2015-16 Presidential & Referendum FinesJanuary 28, 2016Page 1
Elections Committee Meeting – Presidential Election & Referendum
January 28, 2016
MSU Boardroom, MUSC 201
Present / Burke, Eom, Ibe, Liu, Oparin, Raza, Shah, SunLate
Absent
Others Present / P. Gupta (CRO), H. Zeng (DRO), V. Scott (Recording Secretary)
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CRO
- The CRO announced that they will be having the presidential fines meeting and once the fines have been ratified they will be looking at the results. The CRO explained that once they have seen the results it will take another 30 minutes to get the information posted before members are able to leave.
- The CRO stated that the past couple of days have been interesting. The CRO explained that the Registrar’s Office gave the Elections Department the wrong list for voting, which included Midwifery students, MoMac and Conestoga Nursing students, and excluded first year Kinesiology students. The CRO stated that she and the DRO went through that list of 1200 students and deleted them from the list.
- The CRO announced that voter turnout was 44.5%, the highest in recent election history.
FORMS AND FINES
a. Constitution Referendum
i.“Yes Side”
1.Circulation of Registration Form and Expense Sheet
- The CRO circulated the forms.
2.Harassment
- The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that members of the Candidate’s team were asked if they saw something that was dropped by the campaign team of another candidate. The Candidate’s team members said that they hadn’t, and while walking away one yelled “and could (candidate’s) team please stop *expletive* harassing students”.
Discussion
- Burke stated that she would fine them as swearing and yelling are not necessary. Liu agreed that they should be fined as it was disrespectful. Liu asked if this was all word of mouth. The CRO responded that this was all of the evidence that she had and told the Committee it was up to them if they felt it was enough. Eom asked if the team was notified of the complaint. The CRO responded that they were informed.
Moved by Ibe, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to the “Yes Side” for harassment of another campaign team in violation of rule 7.9.9 according to section 7.8.1
- Ibe explained that the conversation was held. Liu stood by what she stated earlier.
Vote on Motion
In Favour: 7 Opposed: 1 Abstentions: 0
Motion Passes
3. Late expense sheet
- The CRO stated that the deadline was yesterday at noon.
Moved by Eom, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for handing in their expense sheet late in violation of 6.4 according to section 7.8.2
- Eom stated that this was standard.
Vote on Motion
Passes Unanimously
b. Presidential Election
i. Gill, Mike
1. Circulation of Registration Form and Expense Sheet
- The CRO circulated the forms.
2.Donated Banner
- The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that they found out that the banner of the Candidate was donated by a team member. The CRO explained that the rules are that all materials must be printed at Underground, and that the complainant wanted to make sure it was printed there. The CRO informed the Committee that she did contact the Candidate and was told that it wasn’t donated and that the Candidates was charged for sheets of paper and the banner was put together by a team member. The CRO added that this was on the expense sheet.
Discussion
- Oparin stated that it was expensed and so was the foam backing of the banner. Eom felt that this was a misunderstanding.
Moved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Mike Gill for their banner.
- Eom stated that there was proof that the banner was not donated. Liu felt that the items printed at Underground couldn’t have been used for anything else and must have gone towards constructing the banner.
Vote on Motion
Passes Unanimously
3.Campaigning through Facebook
- The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that on January 26 they were messaged through Facebook chat and encouraged to vote for the Candidate.
Discussion
- Burke felt that they could be misinterpreting the rule for Facebook, and if they started a new chat for the express purpose for campaigning it would be different. Shah stated that if walking in MUSC team members at least ask if the student wanted to be engaged, on Facebook they are just doing it. Oparin stated that students walk through MUSC all the time and are berated by campaign teams and felt that it was equivalent to one message on Facebook. Burke stated that the rule didn’t explicitly say that private messages weren’t allowed. Eom stated that the rule stated chats and private messaging is still a chat. Eom felt that if they vote against this rule it needs to be because the Candidate didn’t violate it, and not because the Committee doesn’t agree with it. Sun explained that he would be voting this down as it part of it deals with the interpretation of the rules; he felt that Facebook messaging isn’t a private space. Burke explained that she felt the purpose of the rule was if there was campaigning in a group chat that was previously established for something else and that private messaging in a new message was different. Liu agreed with Eom and that the rule says no chats. Raza asked if it was mentioned to the candidates during the all-candidates meeting about the Facebook rule being about private messaging. The CRO responded that the candidates didn’t want to talk about the rules at the meeting. The CRO stated that the candidates felt that this rule was ambiguous and wanted a ruling for chats. Sun asked if the CRO told the candidates that this would be okay. The CRO responded that she said it was fine since the Committee didn’t respond within 24 hours and said that the Committee hadn’t come to a decision but it didn’t mean that there was permission to do it. Sun stated that with that context he didn’t think it was fair to fine them.
Moved by Oparin, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Mike Gill for using private messaging through Facebook for campaigning.
- Oparin felt that they had a good discussion. Sun stressed the importance of consistency.
In Favour: 7 Opposed: 1 Abstentions: 0
Motion Passes
4. Use of MSU Logo
- The DRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the Candidate was tagged in a photo of a campaign team member wearing an MSU Spark shirt, which contains the MSU logo, while saying to vote for the Candidate. The CRO explained that she did warn the Candidate of this and they replied that this person wasn’t on their campaign team. The CRO added that she informed the Candidate that it was their responsibility to ask the individual to take the picture down.
Discussion
- Burke asked if it was taken down. The CRO responded not to her knowledge. Eom felt that it wasn’t campaign material and it just encourages voters to show support. Liu stated that it was posted during the campaign and even if it wasn’t intentional they should have known better.
Moved by Sun, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for the use of the MSU logo in campaign material in violation of rule 5.1 according to section 7.8.2
- Burke stated that the rules are there for a reason, and it could have been taken down. Ibe felt that it wasn’t campaign material as it wasn’t released by the team. Oparin wanted to see if the Candidate had untagged himself from the post, and if they had then they can’t be faulted. The Committee checked to see if it was untagged/taken down and it was. Liu stated that the team took the measures.
Vote on Motion
In Favour: 0 Opposed: 8 Abstentions: 0
Motion Fails
5. Social Media – Use of Snapchat
- The DRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the picture attached to the complaint was sent to multiple people as a story on snapchat, and was posted from a member on the team.
Moved by Ibe, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for the use of snapchat during campaigning in violation of rule 4.12 according to section 7.8.2.
- Ibe stated that there was clear evidence of the violation. Eom expressed that snapchat wasn’t allowed.
Vote on Motion
Passes Unanimously
6. Breaking Residence Life Election Rules
- The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that numerous people spotted the Candidate in the lobby of Hedden Hall without a CA or IRC rep present. The complaint expressed that campaign team material was handed out in Mary Keyes and that there were testimonies from witnesses that are attached.Testimony 1: “I found mike gills notes in the door jams. So when someone opens it, they see it. I took it down because it was my door”. Testimony 2: The Residence Manager for Mary-Keyes kicked out someone from Mike Gill’s team who was in Mary-Keyes without permission. Testimony 3: A CA mentioned that there were notes in students’ doorways with some explicitly mentioning to vote for Mike Gill. The CRO stated that there were technically two separate violations, one was being in the lobby of Hedden and the other was going door to door in residence.
Discussion
- Oparin asked if someone is in the lobby do they need to be with a CA. The CRO responded that it was part of the rules set out by Residence Life. Sun asked if it was possible that the Candidate’s escort was in the washroom. The CRO explained that the testimony pointed out that they saw the Candidate in Hedden Hall. Liu asked if they will be treating being unaccompanied in Mary Keyes and Hedden Hall as separate violations. The CRO responded that they will be discussing being in the lobby of Hedden Hall first and the distribution of materials door to door separately. The CRO explained that the team was told about this and said that ignorance wouldn’t be taken into account for this. Oparin asked about the testimonies and wanted to clarify about the RM kicking the Candidate out of Mary Keyes. The CRO stated that the testimony was submitted after the complaints as the CRO told the complainant that the evidence presented wasn’t enough. Raza asked for more clarification. The CRO explained that she received the complaint about Mary Keyes and interpreted it as that the RM kicked the Candidate out because of the distribution. Raza felt that through the testimonies gave enough to show that the team couldn’t claim ignorance of the rules as they were spoken to in residence. The CRO added that the Mary Keyes incident happened on January 20 and Hedden Hall on January 21.
a) Heddon Hall
Moved by Eom, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for being in the lobby of HeddenHall without previous authorization or presence of a CA or IRC rep in violation of rule 4.9 according to section 7.8.2
- Eom stated that the testimonies presented were clear evidence. Burke agreed.
Vote on Motion
Passes Unanimously
- Shah stated that he felt that because of the testimony that the Candidate was also being in Mary Keyes was a separate violation.
b) Mary Keyes
Moved by Liu, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for being in Mary KeyesResidence without previous authorization or presence of a CA or IRC rep in violation of rule 4.9 according to section 7.8.2
- Liu felt that since it was a separate even it should have its own violation. Liu stated that in the testimony showed that the Candidate was told. Sun explained that he wasn’t 100% if they actually had evidence of the Candidate being in Mary Keyes as they don’t know who the ‘him’ is in the testimony given by the RM. Oparin felt that they may be reading too much into the statement given. Shah explained that he felt that this complaint was part of the package even though it wasn’t written on the complaint sheet itself, as it was presented in the testimony. The CRO re-read the complaint to the Committee for clarification. Eom stated that she would be voting against it as the testimony wasn’t enough to show it was the Candidate. Raza felt that the RM does provide enough evidence and that RMs are known to be busy and sometimes fail to provide complete info if it wasn’t part of their original paperwork. Shah stated that even his own RM didn’t know the candidates’ names and they were all being referred to as ‘him’ or ‘her’. Shah felt that the RM could have assumed that the Committee would know who they were talking about. The CRO added that the testimony says that the Candidate was kicked out of a CA meeting, which happens in the games room. The CRO stated that anyone can see the lobby from the games room but at the same time it isn’t clear, and that she didn’t want to put words in the RM’s mouth. Shah felt that the ‘him’ in this case would be the Candidate. Burke stated that the ‘him’ could be the whole team. Oparin stated that they should be treating the team the same and they can’t be in residence. Oparin asked for clarification if a team member lived in residence or was a CA. The CRO responded that would be different since if they lived in residence they wouldn’t be just standing in the lobby. The CRO explained that if campaigning was happening there needs to be a representative, and CAs have their own rules to follow by not campaigning in residence. Shah pointed out that the RM would be aware of who would live in the building and wouldn’t kick out someone who lived there.
Vote on Motion
Passes Unanimously
c) Distribution of Campaign Material in Mary Keyes
Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for distributing campaign material in Mary Keyes Residence in violation of rule 4.20 according to section 7.8.2
- Eom stated that there was evidence provided that flyers were handed door to door. Raza explained that the Candidate can’t say that they weren’t aware of any door to door campaigning but this is still a violation perpetrated by team members.
Vote on Motion
Passes Unanimously
7. Distribution of Campaign Material
- The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that distribution of materials (warm fuzzies) was happening in MUSC when in the rules it stated that this wasn’t permitted. It added that paper airplanes were being made as well in the same colour material of the ‘warm fuzzies’
Discussion
- Oparin stated that this violated the MUSC rules. The CRO added that it also violates the rule of unsolicited materials. Shah asked if there was a witness to the airplanes. The CRO responded that she couldn’t say. Oparin stated that felt that the unsolicited part wasn’t necessarily true as he was asked if he wanted a ‘warm fuzzy’ which was solicited. Burke stated that she had a different experience and was just handed one without being asked.
Movedby Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply two standard violations with a total fine of $30 to Mike Gill for distribution of flyers in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.2
- Eom felt that there was enough evidence to support this.
Amendment
Moved by Sun, seconded by Eom to amend the motion to read: “Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for distribution of paper airplanes in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.2”
- Sun felt that there are different opinions and would like to have two separate motions. Eom felt that they were the exact same thing. Ibe asked if it could be a severe violation as they were vastly distributed throughout the population. Oparin asked what the team said when told of the complaint. The CRO explained that she only received the complaint today and didn’t have a chance to talk to the Candidate. The CRO reminded the Committee that ignorance of the rules was not an excuse and same with having to warn them.
Vote on Amendment