Harassment, intimidation, and race-baiting are among the complaints brought to the chief returning officer in the UTSU elections, Dave Blocker. Exec candidates are nearly tied for demerit points, with 56 for Change U of T and 55 for Stronger Together, as of Wednesday, March 17. Two board of directors candidates for Change, Jasmine Attfield and Michael Luczak, each have 15 demerit points.
Stronger Together was assigned demerit points for intimidation and aggressive questioning by Anisha Thomas, an ESSU exec, and other supporters; supporters campaigning in unauthorized areas; and improper posting of campaign materials.
The Change slate was given demerits for two candidates intentionally misrepresenting facts. They were also penalized for showing up to a meeting on Friday, March 12 that the CRO deemed to be a Stronger Together campaign strategizing meeting; for registering a complaint about contents of the email invitation that was forwarded to them; and for a video of the meeting taken by Antonin Mongeau, a vocal UTSU critic and EFUT (the French club) alumni chair.
Blocker wrote in two rulings that he was holding the Change slate responsible for Mongeau’s actions, deeming Mongeau a Change supporter. Steve Masse, the presidential candidate for Change, was docked 25 points for going to the meeting Friday. He has a total of 28 demerit points; candidates with 35 points are disqualified.
As of press time, members of the Stronger Together slate and campaign have not responded to phone calls and emails from The Varsity.

Non-U of T campaigners
Toby Whitfield, Ryerson Students’ Union VP finance and services and president-elect, is campaigning for Stronger Together for the second year in a row. In March 2009, Whitfield told the Eyeopener, a Ryerson student newspaper, that he was campaigning because he was friends with the incumbent slate. Darshika Selvasivam, VP campaigns and advocacy at the York Federation of Students, has also been spotted campaigning for Stronger Together. Change campaigners are all U of T students, according to Masse.
Student union leaders from campuses that belong to the Canadian Federation of Students, an umbrella lobby group, have campaigned at each other’s campus elections. In 2008, Maclean’s reported that YFS president Hamid Osman had left Toronto during the York University strike to participate in a CFS-Ontario campaign to have U of O students join the federation. Also in 2008, York University student newspaper The Excalibur reported that Osman and two other YFS execs were seen campaigning in RSU elections for the Renew slate. In 2009, the CFS-Québec deputy chair-elect, Noah Stewart-Ornstein, was shown in a video tearing down seven campaign posters during elections at Concordia University.
Mongeau has accused Whitfield of tearing down EFUT posters. Mongeau has posted a video that shows EFUT posters in the trash and Whitfield walking away from the bulletin board outside Sidney Smith with a poster in his hand, but the grainy video does not clearly show Whitfield tearing down posters. Whitfield has not responded to queries from The Varsity.
Mongeau has a rocky relationship with UTSU. He was voted off the UTSU Clubs Committee in January 2009. Two months later, Mongeau was reprimanded by the CRO at the time, Lydia Treadwell, for hosting a debate while campaigning for the Change slate, though Mongeau disputed the ruling. Mongeau has graduated from U of T.

Toby Whitfield, the VP finance for the Ryerson Students' Union, campaigns for the Stronger Together slate at Sidney Smith.
The March 12 meeting
On Friday, March 12, Isabel Lay, president of the Equity Studies Students’ Union, sent out a mass email invitation for an emergency meeting to be held later that day. The email begins, “This is an urgent appeal for you to attend an emergency organizing meeting to protect the University of Toronto Students’ Union […] It has become very clear to me after the UTSU electoral debates that our students’ union is in trouble.”
ESSU has officially endorsed Stronger Together.
Lay wrote that Change supporters have been the loudest voices against universal access to education this year, that Change supporters were in favour of Towards 2030, and that one of the Change candidates was “responsible for creating a space for hateful and threatening comments to be directed to the president of the Black Students’ Association.” A spokesperson for ESSU declined to comment further on the email.
The email was forwarded to Change slate members and The Varsity. Masse and Attfield attended, as did Varsity reporters Alex Ross, Andrew Rusk, and Liz Kagedan.
Mongeau filmed the encounter and put the video on YouTube. It shows some Stronger Together supporters asking not to be filmed and others talking to Masse and Attfield, who left after they were told that it was a private meeting. Mongeau refused to stop filming. When Stronger Together supporters decided to call campus police, he provided the phone number.
Both slates filed complaints. Change accused the email as “false, baseless and slanderous allegations against members of the Change team.” Blocker, the CRO, wrote in his ruling that Lay’s email was “a call-out to Stronger Together supporters for a campaign strategy meeting and therefore it is not considered campaign material.” Blocker called the complaint frivolous and handed out a demerit point to each Change candidate.
Blocker gave 25 demerit points to Masse and 15 to Attfield for “violations of harassment, general sabotage of the campaigns of other candidates and failure to comply with the spirit and purpose of the elections.” He ruled that Mongeau fell under non-arms length third party campaigning and that Masse “clearly aided and abetted” in Mongeau’s activities. “It is particularly disconcerting that, after the Change team campaign manager had confirmation from the CRO to not post photos of Stronger Together campaigners that Mr. Mongeau subsequently began releasing youtube videos of a similar vein,” Blocker wrote. “Additionally, the Change U of T team has made no efforts to publicly disassociate themselves from Mr. Mongeau.”
Blocker also instructed the Change team “to have the videos posted immediately removed and for Mr. Mongeau and any other Change supporters to immediately cease interfering in the campaigning of other candidates by videotaping or other forms of intimidation.”
Mongeau is the subject of two other complaints by a Stronger Together supporter who is unnamed. She said she and others felt intimidated and threatened when followed and filmed by Mongeau, whom she said also emailed her and questioned her role in the campaign. Blocker ruled that “if Change candidates do not immediately remove Mr. Mongeau’s videos from the Internet and publicly disassociate with Mr. Mongeau’s tactics of intimidation and harassment, severe penalties will be issued.”
In an email to Blocker and Jim Delaney, director of the office of the vice-provost of student, Mongeau said he was an independent journalist and not affiliated with the Change campaign. He said he refused a request from Simon Miles, a Change campaigner, asking him to remove the videos. “I have never campaigned for the Change slate. I have never been to any meetings of the Change slate. The Change slate is not in any position to ask me anything, let alone infringe on my livelihood,” Mongeau wrote. He requested a meeting with Blocker, which “will be videotaped and may be distributed on the Internet.”
ESSU and Alyssa James
Stronger Together candidate Danielle Sandhu was given five demerit points for the actions of Anisha Thomas, an ESSU exec, and other campaigners. Blocker wrote that “the confrontation between Ms. Thomas, other supporters of Stronger Together, and Ms. James violated generally accepted community standards through intimidating and aggressive questioning of Ms. James.”
Blocker dismissed other complaints of libel and slander against James, and wrote that it was not possible to determine whether harassment through body language occurred.
Money misrepresentation
Change slate candidates Jimmy Lu and James Finlay were each given demerit points for misrepresentation. Lu was docked for saying UTSU execs make $45,000 per year, Finlay for saying Stronger Together's presidential candidate wanted to take money owed to UTM and spend on the downtown campus. Both were initially given 10 demerit points and appealed. Lu’s demerits were reassessed and lowered to six points, while Finlay's were upheld.

Darshika Selvasivam (right), VP campaigns and advocacy at the York Federation of Students, campaigns for Stronger Together at Gerstein Library.
The Facebook appeal to Desis
Blocker turned down a complaint by the Change slate, alleging that the Stronger Together campaign has turning the election into a “polarizing race-based issue.”
The Varsity has been forwarded Facebook messages from two Stronger Together supporters who urged support based on race. On March 13, Shozab Raza wrote a general message on Facebook appealing to “desi people of colour.”
“I feel it is contradictory for us, as desis, to support CHANGE,” he wrote, and said Change slate members and supporters “condemned us for taking a stance on such issues as Palestinian Human Rights.” Raza told The Varsity that he was volunteering for the Stronger Together campaign and that it was a private message. “I’m involved in OPIRG Toronto and I’m an ally campaigning for [Stronger Together],” he said. OPIRG has endorsed Stronger Together.
In an email to The Varsity, Raza said he and two others saw UC Lit president Daniel Tsekhman tearing down Israeli Apartheid Week posters in 2009. Tskehman told The Varsity that he did not tear down posters. “When the posters were put up, they were covering UC Lit event posters, so I simply moved them on the board to not cover our events,” he wrote in an email.
Raza also cited a letter to The Varsity by Gabe De Roche that condemned Israeli Apartheid Week on behalf of the U of T Liberals, noting that Change candidate Mike Maher and Change supporter Alex Heuton are execs of the group. “I argue that these attacks against IAW by certain individuals constitutes as a condemnation of Palestinian human rights,” wrote Raza.
Another Stronger Together supporter, Sumaya Ahmed, wrote in a Facebook message, “i think its kinda weird how all but one member is either white, or half whie […] they're all very privlidged kids, who have probably never wondered if they could be able to pay school or books or foods.”
Blocker ruled that the messages were not intimidating or harassing, and that “the allegation that this private facebook message constitutes unsolicited campaigning is dismissed as no votes were solicited.” Raza’s message solicited volunteering for the Stronger Together slate but simply asked, “PLEASE VOTE.” Ahmed wrote, “dont for change [sic] let me tell you why over coffee.”
Shonith Rajendran and Alex Ross contributed reporting and research to this article.
A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that Antonin Mongeau requested a meeting with Dave Blocker and Jim Delaney. In fact, Mongeau requested a meeting with Blocker and cc'd Delaney on the email. The Varsity regrets the error.
A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that Gabe De Roche's letter condemning Israeli Apartheid Week was not written on behalf of the U of T Liberals. The Varsity regrets the error.
This article has been updated to reflect Shozab Raza's affiliation with OPIRG Toronto and Daniel Tsekhman's response.









Presidential candidates Adam Awad for Stronger Together and Steve Masse for Change U of T.
Toby Whitfield, the VP finance for the Ryerson Students' Union, campaigns for the Stronger Together slate at Sidney Smith. This is Whitfield's second year campaigning for the incumbent at U of T. When approached by The Varsity, Whitfield attempted to avoi

Comments
Fantastic article.
I'm looking forward to the StrongerTogether supporters coming here to refute every allegation against them...
...and failing.
Mar 18, 2010 at 03:54 PM
Great article!
It seems that the CRO was very happy to hand out demerit points to Change, or at least that's the impression that I'm getting from this.
What did ST get all their points from?
Mar 18, 2010 at 03:59 PM
What is the deal with no ST campaigners/candidates being available for comment?
They want to get paid $25,000/year to be on our students' union and they can't spare a minute of their day to speak to the campus newspaper?
What does this say about the dialogue they'll have with students once they're elected?
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:14 PM
@Gray obviously the CRO also handed out demerit points to ST how can you say they were happy to hand demerit points to Change, they have similar numbers.
@obvious, from the article both teams are playing dirty so I don't understand why you are singling out ST.
and why is mongeaou interfering? Just like the RSU president they have no involvement in this. He needs to move on with his life, he seems bitter from the past and will do anything.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:14 PM
While both sides may be playing dirty, I don't even think it's close in terms of how much dirtier ST is playing than Change.
ST's dirty tactics go all the way up to the CRO, other university student unions, and the CFS.
The March 12 meeting was a public event, and Change were punished for attending by the biased CRO.
The entire democratic process in these elections is a sham, and Change is not at fault because they are not the ones currently controlling the election or the UTSU.
SHAAAAAAAAME.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:21 PM
We've also seen Krisna Saravanamattu, YFS President-Elect at UTM.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:44 PM
It should be noted that a U of T alumnus and current affiliate of Ryerson's student government was seen campaigning on campus for Stronger Together, presumably because of his relationship to members of that team.
If candidates can't manage their own campaigns without enlisting the help of "friendlies" from outside UofT, then how can we expect them to properly conduct campaigns that actually matter once in office? This goes for both sides, but Stronger Together has been the more tremendous disappointment in this area. Have they no shame?
Mar 18, 2010 at 05:37 PM
That meeting was totally NOT public! That's a pretty hilarious attempt to justify crashing a meeting. The CRO ruling confirms it was only sent to 30 people - this is not a "mass" email as this article states.
@obvious, it seems to me the dirtier tactics are Change's - they are getting Mongeau to do their dirty work and trying to act innocent after they do everything in their power to prevent ST from organizing. Then harassing ST volunteers by following them around. I would have volunteered for ST but I'm not into being harassed.
Also, pretty sure I saw a York student I know campaigning for Change...hmmm.
Mar 18, 2010 at 06:53 PM
"Also, pretty sure I saw a York student I know campaigning for Change...hmmm."
Even if that's true, ONE York student campaigning for Change is hardly a big deal compared to the tens of students from other universities, as well as non-students employed by the CFS, who regularly make their way down to our campus to campaign for incumbents.
Mar 18, 2010 at 06:58 PM
As a mature student not affiliated with either slate's, I have found this election season hilariously juvenile.
There's a lot of finger pointing and crying from both sides.
Grow up kids, who cares if a couple people from a different school campaigns for one slate or another.
Who gives a crap about some guy tearing down a French club poster who may or may not be ST campaigner.
People are throwing accusations at each other acting like their own sh!t don't stink, and boy let me tell ya, EVERYBODY'S sh!t stinks.
Mar 18, 2010 at 07:53 PM
Allow me to point out a few things which might shed light on the appropriation of demerits and whether or not we can call both slates equally "dirty", as this is the most frequent word of choice:
Change demerits: Change has received 25 points in a single CRO ruling, only apportioned to mister Steve Masse, for appearing at the meeting recorded by Antonin Mongeau.
The problem with this ruling is that Steve clearly says in the video that he will leave when he is asked to, and he follows up by asking Antonin to leave with him.
The fact that Antonin stays and does not OBEY Steve means that any accusation that he is related to the Change campaign looks extremely gray and baseless. If he was working for Steve, he should have left. He has since offered a meeting on grounds with the university staff and the CRO because he wants to prove that he is not affiliated with Change and presumably, because he wants uni staff to be present, to prove a point about our CRO, who is clearly being misled by the videos.
The other demerits have been accumulated by things James Finlay and Jasmine Attfield supposedly said, but which, as we know, could very well be unsubstantiated, as no proof that verifies this has surfaced in any CRO ruling.
ST: Stronger Together has received demerits for mispostering. As many have noticed, both campaign slates take a few pictures of each other during the election, and this is a proven violation of the code. That said, not a lot of demerits have been handed out over it.
The remaining demerit points for ST are apportioned by CRO rulings found here on the UTSU website:
http://www.utsu.ca/section/1180
Please share my delight in discovering that the CRO ruling 026 referring to a similar incident in Adam Awad's case only received 5 demerit points when the punishment for Gross Misrepresentation of Facts, under which he was found guilty, is worth at least 20 points in the Election Procedure Code. What a lovely twist of fate, I must misinformed and reading the wrong edition of the EPC even though I downloaded it again only yesterday!
Btw, the EPC can be found at the bottom of the page here:
http://www.utsu.ca/section/1104
Enjoy! Let's play some bingo and see how many points the ST slate should have actually racked up you were the real CRO! RULES: Executives can rack up to 35 points but Board of Director candidates can only rack up 20 points!
Let's do some math! Guess what number I got!
(By the way, I certainly hope that whoever wins this election installs a search-function since the UTSU website is the most user-unfriendly thing on the entire world wide web.)
Mar 18, 2010 at 08:21 PM
Maggie said:
"@obvious, it seems to me the dirtier tactics are Change's - they are getting Mongeau to do their dirty work and trying to act innocent after they do everything in their power to prevent ST from organizing. Then harassing ST volunteers by following them around. I would have volunteered for ST but I'm not into being harassed."
My response:
Antonin Mongeau is NOT (I REPEAT: NOT) affiliated with the Change slate in ANY WAY. HOW MANY TIMES MUST THIS BE REPEATED?
Are you ST supporters capable of grounding your arguments in reality, ever?
Seriously, I'm extremely sick of the idiocy spouted by ST supporters. You guys are either evil, or delusional idiots.
Mar 18, 2010 at 08:59 PM
Wake up Maggie, I think I've got something to say to you.
The meeting was not private. And I'm 100% sure the Change slate are NOT getting Antonin to do anything. Antonin is doing what he's always done, being a rabble-rousing shit-disturber, and Change isn't about that at all. Members of the slate have said time and time again he is not a part of the Change team, but people aren't listening.
Don't be afraid to name names, who did ya see from York?
Mar 18, 2010 at 09:33 PM
I don't think Change should be blamed for the fact that this Anton guy just won't go away. He has even less business than Whitefield on the U of T campus -- at least people have asked Whitefield to get involved in the elections. "Independent journalist"?
Mar 18, 2010 at 11:38 PM
I don't even like Steve Masse, he's too gay for me.
Mar 19, 2010 at 02:12 AM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Can-this-Waffle-get-more-fans-than-Adam-Awad/110069979005994
Mar 19, 2010 at 02:24 AM
Quoting from:
http://thenewspaper.ca/the-news/item/270-masse-publicly-disassociates-from-mongeau-mongeau-refuses-to-take-down-videos
"While Mongeau admits his stance against Stronger Together, he says, “I have never supported Change at U of T. Not this year, not last year. I have never campaigned for Change. I have never been to a meeting for Change. I have never put up a poster for Change. I have never handed out a flyer for Change. Not this year, not last year.”
Quoting from this article:
"He said he refused a request from Simon Miles, a Change campaigner, asking him to remove the videos. “I have never campaigned for the Change slate. I have never been to any meetings of the Change slate. The Change slate is not in any position to ask me anything, let alone infringe on my livelihood.”
So that's two strong denials, in both campus newspapers, and echoed by Masse in both articles. Short of staging a duel in the UC quad, I don't really know what else we can do.
Mar 19, 2010 at 02:25 AM
@waffles what a stupid thing to do, you guys are so desperate. @obvious you are just as bad and bitter its why you need to call ST supporters idiots and evil.
Hey peeps, this isn't Jr.High.
Mar 19, 2010 at 08:51 AM
pancakes,
I am not a candidate, nor am I assisting with the Change campaign in any way.
The fact that actual ST candidates and campaigners act worse than I do should indicate that them winning this election would be a detriment to almost every UofT student.
Mar 19, 2010 at 10:00 AM
@pancakes
Desperation is bringing in executives from YFS, RSU and CESAR to come campaign at our elections. Desperation is engaging in a dirty campaign full of race-baiting, insults and personal attacks. Desperation is outright lying to and manipulating students so that you can park your ass in 12 Hart House Circle and waste our money.
Open your eyes.
Mar 19, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Alas, we see the cronies have found a way to get back in: I wonder what electioneering back door engineering they got away with this time with the help of the CRO to rig the ballot.
Mar 20, 2010 at 09:52 AM
The recent results should be corroborated with third party exit polling and/or an audit of the results.
The CRO and ST slates are too connected, and the amount of data made available right now is too scant for us to trust the results as is.
Plus all objective signs (facebook support, attendance at the debate) suggest a higher degree of support for Change....
We witnessed the Green Revolution in Iran...let's make sure that we don't have a Green Coup on our hands now.
Mar 20, 2010 at 01:22 PM
Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. Wow stop trolling and get a life. Clearly there is no election going on and this article is fake. Duh
Mar 20, 2010 at 01:32 PM
Way to lose gracefully, Anonymous Varsity Trolls.
Mar 20, 2010 at 02:16 PM
On the contrary, comrades, I would love to accept the results when they are officially released, but just as I must accept them, then so too must the UTSU follow up with some obvious improvements of the EPC:
For starters, you have got to stop letting the UTSU pick the CRO. And the CRO should not report to a body composed by the UTSU. It's stupid. It's undemocratic.
Once that changes, I'm sure there will be less drama around these elections.
However, since we pointed this out last year, and the year before that, and the fact that the UTSU never changes this document to make it more democratic, I draw the conclusion once more:
You are fascists.
Mar 20, 2010 at 02:56 PM
Funny how the condom poll put on by SEC had:
Change 55% Strongarm 45%
480 participants... can we vote by condom next year? It seems more legitimate and transparent than anything the CRO does. HA!
Mar 20, 2010 at 03:15 PM
I can only say that I agree with everything the Realist has stated. While I personally question the election results, I accept the outcome.
While I wish the best to the incumbent slate in yet another year in 'power', I can only hope that they open their eyes to the entire campus next year and seek to educate rather then alienate.
Mar 20, 2010 at 03:51 PM
I want to see the vote breakdown to find out what percentage of voters were UTM students.
For some reason, the results of the UTM board of directors positions haven't been released yet.
If the vote total for all candidates in that election division is substantially larger than the vote totals for other colleges, then I'm tempted to advocate that UTMSU become it's own entity (just like SCSU currently is at UTSC).
Mar 20, 2010 at 05:30 PM
Does anyone have evidence beside their hurt feelings that the votes were some how rigged? Facebook and debate turnout are not exactly scientific predictors. Sometimes candidates that come in second or third have a smaller pool of supporters but those supporters are more visible and vociferous. Perhaps that is what happened here.
Historically, candidates have been allowed to send scrutineers to observe vote counting. Is there any suspicion of foul play? If not, lose gracefully and bring your best ideas to the executive that won and help them implement those ideas to improve student life at the University of Toronto.
Mar 20, 2010 at 05:56 PM
This is insane, There were people that joined both fb groups, I don't know how many times people said yes to an event and did not show up. Just because people invited their friends to the group does not mean they all voted. People join random groups all the time when asked.
Mar 20, 2010 at 06:53 PM
Guys,
I was not declaring the results invalid, merely calling for corroboration through some unbiased third party. Considering how incestuous UTSU is (in terms of succession of canidates, appointment of the CRO, appointment of staff), I don't think you can consider any part of the UTSU apparatus to be unbiased.
EKS, you are right about facebook and the debates... but apply the scientific standard to the "official" vote counting, and I don't think you can have any more confidence in that.
Instead of calling people suspicious of the results "sore losers" , Stronger Together supporters should SUPPORT full disclosure and corroboration. As the election in Iran demonstrates, there can be a wide gap between official results and "legitimacy". And UTSU has a lot to gain from having the trust of the folks that elected them.
Mar 20, 2010 at 07:20 PM
A sampling of Facebook statuses:
1)Alice Wu game over. again. about an hour ago · Sandy Hudson and Danielle Sandhu like this. Hadia Akhtar hahahahahahaha ! about an hour ago Sandy Hudson Do not reload. 19 minutes ago Hadia Akhtar haha 16 minutes ago Rà Azad I hope they've run out of 1-up's. 2 minutes ago
2)Daniella Akua Aboagyewaa Kyei hysterical laughter. 9 hours ago · Sandy Hudson, Hadia Akhtar, Adam Awad and 3 others like this.
3)Hadia Akhtar Landslide victory for Stronger Together. Why, thank you ! and congratulations ! 17 hours ago · Hadia Akhtar couldn't have done it without you! thank you for working so hard all year. so hard that some people who don't event believe in the drop fees campaign had to preted to believe in free education to win votes. amazingness ! 17 hours ago
I would also mention that Ms. Akhtar has been very busy posting the phrase "who's campus, our campus!" (SIC) on other individuals status' and walls.
A comparative search of Change slate statuses reveal statuses that either say thanks to all for voting, or don't comment on the process at all.
So Kalin, while the change slate may be upset that they lost after running a clean and positive campaign, they are by no means "sore losers," and are taking the upset on the chin like adults. It's the ST supporters who are being petty and puerile in their commentary. No one likes hypocrisy Kalin, so perhaps you ought to revise your statement.
Mar 20, 2010 at 09:10 PM
Here are some thoughts on possible electoral campaigning reforms. Wanted to gauge your thoughts...do you guys have anything to add or want to dispute?
http://www.blogut.ca/2010/03/20/utsu-election-2010-hindsight-is-2020-retrospective/
Mar 20, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Sorry for the cross post, but I think its valid:
Wow, how quick people are to accuse others of electoral fraud and WITHOUT any proof.
I can understand questions about demerit points assessed, but if anyone noticed not ONE candidate from either ST or Change was disqualified, for which I'm glad as it meant the voters rather then UTSU or the CRO got to decide the election.
Lots of folks seem to have read the CRO rulings but did anyone bother to read the ERC rulings (they make rulings when CRO rulings are appealed)? http://utsu.ca/section/1184 Look at ERC Ruling #3 dated March 18th, the last day of voting (read the whole ruling for the full picture as I'm only posting a few bullet points):
• Mr. Mongeau has been seen interacting with Change supporters during the campaign, including at the rally on the first day of voting.
• Mr. Masse claimed that he had not publicly disassociated from Mr. Mongeau, but had privately done so.
• Mr. Mongeau had shown repeated behaviour attempting to sabotage one particular team in the Spring elections of 2009 and 2010 and that Mr. Masse ought to have known better to immediately disassociate from Mr. Mongeau's tactics.
• The delay in the Change slate's public disassociation had condoned the ongoing behaviour and could have served ongoing damage to the Stronger Together team until the last day of voting.
• The fact that Change slate members later attempted to infiltrate the Stronger Together strategy meeting was intentional sabotage.
So straight from Mr. Masse, he admits to the committee on the last day of voting to not having publicly disassociated from Antonin. Also it appears that Antonin attended Change's biggest, most public event of the campaign.
I spoke to a poll clerk who participated in the vote counting but wouldn't comment on the results (as they'd signed a non-disclosure agreement and wasn't sure if they were allowed to speak about them until after the official results were in). Don't forget what is posted is still 'unofficial'
The poll clerk said that several scrutineers for both slates were present during the vote counting, including Gabe De Roche. That scrutineers had observed the ballot boxes being constructed/sealed in the mornings. That scrutineers from each slate observed the ballot boxes being opened, signed off that the boxes hadn't been tampered with and watched the ballots being sorted. The poll clerk also mentioned that Change scrutineers had escorted the ballot boxes to UofT campus police each night after voting was completed and that two change scrutineers even 'guarded' the locked room where the boxes were stored on the 18th between being delivered to the UTSU office and when the counting began.
The poll clerk said that vote counting took all night Thursday (approx. 9pm-5am) and from around 5pm until 1am Friday night before all the ballots had been counted and that all the boxes had been stored at the UofT campus police office in between. The poll clerk said Scrutineers were keeping their own tallies of the vote totals, so I would imagine if there were different results posted then what their own counts showed that they will be challenged.
The poll clerk also mentioned something that might be worth investigating further. Each poll clerk applicant had to sign a form when they applied indicating that: a) they weren't a candidate and b) they weren't supporting any candidates before they could be hired.
They mentioned overhearing a private conversation that stated that Semra one of the co-authors of the above op-ed had applied for a job as a poll clerk or vote counter and had indicated 'no' to both of the above questions.
If that's true, then she lied on a job application and it would make me wonder about the motivations as she is pretty clearly supporting the change slate. I think it would be fair for the varsity to ask her to clarify whether that's true or not.
In closing, the poll clerk mentioned voter turnout was up and I can't help but personally think that's good for democracy at UofT. So unless something 'weird' happens good job to everyone who participated in the process.
Mar 21, 2010 at 03:34 AM
Required reading for those who doubt the incestuousness of CFS/UTSU.
http://thevarsity.ca/articles/1934
Hey AliceWu do you think you have debased yourself enough to move C+ approval to B+ approval?
BTW when are you gonna graduate?
Mar 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM
@ Conventional Wisdom:
Alice graduated in 2008, actually. Aaaaaand, I'm not sure why she's relevant to what you're arguing.
Are you judging because of Facebook statuses? Good gravy, you can't really judge people/supporters based on their Facebook updates.
Here's another sampling:
"_________ is humbled by the experience of these elections. Congratulations to everyone for a job well done - 7000 voters is an amazing feat and I thank everyone for their participation and support. We ARE Stronger Together and in unity, there is so much more we can win for the student body! Here's to an amazing team and an exciting year ahead!"
"________ Thanks so much to everyone for everything they did. More importantly thanks for believing. The university can get better, starting with you."
There're are some less than savoury statuses on the part of both slates' supporters/candidates. What's your point? Most of them are very positive.
They both had great campaigns. And they both did really well. I hope that the Change candidates will still opt to help improve UTSU...i.e. by joining commissions, etc.
@varsity.commentator:
Very astute and interesting. A comment definitely worth reading.
Mar 21, 2010 at 04:40 PM
Alice Wu is employed by the UTSU...
Mar 21, 2010 at 05:51 PM
Point taken, but I'm not sure why it matters what her Facebook status happens to be? She hasn't been campaigning as far as I'm aware.
This comment didn't make much sense to me:
"http://thevarsity.ca/articles/1934
Hey AliceWu do you think you have debased yourself enough to move C+ approval to B+ approval?
BTW when are you gonna graduate?"
Mar 21, 2010 at 06:05 PM
I think it's better to look past that (apparently random) cheap shot and look at the bigger picture:
The CFS is corrupt.
Mar 21, 2010 at 07:14 PM
"The CFS is corrupt."
What a statement. This is probably the type of rhetoric that resulted in the (unofficial) land-slide loss for "Change".
Instead of being gracious losers, and vowing to continue supporting the UTSU and improving the university, people here are claiming the elections are rigged without proof. Reminds me of the cheap politics practiced back in my homeland; when you win, it's all good, and when you lose, it's a giant conspiracy.
The "Change" slate has tried both avenues, they've tried to be radically different from the "Access" slate (last election), and they've tried copy-pasting "Stronger Together"s campaign in this election, and have failed both times. Hopefully, this will be a lesson, cheap-shots, harassment and political stunting will not win you elections at the UofT.
Mar 22, 2010 at 04:49 AM
Uhhh, the proof of elections collusion between executives of the UTSU, RSU, YFS, and CFS is splashed all over The Varsity and Youtube.
The only people who don't consider this action fraudulent are the "winners" of the election. Literally every other student considers this misleading.
The fact that these 'election aliens' won't even admit to being from other schools, speaks to the deceptive nature of the action.
And there's waaaaaay more in the pipe, so stay tuned.
Mar 22, 2010 at 06:57 AM
"Hopefully, this will be a lesson, cheap-shots, harassment and political stunting will not win you elections at the UofT."
But...that's what StrongerTogether did. o_O
Mar 22, 2010 at 08:14 AM
People? I don't think two anonymous commentators count as people.
Also, I have talked to numerous friends, many of them Change supporters, and they have accepted the election results with incredible degree To characterize the losing slate as "sore losers" is not only misleading it's also insulting. These are all mature,intelligent students with a great deal of experience within U of T political life and I think they have the emotional stability to handle an election loss. I have yet to see the "sore loser" mentality from any of the Change slate. Sure, there's disappointment, but that's it.
A few anonymous trolls should not speak for an entire group of people.
Just thought I would throw my two cents into this rapidly deteriorating discussion.
Mar 22, 2010 at 09:55 AM
I meant to write an incredible degree of graciousness.
I hate the Internet.
Mar 22, 2010 at 09:56 AM
Alex Ross, I don't think anyone is being a troll here.
Mar 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Post a Comment