You and I are well aware that in previous years, candidates have made sure their friends on the SRA were on the committee.

Thanks for assuming we're all corrupt.

My guess is that the admin asst. would need some time to sleep after that last meeting and then get started on completing writing up minutes for that 15 hour meeting. Considering how long it takes to usually get minutes, this is pretty good.
It is set for after the appeals procedure because they want to make sure they get all the facts out there correctly at once. If they were posted now and there was an accusation that was not correct about something, you wouldn't want to advertise that until you were absolutely sure that it was true.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

If I were to take what you're saying about the EC being a part of the SRA, I could say the same thing about pretty much all of the services under the MSU. All services report to us at one point in time and many of them have SRA members working with them in one form or another. However, I do not see this as classifying it as being administered by the SRA at all.. it's just not the case.

If the SRA does not administer anything, then what does the SRA do? Why does the student body pay well over $15,000 a year for the SRA?

Just because the Elections Committee exists by virtue of the SRA does not mean there is a problem. Where the problem may lay is the fact that the SRA is the majority on the Elections Committee.

Remember, the CRO and DRO hold no power. All decisions are made by the Elections Committee and SRA. The CRO and DRO exist to enforce the rules, procedures, and policy created by the SRA and the committee.

Instead of playing smoke and mirrors, the SRA should be hiring a professional outside consultant to run the elections office and to offer a plan to reform MSU elections so that students can actually elect a legitimate president this coming Feburary.

No system of student elections is free from influence by the SU's governing body, however, the best ones keep that influence to an minimum. The best processes separate the time between the influence and the effect of that influence such that current student politicians cannot effect their own re-election.

The MSU process puts members of the governing body in charge.

It is this perception of conflict which damages the legitimacy of the MSU elections.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

Thanks for assuming we're all corrupt.

Politicial tactics in the past do not mean corruption today. Any politicial system that puts politicians in charge of elections runs into this problem. One only needs to look at the American electoral system to see that.

Hence why the MSU needs to stop denying its problems and start fixing them.

To clarify, members of the Election Committee cannot be removed from office at the discretion of the CRO. They may only be recalled by the SRA --- a process that requires a 2/3 vote of the SRA at two consecutive SRA meetings.

While the CRO and DRO are hired by the Executive Board (the SRA's executive committee), they differ from most other MSU part-time managers in that they are also ratified by the SRA. As such, the CRO or DRO may only be removed from office by the recall process at the SRA.

Let's remember that voting EC members are volunteers. They are to be commended for the number of hours they devote, often difficult circumstances, to oversee a fair and equitable process for MSU elections and referenda. They act in the interests of a process that functions to protect all the students' interests and for this we owe them our thanks.

It's true that emotions sometimes run high among the participants in the electoral process. Such emotions can be tempered by ensuring that the process is well understood by all concerned from the outset. To that end, it might be helpful to have the MSU election bylaw and supplementary rules posted on the Elections web page.

Lastly, with respect to the increased use of closed session in recent years, I'm all for expediency, but not if there is a perception that the principles of natural justice may be at risk. As we now know, more information about last week's referendum will be released in due course. The challenge for the future, as always, is to find the appropriate balance.

Thanks Joey for your input. I would like to agree with the fact that maybe this is not the best method which we use. I know you were not saying this referendum was not corrupt, but I do want to say that I think this election committee has done a very excellant job on this election.

Something that jsut occurred to me the last couple days is that the Speaker, having consulted the bylaws, Robert's Rules etc., ruled that the SRA could take a stance. The Speaker is paid to be objective and to assume that just because the Speaker is a student and not an external entity is to assume that a) s/he cannot be objective to his/her peers b) s/he is corrupt.

Making assumptions like this are unfair and completely uncalled for as I think the Speaker has done an excellent job this year in making fair decisions based on a lot of research.

The Speakers JOB is to be unbiased so assuming he did his job to the best of his ability, the SRA was completely within their rights to take a stance.

It's easy to put the blanket term of 'corruption' over any political entity since let's face it, the mistakes are glorified more than the successes are. But there are still procedures in place to curb potential corruption. The SRA didn't just give themselves the right to take a stance. The Speaker decided they could. So before people jump to conclusions that the SRA overstepped its boundaries, I think it's important to look into the process that led to where we are now.

summer, I don't think the issue here is whether or not the SRA overstepped its' rights. i think the issue is whether it was right of them to do so, and if the bylaws and rules should be changed to reflect this.

But that's what I jsut tried to explain, the Speaker, who is PAID to be UNBIASED, and who is also PAID to read and make sure that the MSU bylaws are being followed, ruled that it was right to do so... it's not like the SRA insidiously decided to do this. They followed due procedure in asking the Speaker to make a ruling.

He didn't 'sleep on it' and come up with an answer, he looked at the bylaws etc. and decided that they could.

We asked our speaker if it was right of us to do so. He said it was:

RULING OF THE SPEAKER
At the 08H meeting of the Student Representative Assembly (SRA), the Office of the Speaker was asked to rule on MSU involvement in MSU-adjudicated referenda. Over two weeks, the Speaker reviewed the Constitution, Bylaws, and Policies of the McMaster Students Union, and Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (2000); consulted with members of the Student Representative Assembly and the Board of Directors, the Chief and Deputy Returning Officers, full- and part-time staff, the Ombuds Office, associates outside of the McMaster Students Union at McMaster University, and Members of Provincial Parliament for advice and precedent; drafted several rulings and reflected on the implications of each;
and, arrived this morning at a decision:

(1) Nothing in the Constitution, Bylaws, Policies, or Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (2000) prohibits the Student Representative Assembly or Board of Directors from declaring a public stance on an MSU-administered referendum;

(2) The nature of Academic Division Representative is representative and not proxy. As such, ADRs are elected to advocate in the best interests of their constituents and are only bound to the will of the electorate in meetings of the General Assembly and in MSU-administered
referenda; and,

(3) The nature of the Student Representative Assembly does not change during a referendum.

Therefore:

(4) The Student Representative Assembly may, as a body, declare a public stance in an MSU-administered referendum, and its members are entitled to all rights and privileged detailed in Bylaw 10 – Elections; and,

(5) The Board of Directors may, as a body, declare a public stance in an MSU-administered referendum, and its members are entitled to all rights and privileges detailed in Bylaw 10 – Elections.

The Speaker recommends that:

(6) The Bylaws & Procedures Committee report to the Student Representative Assembly by the end of the 2008 session with recommendations on amendments to MSU governing documents as needed to clarify MSU involvement in MSU-administered referenda.




(and the bylaws committee is looking into this.....)

sorry, I didnt explain that well. I know the SRA was allowed, and the Speaker did his job and researched thoroughly.

my problem is whether or not I believe the SRA SHOULD have the right to take a stance on the issue. as of now they do, but some students are now bringing up that maybe the SRA shouldn't, or at least should have guidelines to follow in taking up an official position.

If you have any more questions about this ruling or anything you'd like to discuss with the speaker, please do! He's definitely available for discussion. His office is in MUSC 201.
[email protected] ca

We had quite a lengthy discussion as to whether or not it was right or whether or not we should. As it quickly became quite clear that this referendum, if passed, would in no way benefit students or the MSU as a whole, we all felt inclined to inform our constituents.
No, we were not certain as to whether or not we could campaign as the entire governing body together, which is why we asked our speaker to give his ruling.
If he had ruled that the SRA shouldn't campaign as a united group, we all still would have been out there together just without the SRA label.