Most students should have already received their ballot in the mail asking them whether or not they wish to help fund the construction of a new stadium, athletic complex and residence on the current site of Varsity Stadium.
With allegations of conflict of interest on the Referendum Conduct Committee (RCC) officially dismissed, the matter is in students’ hands and the clock on the referendum is now ticking. All parties believe students will decide the outcome with their ballots.
The committee—which is responsible for monitoring the “Yes” and “No” groups to ensure they follow campaigning rules—attracted attention in early March when the “No” campaign alleged an “apprehension of bias” on the part of two members of the RCC. The committee members, vice-provost of students Ian Orchard and associate principal of student affairs (Scarborough) Vinitha Gengatharan, were accused of having an interest in the results of the upcoming referendum. That charge was dismissed several days later, but the third member of the committee, Selwyn Pieters, renewed the controversy with a motion of his own, again stating that the Referendum Conduct Committee had “failed to dispose of [the complaint] in accordance with the protocol” of the committee.
Despite these charges, there will be no changes to the committee or the referendum. The job of the committee has been done “with all good conduct and fairness,” says Orchard. “This is a procedural committee, not a judicial one.”
The committee’s legal advice, which came from the University of Toronto’s lawyers, was that Pieters’ accusation was not valid. Based on that consideration, Orchard said, there is no need to make any changes to the process of the referendum.
Elan Ohayon, a coordinator of the “No” campaign, has a different opinion of the situation.
“It’s a setup,” he says. “First they defined the project, then they call for the [levy] increases, then they set the question, then they decide the rules, they get to adjudicate…the same individuals are there from the beginning to the end,” he said. “The game is obviously fixed.”
Emily Sadowski, president of the Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students, doesn’t think it’s quite that sinister. “They [the administration] are not trying to circumvent the procedures, but they are supporting it [the Varsity Centre plan] with all the resources they can.”
“I think the ruling stands on its own merit,” Joan Griffin from the Faculty of Physical Education, and a member of the “Yes” committee, told the Varsity at the time of the ruling.
“[The ‘No’ side] has the resources that are available to them. They have staff people as well,” said Griffin.
Selwyn Pieters declined to comment on the situation, instead redirecting all inquiries to the chair of the RCC, Ian Orchard.
A possible next step for the student groups supporting the “No” campaign would be to take the matter before court, but at the moment that seems unlikely. Ohayon says the battle in the “court of student opinion” is much more important at this point.
Ian Orchard seems to feel similarly, saying, “I look forward to a free and democratic election.”
Check out our website at www.thevarsity.ca for more information.
