by Ale). The latter two are based on the slate rulings (one is about the disqualification, the other about the fine). The Chief Justice presiding was Donald McIntyre.
There is an obvious inconsistency from year to year in the subjective interpretation of code. The question is whether there should be.
The interesting cases always arise when the political meets the judicial, and within this context let us consider the judicial party to be the four 20-something year old bushy-tailed individuals who have been appointed by councillors (last minute as always, is my guess), relying on partial evidence, but not obliged to follow any explicitly outlined procedure except for their own moral guidelines.
Of course, from year to year the Student Court anticipates being busy during this time of year, when candidates appeal the decision of the EA’s office, hoping their luck at a more “legal” or “official” body, traditionally consisting of students with at least some legal training.
Then there is the issue of whether or not AMS council, the highly political body, will decide to accept the appeals decision of the Student Court. It is in poor form not to do so, but as the archives are my witness, Council has overturned or rejected its rulings numerous times as it sees fit, at the moment’s political flavour at hand.
So, when we come back to the specific issue on slates and the recent disqualification of Mr Frederick, how robust should this interpretation of a code be from year to year? Should a candidate be “testing out” the mood of the EA, seeing what he or she can get away with?
Is campaigning alongside other candidates in the same room vehemently slate-like to one reasonable person, but a-ok with another?
Is the EA contradicting her own words when she disqualifies candidates who campaigned together in a cafeteria, but earlier allowed classroom announcements to be made together?
The subjective interpretation of reasonable standard becomes the gray zone in which the EA’s office enters the power play to make or break the political career of the candidates.
From year to year, this interpretation has differed. To quote Spencer Keys, father and founder of the post-slate era, the punitive measures on slate-oid activity has included:
“…in 2005 one candidate was found to have had his website registered and paid on the credit card of a candidate in another race. He got a 24hr campaign suspension.
In a more relevant example, despite lots of candidates doing speeches at the same time, it was ruled (if I recall correctly) that a line was crossed when one candidate told a classroom to “Vote progressive” when numerous candidates had explicitly identified themselves as “progressive.” That person also received a campaign suspension (I think) but it hardly mattered anyway when they won by 500 votes. The first guy lost his position so it also didn’t matter.”
Should there be a list of precedent rulings to be followed as general guidelines for the candidate’s sake, such that they know what is and is not considered slate-like behaviour? Keep in mind that these rulings themselves may have had their share of controversies, involving the Student Court and lateron Council.
Or perhaps in this post-slate era, there are very few people left who remember how blatantly obvious a slate was like, and the purpose behind banning them has reduced itself into a witch-hunt for even the most invisible alignments, friendships included?
It seems to me the EA’s were given no transition as to the intentions behind this particular section of code, and are now keen for the election to become so puritan to the point where a candidate should run in the other direction if someone else is postering on a prime location, or campaigning in the same cafeteria.
What a precedent.
… the current president of the AMS has made some progress this year, demonstrating that the AMS can accomplish things for the students when it’s not trying to sort out elections.
Hello Everyone,
Thank you all for your help and for joining this group. We have succeeded. Athletic fees for students will be dropping substantially starting Sept. 2009. The AMS and Athletics will be issuing a press release tomorrow which I will put on this facebook group. I am sure the Ubyssey will have more info in Friday’s paper.
Some examples of the drops are as follows:
BirdCoop fees: 4 month pass $148 -> $25
Intramurals: all sports now between $5-10 per person per team (except hockey, which is being reduced, but not to those levels)
Aquatic Centre: free student access at all times
Thunderbird Winter Sports Complex: public skating -> free \\ all other drop in sports -> $2 \\ ice rentals -> 25 – 50 percent off
Tennis Centre: no deal worked out, still in progress
All these fees will be frozen for 3 years.
These drops have been realized due to the contribution students make to the department and the fact that the business model for the department has been doing quite well. These are also being realized because of the pressure the AMS has put on the department this past year. I would really like to recognize Neal Yonson, who has been integral in helping force these changes.
Now go make use of the reduced costs. Exercise and be merry.
Mike Duncan
I feel like this should serve to indicate to students that the AMS is looking out for their best interest, and that things can get done with some effort. I’m personally quite pleased, although I have yet to use the facilities. However, it’s this sort of news that makes me have faith yet in the capacity of the AMS to change things for the better on campus. There are other examples as well, of course, but I want to bring this recent thing up as an indicator of the AMS working.
Ah, what’s that in the air? It smells like the seemingly never ending elections cycle. While the AMS elections are sort-of-but-not-really-over, GSS elections are still going strong. This is a reminder that if you are a grad student, please vote! The GSS could do great things, but you need to make sure it has a strong, motivated executive. Voting details below.
Voting for the GSS Elections close on Monday, February 16th at 5pm. You can vote using the “Webvote” option when you log onto the SSC website. Information about the candidates can be found here. Election results will be made public 5pm on Thursday February 19th at Koerner’s pub.
I’ve got them up here; there might be a commentary post up later but it seems sort of silly given what’s going on.
I promise I’ll write more, but in the meantime, here’s my reaction to it all. Be warned, it’s not very sophisticated, but comes in several steps.
1.) Sigh.
2.) Plz growz up. Plz lern electrl code. Thx.
3.) Why am I getting so much email?!
4.) Please don’t submit complaints out of spite. Please see number 2 above.
5.) Please make campaigning rules more explicit.
6.) (This is an important one). Please make code more explicit when it comes to slates.
7.) Please don’t tell me that candidates who may be friends aren’t allowed to poster together. I find that sad-making. We should encourage friendship, not destroy it through campaign rules. A second sigh.
8.) Next year’s candidates: please be cautious in your campaigns and don’t associate with one another if rules aren’t changed. Not only so that you don’t get disqualified, but also so that people aren’t personally insulted over the interwebs.
9.) To some unknown being/master of the universe/spaghetti monster: please stop things going to student court during every election. Here I think it’s legit, but seriously?
10.) Ok, I think that’s it. Actually, no. Please stop flaming each other through comments. It’s been fine here, but I’ve been reading some of the other threads, and I’m surprised that university students resort to personal attacks and insults to try to make their point. When I debate according to Cusid rules, this isn’t allowed, and that makes me happy. I’d like to know that non-debaters are also capable of debate that doesn’t involve yelling at others when they disagree. Ok, now that’s it.
Sorry, I’m a touch disgruntled, in case you couldn’t tell. I feel like most of the filed complaints are sort of frivolous. It’s great to launch complaints, but not in this manner. A lot of it seems like backlash against the EC. I don’t agree with their decision, but at this point there’s little to be done except for wait for this to go to student court. In the meantime, though, I think people need to take these complaints more seriously and not complain about things that don’t warrant complaining about (for instance, slates between VFMs, because those don’t count).
Seriously, though, I will hopefully be writing something about slates. I do think they’re a bad idea, but only in certain situations, and not just because they give students running for office an unfair advantage. I just think that rules need to be made crystal clear about what exactly constitutes a slate (i.e. not postering/making announcements together, particularly when it’s stated that that is allowed. Also, I think there needs to be some recognition that students might just poster together for company. Going around campus by yourself and putting up posters=boring. Getting your friends=more fun). Hopefully, those will be made sometime soon.
Numerous emails have been sent out with complaints. Gerald will be posting those filed by Ed Durgan, as well as the response of the election committee to those, but here is another email I received regarding more complaints.
The Elections Committee received six complaints from Ed Durgan on Saturday, February 7. The Committee has decided to dismiss all complaints. The rulings and the original complaint are included. This ruling is issued at 12:45PM, Monday February 8. An appeal can be made to the Clerk of Student Court by 12:45PM, Wednesday February 10.
The Elections Committee is attempting to respond to all complaints as quickly and as publicly as possible.
The Elections Committee received a complaint from Blake Frederick on Saturday, February 7. The Committee has decided to dismiss the complaint. This ruling is issued at 3:00 PM, Monday February 9. An appeal can be made to the Clerk of Student Court by 3:00 PM, Wednesday February 11.
It was alleged that a Facebook message was sent to members of a group online “KNO TO THE KNOLL” by the group’s administrator endorsing certain candidates, including Alex Monegro and Johannes Rebane. The complaint alleges that the two candidates worked as an apparent slate for mutual advantage because the group’s administrator, used the group to mutually advantage multiple candidates. The complainant mentions that the Elections Administrator stated that VFM candidates and AMS clubs were allowed to endorse candidates, but that a Facebook group does not constitute either of these entities.
Individuals and independent groups are allowed to endorse candidates without that constituting a slate. The elections committee feels that a group should be not be disallowed from endorsing candidates simply because they did not pay the VFM entry fee or because they are not an AMS club.
The Ubyssey paper is not an AMS Club, nor a VFM contestant and they have endorsed candidates. Furthermore, there are instances of other Facebook groups endorsing candidates; such as, the “Bring Back Arts County Fair” group.
Considering this information and the section of code pertaining to the allegation, the Elections Committee dismisses this complaint.
Note from Gerald: I didn’t want to retype and re-lay-out the aforementioned PDFs, so I just put them up for download. Here are the original complaints, and the Elections Committee response.
The following message has been sent out to all VFMs. There’s also a list of complains and the EA’s response to them that came in another email- I’m trying to figure out a way of uploading them all. Hopefully they will be up soon.
This statement is being released to all VFM contestants on Monday, February 9, 2009 in response to the Elections Committee ruling on Friday, February 6.
The disqualification was ruled in response to two complaints of elections irregularities involving Presidential Blake running as part of a slate. The coordinated and mutual campaigning is the primary point of the committee’s ruling. The video evidence indicates that they were coordinating campaigning times and locations together; members of the Elections Committee were provided with photo evidence suggesting that the alleged slate planned poster placement together.
In response to questions regarding why Mr. Frederick was not questioned: The Elections Committee is not a court, and does not hold hearings. Instead, it has the power to issue rulings on complaints. The appeals committee exists for this reason.
Many students have questioned why the EC did not rule to re-do the race. According to the AMS Code of Procedures Section IX A, Article 3 (7), “If serious offences have been committed by more than one candidate in an election, the Elections Committee may declare the results of that election invalid”. As stated in the initial statement, the committee felt these allegations were in reference to the actions of only one candidate in that particular race, and thus does not have grounds to entertain a by-election.
The Elections Committee does not consider these offenses minor, and has proceeded with full knowledge of the gravity of the situation. While we feel that this situation is regrettable, it would be inappropriate for the body responsible for enforcing the rules to ignore violations for expediency’s sake. The appeals process exists for controversial decisions such as this, and we respect that there will likely be a higher body involved in the final decision on this matter.
For the second time in the past year, it seems like, candidates and winners of the AMS elections will once again be going to student court. My thoughts on this is that the process, and candidates’ inability to accept defeat, hurts not only the candidates, but the AMS itself, which doesn’t seem to be able to get its act together and spends time trying to create drama instead of getting on with business as usual. What this recent development means is that instead of trying to get on with transitions, Blake is going to have to fight this matter in court, and then wait for the approval of AMS council. If he wins, he’s still wasted time, and if he loses, Alex now has to catch up on all the stuff he missed while the matter was being investigated. The result? Less gets done, student representation goes on the backburner, the AMS and election candidates come off looking petty, the AMS looks like it’s more concerned with drama than governance, the EA doesn’t seem trustworthy, candidates seem unable to handle losing, and in the end, students’ interests are set aside. Lots of politicking, little action- have we learned nothing from Canadian politics?
And how do students see it? Well, first of all, it seems like candidates are more interested in their self-interests than the interests of students. Rather than accept defeat and help the new elected official, they refuse to accept election results. Yes, in some ways it’s important. But with something like this- a slate? really? a secret one that no one knew about? after complaining when people talked about a Sauder slate, which is about just as plausible? – it just seems petty. Most students don’t care for AMS drama. In fact, most students avoid student politics for this reason exactly. This doesn’t help the image people have of the AMS in the least, nor does it encourage people to get involved in the student body.
There’s also this notion that the number of people who vote for a candidate is actually indicative of who it is that students want. I would venture so far to say as that’s not actually the truth. I think it’s fairly obvious that a lot of people win on sheer popularity, or because they can get to students first. Lots of students will simply vote for you if you ask them to. I don’t think there’s really much to be said for ‘the will of the majority’, when I don’t think that all that many students actually research candidates. I know some people who voted for candidates simply based on name, or because they thought that joke candidates were funny. So while a 42 vote win might not say much, Alex beating Blake by up to 50 votes wouldn’t say anything either. I feel that what the current system does is give the best campaigner and most popular candidate the win- sometimes it just so happens that the best candidate is also the most popular, or has the best campaign team. Not meaning to knock the candidates here- lots of them would do a good job. I just don’t think the electoral system elects people on the basis of merit, so complaining about it as if it does, I feel, is silly. I think it’s fairly obvious, also, that faculties often unite behind a candidate- I have a feeling that Science did last year behind Duncan, as Commerce probably did this year behind the Sauder candidates. So again, not really much merit to who gets elected, so much as faculty pride and popularity. This means that students interested in student politics are left feeling like the system isn’t working the way it’s intended to. Say what you will about Condorcet voting, but popularity still plays into it.
And then there’s the notion of slates and the EA. Most students didn’t know the candidates, didn’t go to the debates, didn’t see classroom announcements- what makes you think that a ‘slate’ would then affect them, especially when it’s a super-secret-hush-hush-slate? Most students don’t know even know what slates are, and couldn’t care less. Most see it as a petty matter, again. If this slate is supposed to be “evident to a reasonable person”, and this reasonable person just happens to be the person who is the greatest competition to the winner of the election, I’d also think twice about whether it’s an actual slate. It’s possible that Alex was just reporting on something he saw as being odd, but I would think that the EA would at least contact Blake to ask for an explanation before disqualifying him. If anything, this makes students wonder about the objectivity of the EA, and further highlights the weaknesses of the system.
Lastly, the evidence, which I’d love to see, and which came from a candidate who is apparently friends with Alex Monegro, and who would also have to work with Blake if this whole thing doesn’t pan out- I feel like this could be problematic for the executive’s ability to work as a team this/next year.
In any case, I feel like there are several possibilities for what this evidence might contain.
1.) Blake was part of a slate and didn’t tell anyone about it. I don’t think there’s a problem here for obvious reasons- no one knew about it, so it hardly benefited voters.
2.) Blake was part of a slate and told people about it, and told people that he was running as part of a group of candidates. Firstly, we’re talking about a candidate who knows the rules, who ran a clean campaign, and who probably wouldn’t want to jeopardize his chances of losing. Why he’d do so in front of his opponents or other candidates sort of puzzles me. But if he did, yes, that’s problematic, and then the EA has grounds for disqualification.
3.) Blake was not a part of a slate, but talked to other candidates about their platforms and similarities with his own plans. Unless there’s a rule that says that candidates can’t have similar platforms, or that they can’t talk to each other (including talking about how awesome it would be if friends all got elected and got to work on a team together), I don’t think it’s a problem. Presumably, people who are in the system and know how it works can have similar ways of trying to approach things, especially if they worked together. Unless you make a rule about friends not being able to run together, or people not being allowed to have similar platforms (because it’s impossible to have the same issues be important to several candidates?), or candidates not being able to talk to each other, I feel like it’s a moot point.
4.) Blake was not a part of a slate, but told people that his platform resembled that of other candidates, so if people were voting for x, then they should vote for Blake because he stood for similar things. Again, not sure this is a problem. It’s like saying “if you like lower tuition, and I like lower tuition, you should vote for me”. Only instead, you’re saying “if you like lower tuition, he likes lower tuition, and you’ve voted for him, then you should naturally vote for me because I also like lower tuition, and it’s only consistent with what you think”. And seeing how many candidates campaigned for lower tuition, this sort of thing wouldn’t be problematic. And again, it’s possible for people to have similar platforms. In fact, a lot of the platforms from this year had parts that were very similar. I don’t see this as a huge problem- it’s certainly not exactly a slate.
I’m also curious to know what the context of this evidence is. Last I checked, there were no rules preventing candidates from associating with one another, or from talking to others. It’s pretty unconstitutional (according to the Canadian Constitution) to bar people from associating with others. Also, apparently “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to the AMS elections?
Also, for the elections committee: perhaps, if candidates are going to be punished for making announcements in the same class together, it should be made clear that this sort of behaviour won’t be tolerated and will be seen as slate behaviour. Giving a go-ahead on this point when asked directly if this sort of thing is allowed then does noth
ing to show that any electoral rules were violated.
In any case, I feel like this really is an issue for the AMS as a whole. Is there going to be an election at some point where none of the races are contested? Where there aren’t any irregularities? People keep talking about representing student interests- I think it’s important to keep in mind that most people don’t even know the name of the people on the AMS exec, so however this works out, the majority of the student body probably won’t care, or even know about it, anyway. As for those student who do care, or who may be interested- this is hardly a way to get them involved. Those of you who talk about greater student involvement- take note.
Spam prevention powered by Akismet