I read this article earlier in the week. Is it rly truee MSU & SRA peoples? Did Vishal help her so that the MSU Insider circle continues?

Has anyone else on MacInsiders read this?

http://thesil.ca/blog/featured/elect...nder-scrutiny/
Election results under scrutiny

Thursday, February 11th 2010
By jeff green



Mary Koziol’s election win has been surrounded with questions of foul play, including substantial evidence that would indicate that current MSU President Vishal Tiwari was involved Koziol’s campaign beyond the role of supporter.
“It is correct that the [Elections Committee] received several complaints that Mr. Tiwari played a potential role in Ms. Koziol’s campaign,” commented Chief Returning Officer Jonathan Scheiding.


“For these actions to constitute formal campaign representation, it must be clear that the ‘supporter’ had involved themselves extensively in election-related debates (online for example). In short, any isolated comments are appropriate, but someone who displays an active and vested interest in defending or critiquing a candidate through a protracted debate, would move into the realm of a campaign representative,” Scheiding clarified.
Tiwari defended his position in a response in which he stated, “This isn’t a violation, [be]cause I simply was not on the team.”


Board of Governors member Norman Kearney submitted a complaint to the MSU Elections committee outlining a Koziol campaign meeting on Nov. 25, 2009 in which Tiwari was present. The former MSU speaker suggested that this would be a violation of Election Committee (EC) rules. “Given that full-time employees must request a leave of absence through the Board of Directors (4.E.i), which includes the President, in order to participate in campaigning for a candidate, the President, therefore, cannot provide support for a candidate, publically or privately, without creating a conflict of interest.”
Kearney concluded that, “Mr. Tiwari’s meeting with Mary Koziol and her campaign team was in violation of the election rules (especially 4.E) and distorts the even playing field.”


Scheiding clarified what EC’s stance is regarding the alleged violation. “The EC was not confident that the evidence presented could prove this beyond a reasonable doubt…. We would not assess a violation unless the burden of proof was clear.”


“The complaint offered no witness testimony,” Scheiding continued, “and thus the complaint was thrown out on grounds that it lacked proper evidence.”
In addition to Kearney’s claim, two other sources, who gave evidence under the condition of anonymity, provided accounts where Tiwari told them to vote for Koziol.


Both accounts were before the campaign period has started and one even occurred in the President’s office, with one witness. Both would be a violation of EC rules in their own right, as they would be considered pre-campaigning and campaigning in MSU space.
An appeal of the election results would be considered up to the end of the week following reading week, according to Scheiding.


“If the above allegations could be proven through new evidence, testimony etc. this would not change the election results as Ms. Koziol was charged with very few violations (2) – none of which were considered major infractions. As per our election rules, a candidate could only be disqualified for committing repeated and deliberate violations or for any major violations,” commented Scheiding.
“That being said, if the allegations had been proven, Mr. Tiwari would be forced to take a leave of absence with the retroactive revocation of his wage, residence, keys and cell phone,” added Scheiding. He also added that the enforcement of those conditions would fall on the employer, which would be Tiwari’s fellow board members.


At this Sunday’s past Student Representative Assembly (SRA) meeting, SRA Humanities Matthew Dillon-Leitch wrote a prepared letter outlining his troubles with the current Board, and specifically Tiwari.


“Mr. Tiwari was involved in a campaign at a very intimate level… when the Chief Executive Officer (Tiwari) of this organization takes an intimate role in someone’s political campaign, it undermines not only the democratic process we all hold dear, but the trust our students put in their hands,” he stated.


The speech was cut short by MSU vice president (administration) Andrew Richardson calling it out of order, and saying that “the EC dismissed the complaints against Vishal [Tiwari].”


SRA Science Heather Fisher believed that Richardson’s comments reflected the position of VP administration, and not that of the EC.
Any discussion at the SRA meeting of a possible involvement of Tiwari ceased.


SRA Engineering Matt Wright said that this was, “another prime example of board solidarity. I feel that there is so much that went into a complaint… something as weighty as accusing the Chief Executive Officer of the MSU of being actively involved in a campaign team, and that being thrown out, there must be more to the story. The fact that it was ruled out of order is (one) completely inappropriate and (two) is the exact opposite of transparency… that should have been something that was discussed.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were some interesting comments there, including this one:

Norman Kearney says: February 12, 2010 at 6:33 pm

This article cites fragments of my complaint and renders my remarks out of context. The fact was that Mr. Tiwari was present at a campaign strategy meeting was not emphasized. The fact that I was at that meeting, and so provided eye-witness testimony, was not mentioned. Furthermore, my complaint was that the definition of “campaigning” must be understood boardly as including campaign support, whether overt or covert, because of the above reasoning: full-time employees must request leaves of absence in order to participate in elections, and they submit their requests to the Board of Directors, which includes the President. This is rule 4.E.i. The employees should be entitled to know whether their managers are biased towards certain candidates, and so should the public, because we (via the Elections Committee) entrust those managers (i.e. the Board) with the decision over who can campaign. Why should one campaign team be privileged over another by receiving executive support?


Nevertheless, I want my complaint to be clear: it is with rule 4.E.i and the definition of campaigning (2.D), which I believe must be broadened in order to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Bylaw 10 – Elections allows the Elections Committee to interpret campaigning broadly (7.1 – “campaigning shall be defined as, but not necessarily limited to…” )

Strategic Camapign team meetingg? Well done MSU

I really need to start attending SRA meetings...

As a member of the Elections Committee, I can tell you that after serious discussion and debate, this complaint was thrown out due to a lack of evidence. We were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Tiwari was acting in any larger capacity than President offering advice, and therefore breaking the rules.

This complaint may be appealed if the complainant disagrees with our decision.

Vishal proves he's even a worse president than any one ever knew about. He actually had the nerve to spend his work week time as president where he's paid to handle presidential matters attending Koziol's campaign meeting? This is ridiculous, can this moron be impeached already?

And then the SRA is a joke:
"The speech was cut short by MSU vice president (administration) Andrew Richardson calling it out of order, and saying that “the EC dismissed the complaints against Vishal [Tiwari].”

The SRA should have had at least some discussion about this and not have been shut down by Vishal's equally moronic partner in crime.

Originally Posted by Taunton

As a member of the Elections Committee, I can tell you that after serious discussion and debate, this complaint was thrown out due to a lack of evidence. We were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Tiwari was acting in any larger capacity than President offering advice, and therefore breaking the rules.

This complaint may be appealed if the complainant disagrees with our decision.

So essentially you guys decided to sweep it under the rug because it would be a lot easier on you guys? How exactly can you be so quick to denounce claims like this, are you satisfied knowing Vishal is not doing what he's supposed to be and paid to be doing? It's not like people are making these complaints up, how much proof do you need exactly? Video evidence?

Weren't you supporting and backing Vishal's term as presidency in a lot of threads here at MacInsiders? You voted for him didn't you? That explains a lot actually. Can't we get adults to be on the Election's Committee instead of lowly biased students so we know it's fair?

Hey Souldier,

Rather than attacking an SRA member that was doing his job properly, actually one of the SRA members that I think has been the most engaged and done a lot of work, why don't you put yourself in his shoes? If you think we need some adults on the Elections Committee - why don't we see YOU coming forward?

First off, just because Vishal attended that meeting, doesn't mean he did it during working hours in any form. But even if he did, I think that the current President should be there for any Presidential candidate to meet with - they are one of the few people who really understand the role. However, to avoid above accusations, maybe this should be formally opened up to anyone interested in the role early on.

Secondly, "impeaching" or recall of the President is a very near-impossible task. We need approximately 650 student signatures to instigate a referendum. From there we need 2/3 of a minimum of 15% of students to vote for recall through a referendum. This process clearly taking at least a month and has never been successful (or even initiated - not sure on that one). Then there's another month in electing someone new if somehow that first part is successful. This is not something the SRA can just do because we weren't the ones who elected Vishal, it was the students.

As for proof, this is something that is hard to prove. It's hard to prove that Vishal wouldn't have sat down with another group if they asked. Can we penalize him because Mary was the only one to approach him early on in the development of her campaign? Knowing Vish, I personally believe that he would have sat down with any candidate, but I also was not on the Elections Committee so was not part of the decision. The rules this year distinguished between a "supporter" and a "campaign team member", and only "campaign team members" were forced to take leaves. A supporter was considered someone not actively involved in running a campaign pretty much. Again, this was the Elections Committee who set the rules beforehand and unfortunately they cannot be aware of all of the repercussions of their rules beforehand - kind of like opening up Facebook for the first time last year.

I have to stress again how much I disagree with your attacks on Taunton. Regardless of if someone voted for or supported a candidate does not mean they can't be impartial. Hell, I was on Azim's campaign team back in the day but thought he was doing an awful job as President. Who you voted for means nothing and does not "prove" bias. My question now is - can we get adults on MacInsiders? It would be nice to see people actually searching for facts and asking questions rather than blatant, immature attacks.

Originally Posted by McIntyre

Hey Souldier,

Rather than attacking an SRA member that was doing his job properly, actually one of the SRA members that I think has been the most engaged and done a lot of work, why don't you put yourself in his shoes? If you think we need some adults on the Elections Committee - why don't we see YOU coming forward?

First off, just because Vishal attended that meeting, doesn't mean he did it during working hours in any form. But even if he did, I think that the current President should be there for any Presidential candidate to meet with - they are one of the few people who really understand the role. However, to avoid above accusations, maybe this should be formally opened up to anyone interested in the role early on.

Secondly, "impeaching" or recall of the President is a very near-impossible task. We need approximately 650 student signatures to instigate a referendum. From there we need 2/3 of a minimum of 15% of students to vote for recall through a referendum. This process clearly taking at least a month and has never been successful (or even initiated - not sure on that one). Then there's another month in electing someone new if somehow that first part is successful. This is not something the SRA can just do because we weren't the ones who elected Vishal, it was the students.

As for proof, this is something that is hard to prove. It's hard to prove that Vishal wouldn't have sat down with another group if they asked. Can we penalize him because Mary was the only one to approach him early on in the development of her campaign? Knowing Vish, I personally believe that he would have sat down with any candidate, but I also was not on the Elections Committee so was not part of the decision. The rules this year distinguished between a "supporter" and a "campaign team member", and only "campaign team members" were forced to take leaves. A supporter was considered someone not actively involved in running a campaign pretty much. Again, this was the Elections Committee who set the rules beforehand and unfortunately they cannot be aware of all of the repercussions of their rules beforehand - kind of like opening up Facebook for the first time last year.

I have to stress again how much I disagree with your attacks on Taunton. Regardless of if someone voted for or supported a candidate does not mean they can't be impartial. Hell, I was on Azim's campaign team back in the day but thought he was doing an awful job as President. Who you voted for means nothing and does not "prove" bias. My question now is - can we get adults on MacInsiders? It would be nice to see people actually searching for facts and asking questions rather than blatant, immature attacks.

Oh yay, an SRA member comes to the defense of another SRA member, did you vote for Vishal too? It's funny because most people don't even know what the SRA does, can you give me 5 things the SRA has done this school year when it comes to representing McMaster's students? And please don't just link to the website and say "look here".

It says right there in the article students believed Vishal was campaigning for Mary and telling them to vote for her. I highly doubt that these students would make that up, isn't that sufficient evidence?

When it come to impeachment, all you listed were reasons as to why it's such a hassle to do, AKA you guys are lazy and simply don't care. And don't say it was the students who elected Vishal, it was Vishal's friends, who clearly as shown on macinsiders, have no clue as to what he's done for the school during his term.

It's not just a matter of whether he sat down with Mary and offered her advice, which quite frankly even that he should not have done, but it's the fact that he told students that they should vote for her. That is completely wrong.

And no, you can't be impartial after supporting the candidate, are you insane? If you spend your time supporting the candidate before the election and after he won, even on macinsiders, how could someone like that be considered impartial and be put on the Elections Committee? And how many people like that were on the Elections Committee? It's all a joke.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how Vishal's attendance at Mary Koziol's campaign team meeting constitutes a violation of Election Rules section 4.E.i.

4. CAMPAIGNING
E. Employees and volunteers of the MSU may not campaign, with the following exceptions:
i. Full-time employees must receive a leave of absence through the Board of Directors before the start of the campaign period;
ii. Part-time managers (PTM) must receive a leave of absence through the Executive Board before the start of the campaign period;
iii. Part-time employees may not campaign during their scheduled hours of work;
iv. Volunteers may not campaign during the course of their duties or while attending an event as a representative of the MSU.

So full-time MSU employees need to be on a leave of absense in order to campaign. This raises a question about what constitutes "campaigning."

2. DEFINITIONS
D. Campaigning shall be defined as, but not necessarily limited to:
i. The distribution and display (excluding design) of campaign materials with the intention of promoting a candidate;
ii. Production of media advertisements;
iii. Speaking to classes, residences, student groups, or individuals for the purpose of presenting a platform as/for a candidate.

Has Vishal been accused of doing any of these things? It would be helpful if the complainant(s) could post a copy of their complaint so that we'd be able to have an informed discussion about this.

In any case, I imagine that the complaint will probably go to the Electoral Appeal Board, and they'll resolve it one way or another.

Originally Posted by Souldier

So essentially you guys decided to sweep it under the rug because it would be a lot easier on you guys? How exactly can you be so quick to denounce claims like this, are you satisfied knowing Vishal is not doing what he's supposed to be and paid to be doing? It's not like people are making these complaints up, how much proof do you need exactly? Video evidence?

A complaint such as this could warrant disqualification, which is quite a serious consequence. Allegations such as these need to be substantiated by more than a simply "I saw x", without even extra witnesses signed on to vouch for the complaint.

Weren't you supporting and backing Vishal's term as presidency in a lot of threads here at MacInsiders? You voted for him didn't you? That explains a lot actually. Can't we get adults to be on the Election's Committee instead of lowly biased students so we know it's fair?

Actually, if you paid attention AT ALL. You'd know that I play devil's advocate A LOT here on MacInsiders. Many of my posts don't reflect my true views at all. Who I voted for is not actually important, and no, I did not support his campaign at all. Clearly you know nothing about me or what I support. Nice work.

John said everything else that needs to be said here.

Originally Posted by Souldier

And no, you can't be impartial after supporting the candidate, are you insane? If you spend your time supporting the candidate before the election and after he won, even on macinsiders, how could someone like that be considered impartial and be put on the Elections Committee? And how many people like that were on the Elections Committee? It's all a joke.

Again I never supported Vishal during his campaign for president, and most of the things I have posted on the threads regarding his presidency here were simply to balance the sides of the discussion. Your ad hominem arguments are foolish.

You know, you seem to be someone with strong opinions and views; it would be great to have you involved instead of illegitimizing your arguments by making foolish personal attacks on macinsiders. Feel free to come out to some SRA meetings and perhaps consider running in the general election coming up, I'm sure you'd be a great benefit to the organization.

the election is over, mary won, get over it

I can't read ALL the posts on here and The Sil, but there is one thing that caught my eye (from The Sil comments). Mary said Vishal was at a strategic meeting for her campaign to "answer some questions". Why would he have gone to that meeting to do it? Why didn't she talk to him in his office or at some other time? That seems kind of fishy..?

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I can't read ALL the posts on here and The Sil, but there is one thing that caught my eye (from The Sil comments). Mary said Vishal was at a strategic meeting for her campaign to "answer some questions". Why would he have gone to that meeting to do it? Why didn't she talk to him in his office or at some other time? That seems kind of fishy..?

This is nothing but speculation. Why is it fishy? Because you're looking for fault? There's no rule that says the President can't talk at a campaign meeting. In fact, any campaign team could have had the President talk to them, but that's up to them to arrange it.

Originally Posted by Taunton

This is nothing but speculation. Why is it fishy? Because you're looking for fault? There's no rule that says the President can't talk at a campaign meeting. In fact, any campaign team could have had the President talk to them, but that's up to them to arrange it.

I'm not "looking for fault". That's kind of an odd thing to say?

I think it seems fishy because, why would he go to that specific meeting? Why wouldn't he have waited until a better time, like not during a strategic campaign meeting? It just seems weird to me. I obviously don't know the whole story and I'm not accusing him of anything, I just dont know why he would have chose that time to talk to her.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I'm not "looking for fault". That's kind of an odd thing to say?

Because that's what is going on here. Unfortunately, even though the situation was dealt with already by the Elections Committee, the President is being treated as if he guilty of a crime, and people here seem to be, as I said, looking for fault.

Perhaps Vishal was invited to that meeting, not knowing it was "strategic"? It shouldn't really matter either way, as I say AGAIN there is no rule against the President attending campaign meetings. Speculation is unnecessary and not helpful.