I'd like to hear Vishal and Mary's take on all of this. Either of them could post.... : D in this thread

hey guys, regular old "lowly biased student" from the Elections Committee here. I'm not involved in the SRA or MSU other than this committee, I would have no problem finding mary or vishal guilty for this, if there was any sort of real evidence they broke the rules. but these complaints were so vague and lacking evidence to support them we could not possibly fine them for anything.

there was no conspiracy, just some complaints that are unfounded and unable to be held up in an appeals court.

Wow...Of course people are going to come up with some sort of conspiracy theory story.

Mary Koziol didn't win the elections because Vishal Tiwari was present at her meeting. She won because students voted for her. So unless Mr. Tiwari was campaigning actively for her, this is all just unnecessary. The way I see it, there were no violations of the rules set by the Elections Committee unless in fact, he was actively campaigning for her.

Originally Posted by andrew22

I'd like to hear Vishal and Mary's take on all of this. Either of them could post.... : D in this thread

Here's what Mary said about it in the most recent issue of The Sil:

Q: Former MSU speaker Norman Kearney has said that, on November 25, 2009, he met with your campaign team, which included current MSU president Vishal Tiwari. This would violate section 4.E.i of the election rules. Is this true? Can you comment?

Mary: Absolutely I invited Vishal to that meeting not as a member of my campaign team but as the incumbent president. I invited him for him to answer questions about this role as president. I don’t see that as a problem and I think it’s actually a smart move, I don’t know why other presidential candidates would not take it upon themselves to meet with the president and to have him answer questions.

Q: Did he [meet] with anyone else or was it just with you that he met?

Mary: I was the only one who approached him but I believe that he made attempts to speak with all of the other candidates and he even made himself available to speak with anybody at the all-candidates meeting to answer any questions we might have. My entire approach to this campaign was asking as many people as possible. I realize that I haven’t been in the MSU as long as some of the other candidates so I made sure that I talked to people who had been so that it wasn’t a disadvantage.

edit: meh


what was Matthew Dillon-Leitch's full statement thing? I'm just wondering and curious as to why this clown would force him to stop saying it? Was it kinda just really out of order and silly?

Hey Andrew, just to clear things up, I did finish my speech. Although I was interrupted by Richardson, after he spoke I asked the speaker if I could finish and continued on. I have included the statement as an attachment.

- Matt D-L

I believe that Mary did invite Vishal there to speak as President and give her team advice, and that other teams chose not to do the same even though they could have.

That said I also believe that Vishal was backing Mary for President. No comment on the appropriateness of this.

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.

Ben I mean no disrespect but I got a very contradictory opinion from another EC member while the DRO was present in the room. I only wish I could recall which other SRA members were in the room so I could reconfirm it with them but from what I recall from his statement; I have copy/pasted my comment on the Sil website:

Just for clarification,


According to my talk with the Election’s Committee members who presided over this case; the following is what I recall and inferred. I apologize in advance if any of this is inaccurate.


Their rejection of the complaints had nothing to do whatsoever with whether they were “valid” or not(Direct Quote) as admissible evidence. So in my opinion it is incorrect to dismiss the claims themselves as being unsubstantiated or invalid.


Instead, the reason this complaint was thrown out quickly during Fines meeting was because according to their interpretation(As the third paragraph of this article alludes to) the claims and evidence are slightly beyond the jurisdiction of the elections committee and according to their “rules” they couldn’t ascertain whether the extent of Mr Tiwari’s involvement was an act of “campaigning for Mary” or not or whether it is Mary Koziol they can hold accountable as a candidate because Mr Vishal Tiwari was at a campaign meeting according to a reliable witness statement or allegedly campaigning for her.


A large part of this confusion in my opinion has to do with the narrow(And in the view of some SRA members “flawed”) scope of Elections Rules as well as the change in what constitutes campaign “supporter” this year. In other words even if they by any chance felt as if the claims were “valid” they did not have the authority too hold anyone liable in this case.

Can you please comment on the discrepancy?


Among other analogies the EC member also said that the EC has a very narrow scope and that in most decisions they stand at an "abyss" beyond which they have no jurisdiction.


Also another thing I initially heard from EC sources publicly is that oh we threw it out after 5 minutes and never even discussed it because it was out of our jurisdiction or that there wasn't evidence. Hence I bolded your statement where you said there was serious discussion and debate.

But on the other hand the Sil article says that there were 3 sources(Including Norman) and one or both of the other two said that Mr Tiwari said vote or support so and so :S Is Witness statements not evidence?


The EC minutes were supposed to be out last Wednesday according to our bylaws and policies; though I don't blame our overworked Recording Secretaries at all. An SRA member even requested that the Vishal Tiwari section be released earlier because the SRA members were confused as to what happened after Mr Dillon Leitch had to end his speech halfway through.

I am myself very confused by this whole issue because even basic details like how much time the EC spent on this complaint varies from 5 minutes to 30 minutes :S

Originally Posted by andrew22

what was Matthew Dillon-Leitch's full statement thing? I'm just wondering and curious as to why this clown would force him to stop saying it? Was it kinda just really out of order and silly?

Hey Andrew,

Just to quickly explain: Matthew Dillon-Leitch read his statement, which I must say was very well written and for the most part a very fair appraisal of this year. When he spoke of Vishal, as you can read in the letter, it was speaking as if Vishal had 100% supported Mary. I'm not saying that he was wrong, but since the Elections Committee had cleared him of any wrong-doings, and Mr. Richardson was a member of the Elections Committee, he asked that it be called out of order since he was being publicly accused of something the Elections Committee considered him innocent for. I'm not saying the decision of the EC was correct, but if someone is found innocent of something by the governing board, I do think it is fair that something like that be called out of order.

Other than that, I was very much a fan of Mr. Dillon-Leitch's statement. He is doing a fantastic job of representing his constituents.

oh wow, so Andrew Richardson, the VP and friend of Vishal was part of the Elections Committee? Jesus Christ...

and he called the out of order, thats why a recall would be fun. arise, ye wretched of the university -si

MD-L makes his first heroic speech to free the mcmaster people and is nearly thwarted by Richardson and all the old guard cronies and their resume improvement schemes!

Originally Posted by Taunton

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.

You're being kind of mean. I just said it seemed fishy - I'm allowed to say that. I'm not saying anyone did or didn't do anything. I don't know what happened. I read the article, and that's what I think of it. No need to be rude.

Originally Posted by Souldier

oh wow, so Andrew Richardson, the VP and friend of Vishal was part of the Elections Committee? Jesus Christ...

I agree, it's a problem that our current rules allow a VP to sit on the Elections Committee. I don't even think any SRA members should be able to sit on the Elections Committee, which is why the Services Committee is currently undergoing a review of that committee structure. The problem is, there are 5 seats for SRA members currently, and only 35 SRA members (including VPs and President). 31 of those people are full-time students. Being on the EC requires you to be available for a significant amount of time during campaign period AND then to stay up for the fines meeting/counting ballots for this year over 24 hours. VPs only step forward for the committee if no one else on the SRA is willing to do so. This year there was one extra seat that couldn't be filled by the SRA so Richardson put his name forward. Just trying to give you some context. I'm not saying having VPs is right, but under the current structure (which should be changed by the end of the year), it's inevitable. It's hard to find 5 out of these 31 full-time students that can devote that kind of time.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

I initially heard from EC sources publicly is that oh we threw it out after 5 minutes and never even discussed it because it was out of our jurisdiction or that there wasn't evidence. Hence I bolded your statement where you said there was serious discussion and debate.

Huzaifa, I wasn't paying attention to the time, I was doing my job. Forgive me if I don't know the exact minute and second of the entire meeting. It definitely was more than 5 minutes, as it took at least 5 minutes to pass around the letter written by Mr. Kearney.

My guess is that it took the better part of 30 minutes, and no less than 15 minutes. Yes, there was serious discussion and debate, and for the record, Mr. Richardson left the room for the vote.

Is Witness statements not evidence?

There were a handful of seperate complaints about similar issues (related to the President in some capacity). If I remember correctly, there were four of them; two of them didn't even include witness signatures, and the other two did, but the descriptions for them were quite vague and as has been said none were found to not be in violation of any election rules. It's already difficult enough to fine students based on eyewitness accounts (which are not all that detailed), but include the fact that there were no witnesses signed on to these complaints to verify with and that makes it even more difficult.

Originally Posted by MD-L

Hey Andrew, just to clear things up, I did finish my speech. Although I was interrupted by Richardson, after he spoke I asked the speaker if I could finish and continued on. I have included the statement as an attachment.

- Matt D-L

thanks for the full post ! I was just wondering if you or anyone else here could enlighten me on the part about the " incident at 1280 on December 21st " which was"..very volatile and embarrassing event.." and that Vishal "passed over and attempted to attack a fellow member of the SRA" .

Im just curious about this , Macinsiders is really getting a larger audience watching the MSU