Constitutional Crisis

With all this "slate" talk, I fear we are moving into an unneeded constitutional crisis.

Again, from the SFUO Constitution:
“No candidate for a position on the executive or the Board of Administration may form a slate with one or more other candidates running for positions on the executive or the Board of Administration. To that effect, no candidate may:
a. spend money together with one or more other candidates; or
b. participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates.”

When our current SFUO President Dean Haldenby doesn't seem to care very much about the letter of the law, and whose opinion of the by-law is quite laissez-faire: “I don’t particularly know. Unfortunately there’s no dialogue as to why [it was put in place],” he said. “As with any part of our organization’s framework, it can always be reviewed, but this specifically hasn’t been reviewed or changed for a long period of time. It’s been in there since I’ve been here at the university.” (The Fulcrum) I would think that if the regulation were in the Constitution for an extended period of time there is no excuse for breaking it.

Some of the evidence is becoming public; you can find it by visiting La Rotonde's website, and a few other student blogs like Tristan Denommee's, so I won't post it here. If it is found to be completely legitimate then there will be no other option but to find the accused guilty of violating the clause in the SFUO Constitution. What there punishment will be I do not know. If all of the evidence against all of the accused is true, then I would call for their immediate disqualification and immediate termination from their current positions (for the individuals who are currently on our payroll). The accusation that Seamus Wolfe orchestrated the "team" to become the greatest executive ever from the beginning is very interesting, and as an individual who prides himself on human rights and campaigns, to himself violate our own constitution is egregious. Again, nothing has been proven yet, but if it is accurate, he needs to apologize to the student body for his behaviour.

So what about the criticism that RPG, Maureen Hasinoff, and Alex Chaput would not have won anyway? Then why was this slate formed? Why would these individuals have cheated if it didn't matter? In either case, if you break the rules, you need to suffer the consequences, whether or not it actually made a difference in the outcome.

In the middle of March the Arbitration Committee is expected to release its verdict. I look forward to what will happen, since it adds a lot more excitement to our political community. Maybe it will entice more people to get involved next year, or even this year in the imminent Student Association Elections.

If the accused are found to be in direct violation of the SFUO Constitution the punishment must be severe; it is not like they 'accidently' acted as a slate, this (according to the accusation) was an intentional act. The accusation is not an affront to democracy or the actions of a group of sore-losers. By ignoring the violation would be an affront to democracy, and I applaud those who are questioning the behaviour of the candidates that are accused.

As a side-note: the accusations are not questioning the results of the vote. No one is saying that Seamus did not receive the amount of votes he did, same with Roxanne, Jean, and Julie. The question is of integrity. And that is what should be investigated. While freedom and accessibility were the keywords of this year’s elections, perhaps we should change that to integrity.

More on this to come.