Comments on: SRC Elections Declared Invalid; Process Begins Anew Today

By: What's In a Name

What's In a Name — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:37:08 +0000

“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.

By: Rolling With the Punches

Rolling With the Punches — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:05:14 +0000

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: Read the Constitution

Read the Constitution — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:14:37 +0000

Not unconstituational.

By: SRC Alum

SRC Alum — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:26:03 +0000

“…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.