|
|
|
|
|
21 February 2003
uwRyan.com This website is meant to provide value to UW student by delivering information. It shares its name with the column that I write for Imprint. Please provide feedback on what I write as well as give me suggestions of topics to cover. You can send e-mail to me to ryan[at]uwryan[dot]com.
uwstudent.org
Federation of Students 
|
Election garbage lingers
The election is all over now, except for the complaining, that is. There's no shortage of things to complain about either. VP ed and senator at-large Liam McHugh-Russell, who won for VP education as well as senator at-large was unsure whether or not he would be able to hold both positions. He should be allowed to hold the senate seat as long as he is a student. The University of Waterloo Act of 1972 says that, among others, "There shall be a Senate of the University composed as follows... One undergraduate student from each faculty of the University plus two at-large." In the act, which is like the constitution of the university, one need only be an undergraduate student to hold the senate seat. While Senate bylaw five says that only fulltime undergraduates can vote, all references to candidates say undergraduate. It would be a benefit to students to have a fulltime VP ed with a voice and a vote on senate and it is allowed under law and bylaw. McHugh-Russell should then be allowed to hold both positions. Double campaign While McHugh-Russell was running for VP education he was also running a campaign for senator at-large. Where a problem can arise is if campaign expenses are applied to both budgets and the different spending limits. McHugh-Russell told me that he didn't spend anything specifically on his senate campaign and neither did his opponent, Derek Chan. McHugh-Russell did spend close to his limit on his executive campaign, which raises the question of whether or not any of those expenditures can be counted towards a senate campaign. The spending limit for executive is $300 while the limit for senator at-large is $200. Obviously having posters with his name could help him in both races, but does having the name of the position, VP education, on them separate them from his senate campaign? Judging this is more complicated because the rules for the two campaigns are more different since one was amended and the other was not. Clearly the procedures should be enforced or corrected. Voter e-mail After ten days of campaigning and three days of voting, this is the first time students on co-op may have heard of the election because Monday, the third last day of voting, was when the first e-mail came out notifying students that the election was happening. In response to questions about the lateness of the notification Stephen S. Skrzydlo commented on uwstudent.org, "...the rules are still being followed." (uwstudent.org/story/15883) E-mail and comments About a day before the end of the voting period McHugh-Russell sent out an e-mail to his friends and encouraged them to remove his name and forward some quotations of his opponent Aaron Lee-Wudrick. Some people complained saying that this violated the rules that say, "Candidates shall not misrepresent the character or policies of other candidates. . . ." Some people suggested that the e-mail was misrepresentation because McHugh-Russell quoted parts of sentences and framed comments about the safety of Muslims on campus as his views on intolerance and racism. Election committee member Stephen S. Skrzydlo wrote (uwstudent.org/story/15882) that "No misrepresentation jumped out at me..." which may be a violation of election committee requirements to, "Remain impartial and unbiased on election issues or candidates and make no public written and/or oral statements concerning the election except in respect to election procedural matters." His comment made a judgment of the action of the candidate and did not deal with a procedural matter. This comment could prejudice the process that judged complaints about the e-mail. Election committee hearings The elections committee ruled on the complaints and dismissed all claims but two, which resulted in two fines of six dollars total out of a budget of $300. They said, in part, that providing a hyperlink with partial quotes did not constitute taking things out of context as the whole text was available. While I cannot directly judge the decision, otherwise I should be the election committee (if you can judge the judges then you should be the judge), I can see flaws in the process. Complainants have to complete all their arguments before they are heard and there isn't necessarily an opportunity for a respondent to defend himself of for further arguments to be made until the appeal process, which is the final decision-making body. A superior process would be like our judicial system with hearings where cases on each side could be presented and the decision making body could ask questions and better determine points of fact. As it is, the committee could make a counter argument that isn't a covered prewritten complaint to avoid making a difficult decision. Why bother complaining? These are a few of the things I have to say about the election. For those of you who think I complain too much, the purpose of my comments is to provide an impetus to improve. After all, it is your friend and not your enemy that tells you your fly is open or that you have spinach in your teeth, so I must be the Feds' greatest friend. |