SRC Elections Declared Invalid; Process Begins Anew Today
Leung acknowledges missteps as Council moves to re-open nominations.
The upcoming elections for next year’s SRC were declared invalid last night by the current Council, at an emergency meeting held in the Gait.
The Council was acting on the advice of its Chief Returning Officer, Adam Peabody, who cited several constitutional breaches in the nomination process.
The would-be elections’ legitimacy was called into question after President Brad Leung extended the deadline for all nominations, moving it from last Thursday to yesterday.
According to the SRC Constitution, the President does not have the authority to do so; that power lies solely with the CRO.
Furthermore, as stated in an email sent out to all students Monday morning, Leung extended the deadline for all positions.
This, too, is prohibited by the constitution – only posts for which there are no nominees may receive an extension.
Over the weekend, a student passed in a nomination form for president, having been told by Leung that it was acceptable to do so.
The unconstitutionality of this decision was brought to Leung’s attention late Monday night, and it was decided early Tuesday that the student in question would be declared ineligible by the CRO.
This decision kicked off a whirlwind afternoon that included a meeting of the Council’s Board of Directors, as well as some consultation with former president Mark Lawson.
By 5:30 in the evening, a plan had been made for Peabody to call an emergency meeting of the SRC’s Executive Committee for 8:00 last night.
At the meeting, the CRO proposed a motion to declare the election invalid, and to restart the entire nomination process.
His recommendation was moved by Leung and seconded by DFO Vicky Schaefer.
Despite some questions raised about how the invalidated election would reflect on the SRC, the motion was passed nearly unanimously, with only one abstention.
Before the vote was held, several questions were raised, primarily about the new election timeline.
It was agreed that the elections for SECs and SARs would not be held at the same time as the presidential, vice-presidential and senatorial votes, which will coincide with the elections for valedictorian, the Golden Mitre award, and two referenda.
The new election timeline effectively began this morning. Nominations will be accepted until next Wednesday, and candidates may start campaigning as soon as their nomination forms have been verified by the Records Office.
The campaign season will then run from February 18 through March 9, with Speakers Night falling on the 22nd and 23rd of this month.
The first night will feature the candidates for President, the three VPs, and the Senators. The second night will present the nominees for valedictorian, as well as information about the referenda to increase student fees and ban bottled water on campus.
The one vote that remains unchanged is the Bixi bike referendum, which will take place next Wednesday and Thursday.
The general elections will be held on March 10 and 11 (the week following Reading Week), and the vote for SECs and SARs will be March 30 and 31.
Speaking to The Campus after the emergency meeting, Leung, rattled from what he called the most difficult day of his presidency so far, accepted responsibility for the debacle.
“I caused this huge ordeal that I wish hadn’t happened,” he said.
“In my effort to be fair to [the student whose nomination form arrived over the weekend], I didn’t realize that I was being unfair to the other candidates. And I’m truly sorry for that.”
Comments
By SRC Alum on February 11th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“…candidates may start campaigning as soon as their nomination forms have been verified by the Records Office.”
Isn’t that also woefully unconstitutional?
Aren’t candidates supposed to be allowed the same amount of time as everyone else to campaign in the spirit of fairness? What if a student has classes or other commitments that put them a day behind the others in getting their forms verified? Doesn’t seem terribly fair.
By Read the Constitution on February 12th, 2010 at 12:14 am
Not unconstituational.
By Rolling With the Punches on February 12th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
At the emergency meeting, the CRO mentioned that they were operating under the assumptions that no new candidates would present themselves. Also, after candidates’ nominations had been verified, it would be a rolling campaign period. While seemingly unfair, there is nothing in the constitution against rolling campaign periods. All that is required is a minimum campaign period.
Any candidate who doesn’t agree with the re-opening of nominations, clearly isn’t prepared to uphold the constitution in elected office. Running in an unconstitutional election makes a mockery of the electoral process and the office to be upheld.
A near month long campaign period is going to be exhausting for the candidates and the student body. Gear up, Bishop’s, here comes a month of process and politics.
By What's In a Name on February 15th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
“Any candidate who doesn’t agree with the re-opening of nominations, clearly isn’t prepared to uphold the constitution in elected office.”
Those Candidates should fit right in with our current SRC then. Though, upholding a Constitution would presume that one was previously familiar with what it said.