Originally Posted by jockamo

Wow, I had heard there were strong levels of unfair bias amongst members of the elections committee against certain candidiates, but I expected more from people appointed into such positions.

This is only really goes to shed reason on the huge variation in the time needed to discuss the fines of Joel Leavitt. 13 vs 2 hrs of time required to deliberate. Is it standard procedure that during a fines discussion that is supposed to discuss "campaign violations", of which I imagine can only occur during the campaign period or prior to if it is directly related, a thorough background check on a candidate was required? Ryan had noted this time as the time required to have "discussions with judicial affairs, meetings with the Ombuds office, and calls to security services". Was security services really needed ? And if so, what did they do ? Provide you with video footage of Joel Leavitt taking down other candidates posters ? Seems unlikely, as hard evidence such as that would not have allowed for the EAB to easily overthrow the disqualification. I'd imagine that when candidates are nominated to actually run for president that a deep search into their McMaster Student Lives would be needed, not once it was realised that said candidate might have a really good chance of stopping a worrisome trend amongst students in the MSU, a trend of internal recruitment. So really then CEO Moran, it seems like members of your elections committee was searching desperately for reasons to disqualify a candidate that judgement had already been laid upon.

Jockamo,

You make some pretty bold and incorrect assumptions in this post:

1. First of all, i am not sure what you are saying when you speak of back ground checks for candidates. Any full-time undergrad can run for president, you just need to fill out a nomination package and return it by the set deadline. At no time, whether before or after is any check ever made into a student's background, nor does or would the MSU ever have access to any such information.

2. The elections committee doesn't need to search for anything. The fines meetings are based on complaints received by the elections committee from other candidates, their teams, and students at large. All the EC does, as i outline in my article, is deliberate on these complaints and judge the merit or validity of them. A lengthy deliberation time for any candidate is not indicative of any investigative or "searching" practices, but of trying to sift through what may be a large volume of complaints submitted. Which, as the elections committee had stated following the disqualification, it had to do with the nature and sheer volume of violations resulting from the complaints submitted. If a candidate has more complaints brought against them than anyone else, the EC has nothing to do with that except for trying to fairly wade through it.

3. Going on from the last point, you make the assumption that the EC had contacted Judicial Affairs, ombuds, and security to "investigate." Again, the EC takes on no investigative position during fines meetings. The only reason why these parties may be called is if a complaint received is recognized to be well outside of the scope of the MSU and its election rules, thus, we would defer that matter to them and no longer deliberate on it as a complaint or potential violation. And specifically, security may be called especially in the event of students a large having expressed concerns about their safety.

4. If, according to your theory, Joel was disqualified cause he was ruining the conspiracy trend of "recruitment," as you put it. Then why had Jerimi, an individual who had not had any previous involvement with any aspect of the MSU, get shown to be the winner and the preliminary presidential elect. And to challenge this idea and the irrational claims of it even more, the specific trend you speak of is that of the MSU VP Admin always winning, if this trend were the case, then why did Paul Jones, the MSU VP Admin, place third?

END THE SHAME!

DUGDALE: DEAR LEADER FOR LIFE

Brought to you by the people who are Matt Dugdale

haha... yes and to further add to that last post, if there was a trend, then how would Matt Dugdale, also an individual who had not had any previous MSU involvement, manage to sieze dictorial control of the MSU and this campus

...Matt, may your glorious regime grow flowers for many generations

My Poli Sci professor actually read my article and said that it could be something that he would not be surprised if it actually happened.

The anger felt among students and candidates, combined with the political apathy of the majority of people. Could equal some sort of situation where a inspirational dictator could rise to power...and I call dips!

Now...WHO WANTS VICE-PRESIDENT???

lol very funny piece in the Sil, Matt. Be sure to email it to me.

Hi Elena,

MacInsiders has rules set in place to keep the discussion boards clean and friendly. Criticism is allowed, and you are welcome to state your own personal opinion as many users have done here (stating their concerns with the system, their thoughts on the election, etc).

The difference between the comment you quoted to me and yours is that you singled out a particular individual. The reason for being less tolerant was because I clearly posted in this thread to be aware of the rules prior to your posting.

I am not debating whether what you said was true or not, and I want to point out that it doesn't matter who the person is or what position of power they may be in. If you feel that other posts on MacInsiders are in violation of the terms of use, you can click on the "Report" button on the post and it will be reviewed.

I'm more than happy to hear your side of what happened, answer any questions you may have, or further clarify the rules. Simply click here to send me a message. I look forward to hearing from you.

Is there a code of conduct on the behaviour of current MSU officials during elections of the next year's president?

hey elena

there is policy that msu officials that are part of the EC shouldn't be biased towards a candidate:

14.1 Any member of the Election committee (including ex-officio members) or Appeal Board, who runs for election, actively supports a candidate, or endorses a position in a referendum administered by the Committee, or declares intention thereof, shall be in conflict of interest;

"The difference between the comment you quoted to me and yours is that you singled out a particular individual. The reason for being less tolerant was because I clearly posted in this thread to be aware of the rules prior to your posting."

Thank you for pointing it out, Chad. I will try to abstain from naming names and pointing fingers. I am sure that the public does not want any specifics, so I will further "generalize" my points of view and just insinuate any particular person/people just as SOME members have done on the forum. Sorry, can't tell you who they are .

I would also like to point out that if YOU have any questions, you are also very welcome to message me!

Cheers

Dear Marauderlove,

Would you happen to know what are the consequences if this policy is broken, if any? How is this "conflict of interest" resolved according to the policy?

Thanks a bunch .

Thanks Elena,

We try our best to keep the forums open and welcoming to all different points of view, since that's what I think is the purpose of discussion boards... to let people say their opinions and debate between different things, it's also important for us to refrain from bias and give all sides of the story so people can come to their own conclusions. The purpose of that section of the Code Of Conduct is to remind users to comment on content, not on the contributor or a particular individual. "Personal attacks" in general hurt the MacInsiders community and deter users from wanting to contribute or post here.

Let's keep things constructive

That said, and to add to marauderlove's post, the policy as I see it says if there is a conflict of interest then the individual is to forfeit their place on the committee.

Chad

PM your email address so I can send this

While I don't know the details of the event you mentioned Elena, it sounds to me like the person was outside of their work hours and off-campus. so they were saying their personal opinion, not what people would refer to as their 'professional opinion' ...Are you questioning whether the policies about conflict of interest need to be upheld 24/7 (on and off work) until the presidential election period is over? if the person after work grabbed a megaphone and shouted that they endorse so and so ... then that would be i think a reason for concern. Also, can you hold someone accountable for things they say while being so called 'under the influence'? if a friend was partyin and was drinking I wouldn't hold them to things they say.. would you?

Originally Posted by Matthew

Chad

PM your email address so I can send this

sure Matt will do!

I have gone through my three years at mcmaster having flown under the student government radar. However, I am extremely upset about this article as it goes against many of the bylaws set in place for the MSU elections.

Last year I became involved in Ryan Moran's campaign team. I worked hard going to each class and canvassing commons to help ryan become successful. I even shed a tear when I heard he was named MSU president back in 2007.

This year I chose to support Joel Leavitt despite the advice of Ryan Moran. I had one of the best experiences of my student life working on Joel Leavitt's campaign and have made some great friends. I was extremely hurt by the comments Ryan made as he called me reckless, thoughtless and a threat to mankinds core. Ryan clearly didn't think how his comments would hurt some of his most loyal supporters.

However, Ryan's bias filled comments aren't what angers me the most about this article. Ryan is a voting member of the elections committee (EC.) As a voting member he is bound by bylaw 10 to keep all election proceedings confidential. It is the candidates right to speak about fines if they feel it is appropriate. All meetings or discussions about the election are to be confidential. Ryan completely disregarded his obligations as an EC member becuase of his feelings towards certain individuals. It is unfair to the MSU democratic process that he posted these articles and sent them to students across campus.

I was present at the EAB meeting and I would like to tell readers that it was a very unbiased board who worked through the fines and looked at them from a legal perspective. Ryan said that as a campaign team we found "loopholes" in the rules. This is untrue, we worked within the constitution and bylaws to expose the truth.

I would hope that Ryan, the individual I supported and worked for would apologize and retract his statements about Joel's campaign team as he has offended some of his biggest supporters.