Month: February 2009

I have just received the following news:

On Tuesday February 3 around midnight the Elections Committee was given a formal appeal supported by video evidence implicating Blake Frederick and two other candidates as exhibiting “slate” behaviour.

As per Section 9, Article 2(11) in the Code of Procedures, it states that:

“Candidates shall not run in slates, real or apparent, or share expenses for campaign materials, excluding minor supplies as defined in 10(e) of this article. A slate shall mean a group of candidates who run for elected office (including but not limited to Executive positions and positions in the Senate and on the Board of Governors) on a similar platform for mutual advantage.”

At the time when the Elections Committee received this allegation, we were already investigating and following up with concerns over false statements Blake provided the committee in regards to allegations towards another candidate.

Furthermore, this morning the Elections Committee received another allegation of slate behaviour.

Recognizing that he campaigned, postered and participated in classroom announcements together with a group of individuals who run a very similar platform, the Elections Committee has ruled that he ran the campaign as part of a slate.

Recalling that slates have been banned by the AMS of UBC due to the advantageous nature of running in a slate, the Elections Committee believes that he was provided an unfair advantage in the elections.

Recognizing that code stipulates “Candidates shall not run in slates, real or apparent..”

The Elections Committee has ruled that we must disqualify Blake Frederick from the Presidential race. We cannot entertain the prospect of re-doing the Elections, as the rules were infringed upon only by one candidate, and thus requiring all candidates to re-run the race would be unfair.

First of all, the email was sent off of Sarina’s personal gmail account rather than the AMS Elections account; the email about cookie-gate was sent from this account as well, however. Secondly, Blake talked to her today, and she mentioned nothing about the matter to him. I find this a little strange, and would think that as the elections administrator, she would let him know of this prior to letting the media know. I spoke briefly with Blake, and he told me that the email was the first that he’d heard of the story.

To be honest, I’m kind of shocked. While there were murmurings of a slate of a different sort, I certainly didn’t hear about anything of an actual slate. I’m also wondering if it actually means anything if people were running a slate that was “secret”, that wasn’t advertised, that no one knew about, etc. Yes, I did see candidates come to certain classes together to advertise the elections and talk about their bids- but these speeches were totally separate from one another, and even if they touched on similar issues (things like the Farm), they were issues that were important to the platforms of several candidates.

What I can tell you now, though, from what I personally saw during the elections:
Tristan Markle and Ale Coates came into my physiology 301 class (503 students) and talked about elections there. I know that they also visited a lot of others classes.

Blake Frederick and Tristan Markle came into my psycholgoy 308 class (about 150 students) and both did a spiel on their platforms. The only overlapping points I heard were on the issue of the UBC Farm. I know this is an issue that’s important to both candidates, so I’m not sure it constitutes a slate.

I’m a little bit skeptical of this news. From my understanding, if slates are effective, they would only be effective if people actually knew about them and if candidates were telling students that they were either a.) running as a slate or b.) telling students who to vote for. From my knowledge, this did not happen during the election. If this decision stands, I feel a student court appeal coming on. And we all know how much fun those are…

I also find it hard to believe that all the VFMs, all the AMS hacks, and all the people interested in student politics managed to not see this ‘slate’ while one student did. I’d be very interested to know what the evidence for the slate is- I’d love to see the tape, for instance. Hopefully details will be released soon.

Additional information (from commentary on the Spectator blog):

Blake Frederick, Tristan Markle, and Ale Coates were passing out flyers at the same time at the bus loop, as were Tim, Crystal, and Johannes.

Sarina gave people permission to do classroom announcements together at the all candidates meeting.

Three of the candidates campaigned to the Greek community on the same night.

The question, I think, is where you draw the line of “slate”. Even if there were 3 candidates who did things together all the time, it could just mean that they’re friends, and not that they’re running some sort of slate. I think it’s more than possible to have people who may have worked together all year, or in close proximity, who may bounce ideas off of each other, or who may decide to go and make announcements together. I don’t think this necessitates a slate. Similarly, if the comments on this videotape were along the lines of “wouldn’t it be awesome if the ___ of us were elected”, it doesn’t say anything about those candidates being in a slate- just that these candidates were friends and may have supported each other in private. A slate, from what I understand, must be a public matter, and must be publicized in order to be effective. Candidates must endorse one another and talk about voting people in as a team or whatnot. Otherwise, I feel like unless there’s more concrete evidence that is released, this entire thing doesn’t really hold water. As I’ve said before, even if comments were made in private about there being a slate, if it didn’t affect election results, and if no one detected it, it doesn’t really make a difference.

Courtesy of the Ubyssey, we have preliminary numbers for the races. These aren’t official and haven’t been ratified, but here they are for your perusal, regardless.

President
Blake v Paul		Paul v Alex		Blake v Alex
Blake	Paul	Paul	Alex	Blake	Alex
2701	1645	1238	2653	2442	2400

President
Alex > Paul – 1415
Blake > Paul – 1056
Blake > Alex – 42

Blake > Alex > Paul

Board of Governors ( First Past the Post)

1. Michael Duncan – 2927
2. Bijan Ahmadian – 2721
3. Blake Frederick – 1586
4. Tristan Markle – 1271
5. Andrew Carne – 1021

VP Finance

1. Tom – 2540
2. Ale – 1903

VP Academic and University Affairs
Jeremy v David		Jeremy v Sonia		Jeremy v Johannes		David v Sonia		David v Johannes		Sonia v Johannes
Jeremy	David	Jeremy	Sonia	Jeremy	Johannes	David	Sonia	David	Johannes	Sonia	Johannes
1600	1480	1624	1971	1365	2637	1434	1782	808	2660	1575	2510

VP Academic/University Affairs
Johannes > David – 1852
Johannes > Jeremy – 1272
Johannes > Sonia – 935
Sonia > David – 348
Sonia > Jeremy – 347
Jeremy > David – 120
Johannes > Sonia > Jeremy > David

VP Administration
Tristan v Crystal		Tristan v Keg		Tristan v Water		Crystal v Keg		Crystal v Water		Keg v Water
Tristan	Crystal	Tristan	Keg	Tristan	Water	Crystal	Keg	Crystal	Water	Keg	Water
1876	2374	2197	1884	2151	1764	2132	1642	2854	915	2023	1022

VP Administration
Crystal > Water – 1939
Keg > Water – 1001
Crystal > Tristan – 498
Crystal > Keg – 490
Tristan > Water – 387
Tristan > Keg – 223
Crystal > Tristan > Keg > Water

VP External
Fire v Tim		Fire v Iggy		Fire v Kings		Tim v Iggy		Tim v Kings		Iggy v Kings
Fire	Tim	Fire	Iggy	Fire	Kings	Tim	Iggy	Tim	Kings	Iggy	Kings
1442	2739	1339	2047	1839	734	2737	1543	3180	955	2062	1278

VP External
Tim > Kingshead – 2225
Tim > Fire – 1279
Tim > Iggy – 1194
Fire > Kingshead – 1105
Iggy > Kingshead – 784
Iggy > Fire – 708

Tim > Iggy > Fire > Kingshead

note from Gerald: I don’t know what’s with the weird table spacing; I’m working to figure it out but in the meantime, sit tight.

If we shadows have offended,
Think but this and all is mended,
That you have but slumber’d here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
If you pardon, we will mend.
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to ‘scape the serpent’s tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call:
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.

I just wanted to thank all our readers and supporters- it wouldn’t have been possible without you, and I’m truly grateful for it. Thanks also to Gerald and Steve and Darren for writing for the blog. With that, I’m off to bed to get over the plague!

Due to a hole in WordPress, this post’s author is misattributed. The follow was written by former Insiders editor Gerald Deo.

1. $1800 UBC Spectator
2. $1500 Radical Beer Tribune
3. $1200 UBC Student Media
4. $1100 UBC Insiders
5. $1000 The Knoll
6. $700 FairVote UBC
7. $400 The Devils Advocate
8. $300 AMS Gossip Guy

a) thank you.
b) this is all Maria. She’s a machine; sick at home in bed and she still manages to scoop me on results… and I was there!

The results are in! Over 6500 people voted in this election, which is apparently the highest turnouts in the past several decades. Yay democracy!

The results:

President
Blake Frederick
-apparently he only won by 46 votes- quite a far cry from last year…

VP Academic
Johannes Rebane

VP Finance
Tom Dvorak

VP External
Tim Chu

VP Administration
Crystal Hon

Board of Governors
Michael Duncan
Bijan Ahmadian

I can’t say there are any real surprises (at least, for me), other than Crystal Hon- I’ve heard good things about her, so congratulations for unseating an incumbent! I feel like this will be a good team for next year- a combination of some fresh blood, experience, and what I feel is a fairly diverse group of students. I’m saddened by Andrew Carne not getting a seat on the BoG, as I feel that he would have made an excellent candidate. But there you have it! Congratulations to next year’s executive, and congratulations also to all those who ran in the election- you’ve contributed something valuable to democracy and to this election. So congrats to all!

Thanks also to the Twitter function on the UBC Spectator page- I wasn’t able to be there for the announcement due to my being quite sick right now, so it was greatly appreciated.

[gerald notes: this is terrifying; I just came in to write this post and here it was.]

The Elections committee has issued the following statement:

On Sunday evening, a campaigning irregularity complaint was submitted to the Elections Committee. The complaint stated that VP Academic candidate Johannes Rebane and friends were in Vanier commons block and going door to door asking students to vote on their laptop, and giving cookies to students. The committee was made aware of this from another candidate, who provided contact information for two apparent witnesses that reported this action to the candidate.

The committee followed up by discussing the allegations with the candidate in question, who denied partaking in such activities, and provided credible accounts of where he was at the times the infraction was alleged to occur. To follow up, the committee contacted the eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses provided their accounts of what occurred at Vanier commons block.
It is the committee’s decision that at this time there is very little evidence supporting the claim that Johannes engaged in such behaviour. As well, there are highly conflicting narratives of what actually occurred, questionable biases, and extremely vague descriptions of the time frames. Specifically, the allegations that they went door to door are unfounded due to the lack of wireless internet access in the residence buildings. In addition, upon contacting a number of different authorities at Vanier, there are no accounts of anyone working witnessing such activities. The residence associations at the residence buildings across campus have been very active in ensuring campaigning follows strict rules within their jurisdiction, and thus the committee trusts that they would have been aware if such actions had taken place.

Signed,
Elections Committee

Looks like the entire thing was a slander campaign. Clap clap. Glad to know that people need to resort to these sorts of tactics to try to win or influence an election. And you ask why students don’t like student politics…

I’ve been a little bit fed up with the most recent scandal, now dubbed “Cookie-gate”, so this is a brief note to thank all the candidates for running- we recognize the work you put into it, and appreciate that you’re willing to face up to the scrutiny that accompanies running for office.

Most of the average students I’ve talked to are impressed by your willingness to put yourself out there. In previous campaigns, and in this one, we have seen people make fun of others, to slander them, to spread false rumours and reports. I’m continually impressed by candidates who are willing to put themselves under the scrutiny of bloggers and others who are willing to critique, sometimes unkindly, the candidates. I’m impressed that people are willing to have others launch personal attacks against them, and who still put themselves out there because they want to make a difference. I personally don’t believe that campaigns should become personal- I feel like it’s enough that candidates have to be educated about issues, put together platforms, defend them, etc.. Attacking people who have decided to try their hand at student politics and potentially improve something on campus only sends the message to other UBC students to not get involved, thus perpetuating the problem of the lack of student involvement in the AMS. We ask ourselves why students don’t care, why they don’t take interest and don’t vote- and perhaps it is because most want to avoid the drama of student politics. So I think it’s really important to recognize the candidates who do come out of nowhere, the candidates who aren’t political hacks and don’t know what they might be facing during an election campaign.

I’ve talked to a lot of students during this election. Many ask me why the campaigns are so mean-spirited, or tell me they don’t want to get involved precisely for this reason. I’ve also talked to some of the candidates, all of whom have been really nice (and yes, this could be just because they’re running, but I’ve heard the same from people who have known them for longer than I have). I think a lot of people don’t realize that things said during this election campaign aren’t just lost forever once the campaign is over. As someone right pointed out, things said in cyberspace tend to stay there, so a falsehood could potentially hurt someone in their career rather than just in an election. So I think that treating all candidates with a bit of respect would serve everyone well- not just the candidates themselves, but students at large, and the AMS. People tend to stay away from things that are unpleasant- I don’t think this is a big revelation. So perhaps making student politics more pleasant would go a long way in encouraging students to get involved with the AMS.

So candidates- thank you. I realize it’s not easy, I appreciate that people are willing to make the effort, and I admire your ability to stand up for yourselves.

The UBC Student Media blog is reporting that there were people going around Place Vanier last night distributing cookies, carrying a laptop, and asking people to vote for a particular candidate for VP Academic. This is the first I’ve heard of the matter, and while plausible, I would like to hear more confirmations of the occurrence. It would seem to be a rather silly thing to do, seeing as it’s in direct violation of campaign rules, meaning that the candidate would have much more to lose than to gain, particularly when that candidate’s chances are pretty good as it is. So what are the possibilities?

1.) This actually happened, and it was intentional. In this case, we could probably expect the EA to not accept the results of the election for this particular race, and to hold another election for the position.

2.) This happened, and someone not involved with the campaign was going around doing this. In the past (and not even in the AMS), candidates have been punished for rules that have been broken by others. I know this is a possibility in SUS, so I would presume that the same can go for the AMS.

3.) This incident didn’t actually occur, or it may be possible that people were simply trying to get others to vote, or whatnot- I’m sure there are lots of reasonable explanations.

4.) The incident didn’t occur and people are attempting to frame a candidate in a bad light. This would be pretty bad form, and would only serve to make students dislike the AMS and further be discouraged from voting.

I’d definitely like to hear from others on the matter. So far the EA hasn’t commented on the incident, although I would presume that it would be under investigation. I would ask some serious questions in general about this campaign rule, however. Candidates aren’t supposed to pressure others into voting for them, but I’d ask what constitutes pressure. Yes, people can always say no, but lots of types of campaigning can constitute “pressure”. It’s not uncommon to see candidates approach people with laptops, for instance, and give them flyers with voting information, and to ask for their support. Candidates will often just go up to people and ask for their vote. They may get their friends to do the same. I’m not sure how convinced I am by the notion that in this situation, people would feel more pressured to vote for a candidate than in some of the other allowed scenarios. I’m not in support of candidates going up to people with laptops and asking for their vote right then and there simply because I see it as bad form and a sort of desperate tactic- I personally wouldn’t feel pressure. But then I’m not most people, so I can see how the argument would apply.

The other question, though, is what happens if the candidate wasn’t involved in planning this and didn’t know about it? It’s perfectly plausible that someone wanted to help them out, and didn’t know the election rules. Candidates can’t be held fully responsible for the actions of their friends/supporters, and even if they say something, you can’t necessarily stop people from doing what they choose. If this was the case, then would it be fair to punish the candidate or to hold another election?

We’ll see how this develops. Please comment if you witnessed the event taking place.

A reminder that online voting on the AMS website closes today at midnight. If you have not yet voted, there will be paper ballot voting on February 4th (Wednesday)- just walk by the SUB! According to the RBT, only just over 8% of the UBC students eligible to vote have done so, so get your friends out there to cast their ballot!

Thank you for reading, we hope to get your support! There hasn’t been much going on that’s worthy of reporting otherwise. I see posters up everywhere. Some of them are creatively stapled to avoid posters of other candidates. Some of them are colourful and stylized, others have interesting crop jobs. Some fail to let voters understand that voting is no longer a tick mark, but is rather a system of choosing your candidate preference. But I can’t really offer more analysis than that at the moment.

Type the rest of your post here.

details are sketchy, but there are multiple reports that five Engineering students were arrested early this morning after their attempt to hang the shell of a VW Beetle off the Second Narrows bridge. More news is available from CTV and The Ubyssey.