Posts by :

    Feb

    10

    My Reaction

    2 Comments

    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.

    Feb

    10

    More complaints

    Comments Off on More complaints

    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.

    Feb

    9

    Update on disqualification

    4 Comments

    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.

    Feb

    7

    The Recent Disqualification and why it hurts the AMS

    2 Comments

    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.

    Feb

    7

    Breaking: Blake disqualified from Presidential Race

    16 Comments

    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.

    Feb

    6

    Unofficial Results

    6 Comments

    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.

    Feb

    5

    If we shadows have offended…

    6 Comments

    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!

    Feb

    5

    VFM Results:

    4 Comments

    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!

    Feb

    5

    Election Results

    10 Comments

    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.]

    Feb

    4

    Update on voting irregularities

    12 Comments

    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…

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Spam prevention powered by Akismet