The SCSU Goes To Hell In A Handbasket.

I am finally getting around to writing this, after much thought and discussion. Friday night was the SCSU Board of Directors meeting with the Report from the Elections Committee on it. Unfortunately the PDF of the report is not up yet, so you'll have to take me at my word on what it contains until I can link to it.

First, here's the short version: After a four hour meeting, for the second time the SCSU Board of Directors has NOT ratified the recommendations of the Elections Committee.

Now, here's the long version.

SCSU By-laws and Policies state that the Board of Directors is to ratify (or fail to ratify) the results of an election based on whether or not the Elections Committee (EC) and by extension, the Elections Appeals Committee (EAC), have followed SCSU's policies and by-laws - specifically, By-law #2 and Policy 3-060. If the EC is deemed to have violated these in any way, the Board should vote against their recommendations. If the EC has followed the procedures, the Board should vote for their recommendations. The Board is NOT allowed to hear appeals to decisions of the EC or EAC. Simple as that.

Jule Benedict, the CRO, gave the EC report to the Board on Friday night. The report showed that, among other things, Presidential candidate Alexandru Rascanu was disqualified. Alexandru is the current SCSU VP Operations, and also ran jointly with Saswati Deb for U of T Governing Council this year (word on the street is that they won). As a result of the disqualification, the EC recommended that Rob Wulkan, current VP Academics and last year's VP External, be made President. The other recommendations were Jemy Joseph (current Vice-Chair) for VP Academics, Chris Smith (current Social Sciences Director) for VP External, and Ahmad Jaballah for VP Students & Equity.

Throughout the campaign there had been allegations of illegal, negative, and false campaigning against Alexandru. In the end he was awarded 9 strikes officially (though I've heard of evidence for more), with one being rescinded after appeal to the EC, and three being rescinded after appeal to the EAC. That's still five strikes and you need three to be disqualified. I won't even get into any of the other issues surrounding Alexandru's performance as VP Operations. Even so, it was clear that there was a definite pro-Alex side in the room, who, in an extremely disappointing display, grasped at straws and argued about ridiculous points in the policy in order to make sure that Rob didn't become President. For the life of me I can't understand why. After the recommendations have been presented, there is NO WAY OF CHANGING THEM, and no opportunity for further appeals. Not ratifying the results is NOT going to make Alexandru President, indeed, it screws over the entire organisation because it means there will be no Executives for 07-08 (along with several other implications, notwithstanding certain circumstances, both of which I'll explain later). But first, some people's behaviour at the Board meeting disgusted me to no end, and here's why.

1) Vlad Glebov and Shaila Kibria were both present at the meeting. Vlad and Shaila are NOT U of T Scarborough students. Vlad is, I believe, VP UTM for SAC (now UTSC), and Shaila has been active with EPUS (although when I last checked she was working at Ryerson). Both are, as far as I know, pro-CFS, as is Alexandru, and they were both on Team Alex. Vlad in particular was quite vocal and I'm disappointed that Susie, the Chair, didn't shut him up. I'm disgusted that these people not from Scarborough campus think they have a right to interfere with our elections. Close to the end of the meeting I interjected with a Point of Personal Privilege that I was offended that outsiders were having so much say in our elections, and Rob followed up with a Point of Order that Vlad should be asked to leave the room. Unfortunately this was not pursued.

2) Most of the objections from Team Alex centred around a decision by the EC to count ballots marked with a checkmark, rather than an X, as spoiled. The EC felt that they should be rejected because the voters did not follow instructions, which said to mark with an X. This does sound kind of silly, I admit, however, Policy 3-060 Section 16.02 states that "The CRO has final interpretation of this Elections Policy. The CRO or Elections Committee may make rulings on issues not covered within the SCSU Operations Manual." There are provisions as to what MUST be considered spoiled, such as identifying markers, but the EC is well within their rights to add to that list. During counting, when the first ballot marked with a checkmark came up, the EC consulted with the scrutineers present as to whether or not they agreed to count checkmarks as spoiled. The report states that there were "some concerns" but in the end those present agreed with the decision. People arguing on this point noted that 142 ballots, approximately 15% of them, were spoiled, most of them in this manner, and that the EC had disenfranchised 15% of voters. However, I argued (as did Chris Smith) that being so vehemently opposed to this decision after the fact when provided with an opportunity to object at the time of counting is ridiculous, and that really, by not stopping this decision from going through, the candidates objecting to it (Alexandru and Daniel Greanya, VP Academics candidate, in particular) were complicit in allowing the ballots to be rejected. As well, it was noted that speculation on who was being voted for on those ballots would be inappropriate as it could bias decisions. However silly the decision, the EC still did not break any rules by making it.

3) So many people did not seem to understand that THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CANNOT HEAR APPEALS TO THE DECISIONS OF THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE OR THE ELECTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE. VP Academics candidate Sajjad Jafri filed an appeal to the checkmark decision to the EC, who denied it, and went to file one with the EAC, but did not do so properly. Allan Tota, Physical & Environmental Sciences Director and Chair of the EAC (which consisted of him, Nick Cheng, the Academic Dean of U of T Scarborough, and Claudette D'Souza, ex-officio via Students for Literacy), stated that Sajjad had e-mailed him about filing this appeal, Allan had sent him an e-mail with the procedures, and then never heard from him again. Sajjad argued that he did not have the $30 deposit required to make an appeal. Really? Well too bad, so sad. Policy states that the deposit must be presented prior to review of the appeal in order for it to be valid. If that doesn't happen, it doesn't go through. The people on Team Alex didn't seem to understand that if the EAC had entertained Sajjad's appeal they would have been in violation of policy. Hell, they should have wished for them to entertain the appeal because then they would have a real argument for throwing out the elections, instead of grasping at straws (or checkmarks, in this case). Addendum: Sajjad would like to clarify some things regarding his appeal. You can see what he has to say in the comments. Apologies for the speculation, that part of the meeting was a bit confusing, but it stands to say that people were still trying to appeal at the Board level, something that cannot be done.

4) Two votes were held on the recommendations. During the first one, two things to note: Management Director Sean Kanjilal and First Year Representative Shazwan Khan both abstained, and Life Sciences Director Maathavan Thillai was not present (he was in an exam). I was sitting directly across the table from Sean and Shazwan, and I and the people sitting directly behind them and behind me (including a reporter from the Underground) saw them vote this way. However, Susie, the Chair, did not see Sean's hand and didn't count him. Personally, I voted Yes. The Yes and No votes tied, and the Chair broke the tie in favour of the recommendations. Maathavan, not being present, obviously did not vote. After the recommendations passed, there was a motion to recess. It was seconded, Susie asked for objections, and none came. Alexandru stood up and shouted Point of Order, and two other people apparently did as well (according to Management Director Madiha Vaid, who would rather loudly make this point later), but everyone had already started leaving. Regardless of any objections, the recess happened anyway. During the recess, Susie was swarmed and Team Alex swooped down on Ruby Lau, First Year Representative, who had voted yes. Why? Because they didn't get the result they wanted, and they were hoping to sway her to call for a Motion to Reconsider, which is an opportunity to vote again on something when a Board member feels the Board made a mistake in voting the way they did. Under Robert's Rules of Order, a Motion to Reconsider can only come from someone on the prevailing side - in this case, Yes. I spoke to Ruby and she said that even before the meeting, they were talking her and trying to sway her vote, and she didn't like it because even though she's quiet at meetings, it doesn't mean she doesn't think. I asked her if she felt she did the right thing in voting Yes, and she said she did, and she stood her ground. I was disgusted that Team Alex (including Vlad and Shaila) would try to manipulate a First Year Rep, but proud of Ruby for sticking to her guns.

During the recess Susie was being asked about holding the vote again, via a Division of the Assembly, which involves all members standing as they cast their vote (I can see clear problems for accessibility in this rule, but that's another rant). When we returned from recess, Susie explained that a Division of the Assembly can only be requested immediately following a vote on a motion. If another motion is even introduced to the table, it cannot be held. Since a motion to recess had been called for, a Divison of the Assembly as not possible. Team Alex argued that there had been objections to the recess and Appealed the Decision of the Chair. I voted in favour of the Chair, however, the majority voted against. Then there was argument over what should come first, the Division of the Assembly or a motion tabled by Marc Kilchling (ex-officio director) to adjourn the meeting, because the request for a Division of the Assembly had actually come during the (objected to) recess and not during the actual meeting. Again, more confusion and arguing.

In the end the Division of the Assembly came first. Prior to this, Maathavan arrived. A Division of the Assembly is technically a re-vote, not a recount, therefore, Maathavan would be entitled to vote in the Division of the Assembly. Not having been present for the vote, the prudent thing would have been to abstain. However, Maathavan had been on the phone with members of Team Alex on his way back from the exam and heard their side of what had been reported. The Division of the Assembly was held. The motion failed. Team Alex applauded as the SCSU died.

I don't remember exactly who voted for what, as I wasn't looking at anyone, but there are people I do remember who I'm either upset, disgusted or disappointed in, and not necessarily because of how they voted.

Shazwan and Sean - they voted No when initially they both Abstained. Sean is actually a friend of Alexandru, and it was argued that he didn't know what he was voting on, but honestly, it's your own damn fault if you're not paying attention and get confused and don't ask questions. Maybe Team Alex got to Shazwan, I don't know. But changing your vote? Honestly now.

Maathavan - Remember how he wasn't in the room at all during the report from the EC? And how he should have abstained? Yeah. Well. He voted No.

Amarjeet Chhabra, Life Sciences Director - Amarjeet supported Rob throughout the entire campaign. I don't know what happened that would make her vote against the recommendations (and by extension, Rob).

Alexandru - For standing to vote when he's an Operational (hired) VP and should know damn well that he does not have a vote. I snapped at him for that. And also, for running such a goddamned dirty campaign. I hope the rest of U of T realises who they just elected to Governing Council. Regardless of what was rescinded, nine strikes is ridiculous. I live with Dawn Cattapan, who was a candidate for VP Students & Equity, and Marc Kilchling, who is ex-officio and actively follows the SCSU and vocally objects to any kind of indiscretions, and almost every day during campaigning I heard about some ridiculous thing Alexandru was doing. He made exclusive claims to accomplishments that he only played a part in (such as obtaining a contract with the TTC for discounted Metropasses for the SCSU, something that had most of the work done the year before he was hired, by then-VP Operations Chris Van Abbema, Rob while he was VP External, and Office Manager Elvie Estrella), raised the ire of Fusion Radio by evading their Presidential letter of committment to Student Centre Broadcasting, campaigned on voting day (not allowed in SCSU elections), and heaven knows what else. This is on top of the things I've been frustrated by just working with him in the past year, which is something for another entry entirely.

After the Division of the Assembly, we heard some notices from the Policy and By-law review committee, I went outside to talk to some people, and while I was out there they tabled all the reports to the next meeting and adjourned. By then it was almost 10 PM and the meeting started a little after 5.

So the big questions now are What Does This Mean? and What Happens Next? Here are some of the answers and options.

In the most basic sense, it means there is no SCSU Executive for 2007-08. Without the elected Executives for next year, the hiring committee for the Operational VPs can't be formed. Another election cannot be held because By-law #2, Section 2.02 states that the election for the President and Advocacy VPs cannot be held later than 15 February, which has long since past.

There are big implications to not ratifying the results, especially when really, the EC did not break policy in any way. This means that the SCSU Board of Directors thinks the EC and EAC can't follow policy and procedure, and therefore should be fired. Due to timelines, this screws up the Director elections royally. Campaigning for Director positions has already started and the voting will be done on 22 March, the last possible day for the election to be held. So essentially, there very well may be NO SCSU NEXT YEAR, only the full-time staff, who are employees of the SCSU and help the SCSU run the Student Centre - who's going to give them direction? Who's going to advocate for students? Who's going to run an election in the Fall to get a Board back in?

And on top of this, because the EC and EAC really didn't break policy, it means that the Board can't follow policy, and when the Board can't follow policy, Student Affairs can step in and essentially take over. I'm not exactly sure what they can, cannot, or will do, but I think they could overturn the decision of the Board if it's decided that they didn't follow their own operational policies.

During the meeting, Vlad Glebov mentioned something about Governing Council reviewing student unions running elections due to corruption and the like, and how what we do at Scarborough affects what happens on the other campuses too. I've heard from other sources that this is bullshit, but he is right that what we do on one campus can have an effect on the other. What kind of impression does that make to not just the students of U of T Scarborough, but to students at Mississauga and St. George, as well as Governing Council, that the SCSU can't follow their own by-laws and policies?

Those are the implications. Now here are our options.

Gillian Reiss, ex-officio director from the Council on Student Services, already plans to notify Tom Nowers, Dean of Student Affairs at U of T Scarborough. I've let her know that I will support her in this action.

As I mentioned earlier, there is always a Motion to Reconsider. This is how the Fall 2006 elections got ratified - someone from the No side brought the motion back. The thing is getting someone to bring the motion back. Rob has told me he intends to work with Lou Michael Tacorda, VP Human Resources, to outline the implications of not ratifying, and informing the Board of them, and hope that it sways someone to bring the motion back.

Aside from these, reporters from the Underground and the Varsity were there, and you can expect coverage of this debacle in both newspapers.

It was a very, very emotional meeting and I'm glad we tabled everything until later. Afterwards, a group of the defeated Yes side headed to the Fossil & Haggis pub up the road to vent and relax, which felt pretty darn good. But Monday? Monday's going to suck.