1995-1996 SSMU Election Results
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Students' Society of McGill University Association etudiante de l'Universite McGill Joya Balfour & Warren Tranquada Co-Chief Returning Officers Students' Society of McGill University October 26, 1995 Guy Brisebois General Manager Students' Society of McGill University Dear Guy: This letter is to inform you of the fmal results of the SSMU fall referendum. Weare pleased to announce that we had the highest ever voter turnout in a SSMU election or referendum-3,678 votes, or 22.0% of eligible McGill voters. The results were as follows: CASA "REAL CHOICES" PLEBISCITE Canadian Alliance of Student Associations: 2,099 Federal Government: 503 Sooiled: 643 TOTAL 3,245 . SSMU HEALTH PLAN Question #1: Question #2 Yes: 2,944 Yes: 2,488 No: 486 No: 916 No opinion: 170 No opinion: 201 Sooiled: 46 Spoiled: 48 TOTAL 3,646 TOTAL 3,653 Question #3 Question #4 Yes: 1,904 Yes: 1,628 No: 1,405 No: 1,421 No opinion: 282 No opinion: 519 Sooiled: 48 Spoiled: 60 TOTAL 3,639 TOTAL 3,628 MCGILL DAILY Yes: 1,745 No: 1,607 No opinion: 266 Spoiled: 54 TOTAL 3,672 3480 rue McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A lX9 Tel: (5141398·6800 Fax: (5141398·7490 Concerning our passing of the SSMU Health Plan Question #4 and the McGill Daily question, whose results are binding, we, the CROs, referred to the SSMU Constitution, Section III, article 10.2, which reads that ... referenda shall be passed by simple majority; and SSMU Electoral and Referenda By-Laws article 13.2, which states: If the vote is to be manually tabulated, a ballot is to be rejected if: - there is no clear indication of preference for ... a single referendum question; and fmally SSMU Constitution, Section III, article 11.2, which reads: A decision by the CRO concerning the interpretation of the articles in this Constitution and By-laws elections and regarding referenda shall be considered binding, subject only to the appeal to the Judicial Board. We interpret "no opinion" as being "no clear indication of preference for...a single referendum question," that is, not expressing Yes or No. In addition to this, "no opinion" is judged by us to be, in fact, an abstention, which, like in SSMU Council votes, House of Corrunons voting procedures, United Nations voting procedures, etc. does not count towards the calculation of a majority. Thus, according to the preceding decision, the SSMU Health Plan Question #4 passes with a majority of 53.4%, and the McGill Daily question passes with 52.1 %. In making this decision, we, the CROs, acknowledge that the SSMU Constitution and By-Laws are unclear as to how one should interpret "no opinion"s. We had to interpret the results based on what we were given. In light of this, we feel a precedent should be set in order that we may clearly and without dissent decide on similar voting results in the future. Therefore, should an appeal to the Judicial Board be made regarding our decision, we would certainly respect the outcome. Sincerely, t;J;o.,-f3a1fw1 Co-Chief Returning Officer cc. Helena Myers, President SSMU Jen Harding, VP Internal SSMU Nick Benedict, VP External SSMU Lisa Grushcow, VP University Affairs SSMU Kelly Remai, VP Finance SSMU Kathy Bowman, Programming SSMU M-J Milloy, Coordinating Editor, McGill Daily Ian Hay, Chairman, Corrunittee for Student Accountability Ian Hay Chairman, Committee for Student Accountability (514) 282-1565 October 22, 1995 Warren Tranquada and Joya Balfour Co-Chief Returning Officers Students' Society of McGill University BY HAND Dear Warren and Joya: I am disturbed by the inaction of the Chief Returning Officers concerning several matters that have arisen of late with respect to the upcoming referenda question regarding the student accountability of the Daily, in relation to the undergraduate students of McGill University. On Friday, October 20 (the last school day before the voting period), individuals disseminated illegal information (please see attached examples) all around campus, propogating the "no" side of the Daily question. I would consider this literature to constitute as campaign literature, for it advocates one side of the issue over the other. The information itself was illegal, and the manner in which it was disseminated was also illegal. The material was illegal in that there was not an official "no" committee formed in accordance with SSMU By Law 1 article 5.1, the only way by which the dissemination of such material can take place. The methods employed in disseminating this information were also illegal, in that several of the Committee for Student Accountability's posters were removed, defaced with stickers (please see attached example), and intentionally covered by other posters of the "no: side. Furthermore, this illegal information was also placed outdoors (a violation of SSMU By Law 1 article 7.4). Your inaction in not confiscating and/or prohibiting these materials constitutes a violation of your duties under the SSMU Constitution article 11.1 and SSMU By Law 1 article 7.9. Over the course of a conversation between myself Warren and I on Friday afternoon, I was alerted to the fact that you are considering the possibility of allowing this illegal campaign material to be disseminated through literature and classroom speeches during the voting days of Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday (a violation of SSMU By Law 1 article 7.10). Your consideration of this possibility at the time was based on the fact that the Daily is an autonomous organization, and not part of an official SSMU "Yes" or "No" committee, and therefore not accountable to or bound by the SSMU Constitution or By Laws. Although the Judicial Board had ruled only one day earlier that in fact the proposed referenda question is constitutional and therefore will appear on the referendum ballot, since it is perfectly legitimate. Considering that the Judicial Board ruled this question to be a valid SSMU referendum question, it would mean that SSMU By-Laws would govern the way by which the referendum would be conducted (i.e. voting, polls and campaigning). However, it now seems that the proper manner by which SSMU referenda are supposed to be governed is in jeopardy of not being adhered to. This is utterly ridiculous! Should you allow this to happen you would be destroying every conceivable rule of natural justice. The reason SSMU has regulations concerning "yes" and "no" commitees, campaigning and spending limits is so that those members of the SSMU who are economically privileged, will not have an obvious advantage in a democratic referendum. Should you allow a "free-for-all" Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday..:..you would be throwing this important prinCiple right out the window. For you are effectively allowing the Daily (who has spending power above and beyond any individual member of the Students' Society), to spend exorbitant amounts of money, and do whatever they want, during the voting period I You would be setting a precedent, whereby in the future, nothing could stop for instance, a candidate's parent from spending $30,000 to hire 20 full time staff to stand at 20 key locations on campus for the duration of the campaign period, and hand out flyers urging students to vote for his/her child. The parent is not a candidate or part of a SSMU "Yes" or "No" committee, so why should they not be allowed to do so? You would basically be allowing those who have money, to have an advantage over those who do not, thus directly violating Article 2.3 of the SSMU constitution. Perhaps you may want to consider refering this matter to Elections Canada, the organization responsible for governing elections for the federal government. The Chief Returning Officers in 1993-94 refered to this source for assistance when a controversy arose during the SSMU general elections period in March 1994, and found that the information they received was both helpful and relevant. Should you use this source, I am confident that you will be informed that spending limits are empioyed in all forms of democratic decision-making, including elections and referenda, in order to ensure the principle that one candidate or group can not have an obvious and unfair advantage over the other, for this is one of the fundamental prinCiples of democratic participation in modern society. In fact, the governments of Both Canada and the United States had passed such legislation in during the 19th Century. Should this happen, the "no" committee would be penalized for collecting 100 signatures and properly registering a committee in accordance with SSMU policies. We would be penalized for following the rules. If you allow the Daily to disseminate information Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, nothing could stop our committee from doing so either, as long as we did not use the name of the Committee for Student Accountability. However, I wish to inform you that we will not stoop to this level. Just because everyone around us, including those who are supposed to enforce the rules, abandon them, does not mean that it is acceptable for us to do so as well. In addition, I do not have the personal financial resources to compete with over $140,000 of extorted student money. It is your duty (under SSMU By Law 1 article 7.9) to confiscate any material disseminated on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday concerning the referendum, and to disallow speeches in classrooms on those days. If you feel that this is an unsurmountable task for the two of you to accomplish on your own, in addition to surveying the entire voting process, the Vice President Finance and Operations has assured me that a legitimate expense would be to employ students to go around and confiscate material on behalf of the C.R.O.