Originally Posted by Chad

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.

Either that, or they just wouldn't join the committee in the first place.

We had a bit of trouble finding somebody to replace the first SRA committee member who quit, since so many people had conflicts of interest (i.e. were on campaign teams or planned to run for re-election)

@elysebanham

While I don't think Ryan said Joel's campaign team was a "threat to mankinds core", he did say that some people on his team were "very reckless, and at times, thoughtless people" who rocked "human dignity, to its core". I'm sure that some of the people on his team did positive things and followed the rules, and I agree that the wording sounds harsh. But he didn't single you out in what he said. Thus, if you followed the election rules and had a good time, then I don't think that statement was directed towards you.

Also his comments about finding "loopholes" was, again, a statement made towards all campaign teams in general, not just Joel's.

I must say though, that the help provided to you by Elyse Banham and Zac Spicer was great for your campaign and its direction, as they helped to address issues, in very appropriate and professional ways and conducted themselves in the same manner.

Ryan complimented you though Elyse.

I agree with what Chad said.

Ryan did not single out any members of any campaign team. He spoke in general terms, in an effort to not slander anyone. Although I understand your frustration Elyse, it seems as though your comments toward Ryan are slightly misdirected.

Thank you Elyse

ryan's comments about myself and zac were added after....

since he said joel's campaign team and the lists of campaign team members are public I have had to deal with students approaching me and asking me what I did. This did affect each of joel's campaign team members and was unfair.

It was a good time... but all of these attacks from Ryan have really tainted the experience.

Once again- i hope for an apology and retraction

Originally Posted by marauderlove

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?

Dear Marauderlove,

YES, I would absolutely hold them to things they say "under the influence", obviously depending on the state of the intoxication. It is not like these "certain individuals" were completely out of it and didn't remember their own name. Yes, people act impulsively under the influence, however the range and the deapth of these arguments targeted towards a certain candidate didn't show impulse. It showed that the opinions were formed prior, the intoxication gave an outlet (it would really help if some of you were there). The problem is not the former, it is more the latter.

I would also like to add that as we have noticed there are no real "office hours" for some of the positions in the student government. I fully realize that some of these individuals put their whole life on hold for their jobs and work hard. I recognize that, I respect that. But really that means that there's no clear line between office hours or not. I am sure that every person who is part of the student goverment has used at least some of their leisure time to promote certain things (on one occasion or another). For example trying to get people to vote, or advertising a certain new service that the student government is providing. I am supposing all those things are acceptable because they are positive. These individuals regard these acts as "doing their job". It is interesting that once something negative is said outside of work hours, it becomes JUST a personal opinion. Sure it is, but look whose opinion it is...somebody who was chosen to lead and inspire! Double standard galore!

People recognize certain individuals by their professional position even outside of their work environment or office hours. You cannot ignore that. And as the professional you have accepted that by taking the professional position to begin with.

Alcohol has never been an excuse for behaviour (a reason sure, but not an excuse). That's why there are zero tolerance rules in certain situations. If you are willing to use "having fun" and being "under the influence" as an excuse for some hurtful and negative things said by by someone who is in ANY leadership role and has a capability to influence someone else (regardless whether during work hours or not), then you are willing to agree that it is acceptable for professionals under stress to be "under the influence" and say whatever they wish publically. This would allow the professionals to seek intoxication as an outlet of whatever it is bothering them. Is that acceptable?

Really what it came down to is that the messages sent out by certain individuals a few weeks ago (in my presence) was along the lines of candidate Leavitt being a giant loser, with no adequete experience for presidency, and all of a sudden few days ago it became "respect for Joel Leavitt". Do you see the simplicity of how someone cannot reconcile something like that, without being at least worried about the true intentions of some of these individuals (let alone what these intentions could have caused consciously, or not)? This sort of behaviour can lead to a few conclusions: either the person(s) sending out the messages are not quite clear on their feelings about a certain candidate, or they are quite clear but do not wish to be honest. I am sure you can see how either of these is troublesome one way or another.

PS. before I have decided to come out with this story, I have requested on a facebook forum (which conveniently got shut down due to a vast amount of the student body being angry for being kept in the dark) for the student goverment to apologize for any unfairness (I am sure there was at least SOME), inconvenience, and dissapointment the PROCESS of elections have caused to not only the candidates but also the student body. I have yet to hear this apology. All I have heard from some of the posts here are excuses, reasons and nothing I have not known yet. Sometimes individuals need to take responsibility for their actions and admit that they are simply wrong. There's no harm in that (unless of course ego is concearned).

Chad, how did I do this time? A bit better? I am trying my best!

Elena, you're right that alcohol cannot be used as an excuse for behaviour in any circumstance.

However, I just want to point out that the PROCESS you asked for an apology for has actually been, as Ryan has pointed out several times, completely according to the Bylaws. Each count must and was followed by an appeals process and if there was an appeal for a recount, the recount was conducted. If any of the candidates chooses to appeal every count (and they have the full right to), then the process will obviously be carried forward and lead to another recount. I don't understand why you expect an apology for a PROCESS that is perpetuated by the choices of the candidates and not the EC, or the MSU at large. You are right that this PROCESS IS inconvenient and disappointing, but why is the student government responsible for that? If organizations/individuals were asked to apologize for every inconvenient process, I'm fairly certain that the Financial Aid office would be apologizing year round (weekends included) for the 'inconvenience' caused by the hectic and lengthy OSAP pickup, for example.

Again, this in no way is meant as a reprimand to the candidates for the constant appeals. After all, it is part of the PROCESS

Finally, this is just me being picky about semantics, but you said the Facebook group was 'conveniently' shut down, making it seem like once again, the MSU had something to do with it. I just want to point out that it was the group's creator who chose to shut down the group because it wasn't fulfilling the purpose that he himself had set out for it. This isn't an opinion, it is actually what he himself stated on his final note to the group. So I don't think it was a matter of 'convenience' as much as gross disregard on the part of the student body who chose to post on the group in a manner that did not meet its purpose.

Dear Summer (I sound like Jay-Z),

I wonder who is responsible for the set-up and passing of the by-laws? I mean we elect a lot of individuals to establish and improve the process every year. As I have seen some evidence and heard some opinions from members who were part of the process a few years ago, the process itself has not been improved. So yes, the government should apologize for inconveniencing people, for not being one step ahead and looking out for what some of their actions (even if according to rules and process) by-laws, etc. might lead to. The process does not come out of no where, it is established by the government, hence it is their responsibility. As a hint, I was not refering just to the constant recounts, but also some questionable movements on behalf of some individuals that lead to some questionable results, and were excused as part of the "process". I wish, I could clarify, but as you know I am not allowed to point fingers or call out names. Isn't it sweet, that anyone can do anything and then excuse it as the "process"?

Finally, you are being picky about the semantics . What I was refering to is that the group was shut down, and I cannot refer to it in my sarcastic little way. I apologize if it led to any other conclusions.

Ciao

P.S. I believe the Financial Aid sends out e-mails with additional days (during the winter holiday break) for you to come pick up your OSAP, due to the inconvenience of waiting. It is also well known that you can pick up your OSAP in February if you want to, at the actual office where there's barely ever line ups. AH, improvements, what would we do without them? No offence to the student government, but I am really glad that our collecting of OSAP is not their responsibility.

Originally Posted by summer

You are right that this PROCESS IS inconvenient and disappointing, but why is the student government responsible for that?

The student government (specifically, the SRA) can change the bylaws, which are what stipulates the process that must be followed.

The problem is that if you have an election in which two candidates (Jerimi and Azim, before Joel's disqualification was overturned) are within a few votes of each other, or an election in which a candidate breaks enough rules to be disqualified, there's really no process that'll get a satisfying result quickly and easily.

Having electronic voting should improve things a bit - there will be no spoiled ballots to worry about, and recounts will be faster and more accurate. Still, there will need to be time for appeals, etc.

Originally Posted by Elena M

Chad, how did I do this time? A bit better? I am trying my best!

Much better Elena. The Facebook group was shut down because people started posting nasty or unconstructive comments and Jerimi saw it as getting out of hand.

Jerimi posted that his "goal was to keep it constructive where all people felt welcomed to speak. I was not trying to have students and MSU employees belittled and if it came across that way, I am very sorry. All I wanted was some student participation in an issue that does effect a good portion of the McMaster population. Unfortunately, it couldn't work out the way that I planned."

As we're all aware now, MacInsider's Code Of Conduct helps to stop this, so we aren't going anywhere any time soon.

P.S. Azim won 4th count.