Student leaders at SCSU are crying foul over perceived meddling from SAC staffers after the results of the recent election were scrapped at a board meeting last Friday.

At print time, the Scarborough Campus Students’ Union will have no elected executives for the 2007-2008 year. No President, VP academics, VP external, or VP students and equity. The organization got to this point after the board decided not to ratify a report by the Election Committee containing, among other things, the recommendation that candidate Alexandru Rascanu be disqualified. Rascanu is one of U of T’s newly-elected Governing Council Student representatives and is currently SCSU VP operations.

One of four candidates running for SCSU president, Rascanu won the most votes in the recent student election, with a 31-vote lead against opponent and current VP academics Rob Wulkan. In the process, though, he incurred nine strikes for offences such as negative campaigning, illegal club endorsement, and oversized campaign materials.

Despite having successfully appealed four of them, the remaining five strikes were more than enough for a disqualification, which under SCSU policy only requires three.

Upon the board of directors meeting whereby the Elections Committee’s recommendations would be ratified, Rascanu showed up to the meeting with Vlad Glebov, SAC VP UTM and Shaila Kibria, former SAC VP students and equity-both students who would prove vocal in their support of Rascanu and of voting against ratifying the EC reccomendations. Many other students and candidates were also present.

With the subject of the EC report the first topic of discussion regarding new business, it was soon apparent that the room was sharply divided between supporters of Wulkan, who favoured ratifying the EC report, and Rascanu backers who were opposed .

The vote that took place at the meeting, would have, in effect, had the board choose whether to elect Wulkan president, current Vice-Chair Jemy Joseph as VP academics, current social sciences director Chris Smith as VP external, and Ahmad Jaballah as VP students and equity.

Many in Rascanu’s camp argued over various points in the report concerning both the validity of the election and the strikes issued against Rascanu, claiming that they showed unfairness overall.

Several attempts were made by these backers to launch appeals to the EC decisions regarding Rascanu’s offenses.

Various contentions were also aired alleging problems with SCSU elections policy. This took place despite multiple reminders from officials that the vote for ratification was based on whether policy had been followed, not on the merits of the policy itself, and that the board had previously voted unanimously in favour of ratifying the same report many were now furiously debating.

One of the looming topics of debate regarding the validity of the election was Chief Returning Officer Jule Benedict’s rule that only ballots marked with an X would be accepted, with all others deemed spoiled. Despite clear instructions during the voting process and consultation with election officials, many students and candidates at the board of directors meeting argued that because of Benedict’s decision, 142 ballots were unnecessarily deemed spoiled, disenfranchising 15 per cent of voters and providing grounds for an unfair election. Others questioned the assertion that all 142 ballots were spoiled for this reason.

The first vote to ratify the EC report was deadlocked. When the vote came out six for, six against, with one abstention, SCSU Chair Susie Vavrusa broke the tie, voting in favour of the EC’s report and recommendations, allowing it to pass. However, events that took place during a 15-minute recess immediately after this vote derailed the decision.

Many students observed two SCSU directors voting to abstain from the vote, but the Chair only officially saw one and counted one (a ruling confirmed by minute-taker Helen Lee). After the motion to recess was quickly seconded with no objections, it was contended Rascanu tried to bring this to the attention of the group, along with two students, something which could not be fully confirmed.

During the recess, the Chair was swarmed with requests and arguments, while first-year representative Ruby Lau was seen with various students trying to convince her to call for a Motion to Reconsider, which would necessitate another vote.

At the end of the recess, the assembly heard arguments on whether to reopen the vote, despite the Chair’s insistence that the recess had disallowed this. After many arguments and debates, the motion was put once more to the vote and failed, with six votes for, seven against and one abstention.

Right before the second vote, life sciences director Maathavan Thillai entered the meeting in a hurry, apparently summoned by a phone call from management director Madiha Vaid, who had voted against ratifying the EC’s recommendations. Thillai also voted against ratification.

Management director Sean Kanjilal was seen by many observers to have first abstained, later changed his vote to “no,” after talking to other students who had also voted against ratification.

Gillian Reiss, ex-officio director of the SCSU and full-time student member on the Council on Student Services, said she would be going to student affairs regarding this “blatant violation of [SCSU’s] own policies.” If Student Affairs decides that the SCSU board of directors did not follow policy in this case, they could step in and take control of the organization.

SCSU Chair Susie Varvrusa points out that due to the board’s failure to ratify the election report and elect a new team of execs, hired positions such as VP campus life, VP operations and VP human resources cannot be filled, as the hiring committee for those roles consists of both current executives and the newly hired elected executives.

With the term of current SCSU executives ending in May, there will be no executives to help run fall elections for next year’s board. The outcome of this particular board meeting has crippled the SCSU board of directors at least until the fall by-elections, whereby a full-scale election can take place. Who would run that election is an entirely different question.

Discussions have been held regarding the possibility of having an election in the upcoming weeks, but scheduling conflicts such as essays, final exams, scheduled study break and the annual SCSU Continuity retreat make it a dicey proposition, since the new election might not garner enough votes to be valid.

Former student leaders have also expressed disappointment at perceived meddling by SAC in SCSU affairs.

“I am thoroughly disappointed in the board of directors this year and the fact that they have shown an unashamed disregard for their own policies,” remarked former SCSU President Lendyl D’Souza.

“Furthermore, I am outraged that individuals from other campuses believe that they can manipulate and assume that they know what is best at the University of Toronto Scarborough. It sickens me. I am thoroughly pissed.”