I was hoping to be done with this, as I mentioned in a previous post, since I figured the election was done with. But all of the greats come out of retirement once in a while. But now we have this. I posted the letter in it's entirety as found on the La Rotonde website.
The gist of it? There is an accusation that four candidates acted as a slate. According to Wikipedia: A Slate is a group of candidates that run in multi-seat or multi-position elections on a common platform. The common platform maybe because the candidates are all members of a political party or have the same or similar policies, or simply that they are a group of friends.One of the contentions is that they broke the rules in the SFUO constitution about acting in each others campaigns. If the allegations are accurate, then the implicated parties need to be reprimanded. I do not know if the allegations are accurate though, and I presume the undersigned have adequate proof or they would not have submitted this complaint.
I do not like either of their suggested outcomes though. If the winners broke the rules they do not deserve to hold the position and should be removed (pre-emptively), however, to just hand over the position to the second placed finisher would lack a certain accountability or justice. They get closer on the second request, however, I think that if the winners of these executive positions are disqualified and removed from the position, then we need to have a complete and legitimate by-elections for the vacant positions.
For those of you who do not know my politics, one of the things that I hold in the highest regard is the rule of law and the rules of the game. Meaning that no one is exempt from the law, and that once the rules are in place, they need to be followed until they are changed legally/legitimately. Thus, if these individuals DID break the rules, then they need to atone for their mistakes. If they did not, then these accusations are unfounded and moot. Do I think that this is a move by a bunch of sore losers? It depends. If they have adequate proof of wrongdoing and the violation of our constitution then no, not at all. Otherwise, then maybe yes. We'll just have to wait and see.
17 February 2009
To: Student Arbitration Committee (SAC)
Subject: SFUO Election 2009
We the undersigned wish to exercise our right under section 4.11.1 of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa Constitution - that any member may appeal the results of an election - and therefore challenge the certified results for the following positions:
- Vice President Finance
- Vice President Social
- Vice President Communications
This appeal will be made based on gross irregularities and fraud as committed by several candidates for these executive positions, namely Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, Jean Guillaume and Julie Segin, in contravention of section 4.7 of the SFUO constitution regarding the prohibition of slates.
We file this petition to the Student Arbitration Committee against the Elections Office of the SFUO who certified these results and have an obligation to ensure free and fair elections.
Whereas section 4.7.1 states that:
“No candidate for a position on the executive or the Board of Administration may form a slate with one or more other candidates running for positions on the executive or the Board of Administration. To that effect, no candidate may:
a. spend money together with one or more other candidates; orb. participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates.”
We will demonstrate with considerable force that to the contrary, several candidates engaged in actions that should be considered slates. These actions provided this group of candidates with a substantial advantage and, without a shadow of a doubt, impacted very directly and demonstrably the outcome of the election.
It is unfortunate that this evidence only came to light after the conclusion of the election. Had we been aware of this gross misconduct earlier, complaints could have been filed with the appropriate personnel early and the results of the election not brought into question.
We would ask that after careful consideration of our evidence, the Student Arbitration Committee would take the appropriate action to compensate for this injustice. We request that the candidates implicated be disqualified and that the second place finishers be declared the winners. In lieu of that, we believe that the election should be re-run for the positions of President, Vice President Finance, and Vice President Social without reopening the nomination period expect in the case of Vice President Communications where it should be fully opened. In all of these cases the implicated individuals should be barred from presenting themselves as candidates again.
Pursuant to section 184.108.40.206 we present this notice to the Chief Arbitrator and advise that we will be drawing upon the testimony of individuals approached by the slate and who have an intricate knowledge of the inner workings of the slate’s organization. Further, we will present several pieces physical evidence including emails and Facebook messages originating from members of the slate. These findings will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a slate existed and acted in contravention of the elections rules and the constitution of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa.
For further information, please contact us at your convenience. We look forward to the opportunity of presenting to you our findings.
 Please note, a correction was filed to the Student Arbitration Committee through Mr. Dean Haldenby, President of the SFUO, via email on 18 February 2009 clarifying that in fact this petition was filed against the four individuals - Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, Jean Guillaume and Julie Segin – and that the Elections Office would only be called as a witness.