In a dizzying turn of events, 22 Team Unity board of directors candidates were briefly disqualified Thursday, then re-qualified hours later by two separate election committees.
Though the disqualified candidates won their seats the next day, the controversial rulings brought both committees under close scrutiny.
Disqualified then re-qualified
The Elections and Referenda Committee (ERC) overturned rulings made by embattled chief returning officer Daniel Lo Thursday morning, leading to 21 demerit points across the board to Team Unity.
The swath of demerits given to the slate meant that as polls remained open Thursday, 22 of their 26 candidates were technically disqualified.
The threshold for disqualification for most board of directors (BOD) positions is 20 points, while at-large candidates require 30 points and executives 35 points. All disqualified members were running for BOD positions.
Unity was punished for making misleading statements on the campaign trail.
The committee found the slate’s claim of having increased clubs funding false as it actually decreased by more than $5,000. Also, the ERC proclaimed that Unity didn’t “[win] an interest-free period on OSAP for 6 months after graduation,” unlike what was stated on their website.
The interest-free period was introduced before the current UTSU executive’s term.
Clara Ho, current UTSU VP university affairs and chair of the ERC, promised Wednesday that a full and impartial review will be granted to all appeals issued against Lo’s rulings.
“I will let the rulings speak for themselves,” said ERC chair Clara Ho before the rulings were released.
Hours later, the Elections and Referenda Appeals Committee (ERAC), the election’s final court of appeal, reversed the decisions and welcomed candidates back into the race. No explanation has been offered for the radically different findings issued by the two committees. Ho stressed that “different bodies may have different interpretations,” and that time constraints during the election meant that imperfect decisions would sometimes be made.
“I would certainly agree that some rulings could benefit from further investigation,” Ho said. Some cases brought before the CRO have, in fact, remained “under investigation” as late as Sunday.
ERAC members under scrutiny
The five ERAC members who ultimately restored candidates to the race have come under close scrutiny by opposition supporters.
This year’s committee included Ho as a non-voting member and chair, Graduate Student Union VP external Daniel Vandervoort, Arts & Science Student Union president Katharine Ball, and Ryerson Student Union (RSU) membership coordinator Casey Chu Cheong.
“We have already begun looking into the backgrounds of the two non-UTSU members of ERAC, and what we’ve found out has been deeply unsettling,” said Jake Brockman, a third-year Trinity College student and member of the Arts & Science Faculty Council.
Daniel Vandervoort allegedly arranged for the billeting of protestors in 2010 during the G20 protests. Police later raided the GSU building, arresting approximately 70 people, some of whom were allegedly involved in destructive “black bloc” activities.
Cheong, meanwhile, oversaw the hotly contested 2010 elections at York University as chief returning officer.
Following a flood of student complaints, York university administrators initiated a formal investigation into the election.
The final report concluded that the appeals process overseen by Cheong “lacked due process,” and expressed serious concerns over numerous conflicts of interest in the elections process.
Cheong refused to comment on her role in the ERAC this year. Ho, who was responsible for appointing Cheong to the ERAC, said she was “not aware” of Cheong’s previous involvement with the 2010 York election. Ho added that when she contacted the RSU, Cheong was the “only person available.”
During the meeting, ASSU president Katharine Ball was reportedly absent.
“It would have been valuable to have all members present,” Ho said.
In a statement, Ball said she regretted being unable to attend.
“I support the rulings made, although I regret that I could not be there to be the voice of reason that I usually am,” she said.
Call to administration
These developments have fueled a chorus of voices on campus who have been outspoken in criticizing the handling of this year’s election.
On Friday, concerned students confirmed that they were investigating how best to formally involve the administration.
Sam Greene, who’s running to be a student head in Trinity College, said the election’s legitimacy has been undermined by “non-transparent, unaccountable processes for enforcing the rules.”
“The university administration ultimately controls student fees, and they should step in to cut off funds to the UTSU until it institutes significant electoral reform, if they are unwilling to institute reforms on their own,” he added. “They have a responsibility to students just as much as the UTSU does.”
Ho cautiously agreed with the need for reform and retrospection on the election. She sees the need for “structural” changes but was quick to add that the university, and the union itself, could only “truly benefit” if all parties involved were first allowed to “cool off and take a step back.”
