On March 21, the Scarborough Campus Students’ Union (SCSU) held its monthly Board of Directors (BOD) meeting, where members voted against ratifying its 2025 Spring General Election results, thereby preventing the elected executive candidates and BOD candidates from being confirmed. 

RISE BOD candidate Alexandros Grekos — who won during the election — resigned his seat and raised concerns regarding the conduct of his slate during the election. Members also voted against approving the Chief Returning Officer’s (CRO) report on the elections. 

CRO report

Among recommendations for future elections, the CRO’s report included updating the Elections Procedure Code (EPC) to provide clearer guidelines for campaigning and postering. Other suggestions included creating a Code of Conduct and mandating that posters be printed on recycled paper, following concerns raised by students on UTSC’s subreddit regarding the volume of posters put up on campus. 

The CRO explained their intention was to push for abolishing team slates for BOD candidates. They argued that the existence of slates can create a “power imbalance” when executive candidates manage BOD candidates, but don’t always share all election-related information with them. 

However, multiple BOD members raised concerns about the CRO’s hiring process — such as inconsistencies in the information provided by polling clerks — and whether the CRO and Elections and Referenda Committee (ERC) adequately fulfilled their roles and responsibilities during the election period.

According to the EPC, the CRO must be hired through a public posting following an interview process. This year, however, the CRO was invited to return after serving in both the last Spring General Elections and Fall By-Elections, a practice that Vice-President (VP) Operations Jena Bah said has been common in the past. These concerns were previously raised by INSPIRE UTSC candidates in an interview with The Varsity. 

SCSU President Hunain Sindhu signed the CRO’s contract when they were hired in February, but later expressed concern upon learning that there had been no public job posting and that the hiring process took place much later than expected. 

Director of Sociology and INSPIRE UTSC VP External candidate Ayesha Ashraf pointed out that, according to the CRO’s report, polling clerks were trained by the Deputy Returning Officers (DROs), whereas the EPC specifies that the training of polling clerks is the responsibility of the CRO. 

In response, the CRO explained that in previous years, the DROs had delivered the training while the CRO facilitated the process. They added that they had attended one of the training sessions to ensure everything was running smoothly. 

As the leader of the INSPIRE slate, Sindhu raised concerns that polling clerks did not receive sufficient training, which resulted in conflicting information being provided to voters. 

“One of the things the CRO [report] mentioned was that students could vote with their ID and not just their T-Card. This was something only a handful of polling clerks knew. When I went to vote myself, I didn’t have my [T-Card] on me, and I wasn’t allowed to vote,” he said. 

INSPIRE UTSC also expressed concerns to The Varsity in March that the large number of spoiled ballots in the elections was due to polling clerks failing to properly sign the ballots as required. In a previous statement, the CRO wrote that “Upon review, the majority of spoiled ballots were due to students choosing to abstain, not due to the polling clerks’ signatures or initials.”

Sindhu also raised concerns about the recount appeals process. He stated that while his appeal was submitted more than 72 hours after voting had closed, the appeal was still accepted and heard, and was later rejected, which he said “does not make any sense.” The EPC stipulates that appeals must be submitted before this deadline.

Bah, who is also chair of the ERC, explained that the appeal was rejected for several reasons, including that it was submitted past the deadline and that “multiple recounts had already been done the same day for multiple positions.” She also addressed concerns about polling clerk training, noting that 10 out of the 15 clerks had served in previous elections and that new clerks received “extra training.”

“We tried our best to follow the EPC, and the CRO has full discretion over the EPC,” said Bah. 

The board voted against approving the CRO’s report, with seven votes in favour, seven against, and three abstentions. 

(Non) ratification of results

The BOD then discussed ratifying the unofficial 2025 Spring General Election results, which saw candidates from the RISE slate sweep all executive positions. 

Sindhu spoke against the motion and stated, “The reason why [CRO hiring and the EPC not being followed] is a problem and why these concerns cannot be understated is because they could have directly impacted election results. Election results were extremely close between candidates.”

For the presidential position, RISE candidate Lalise Shifara won by just five per cent of the vote, with 114 ballots spoiled. 

“A recount would not harm anything. Rather, it would just validate the election results even more and satisfy that while there were a lot of issues that were seen, students’ votes were counted and not thrown away because of administrative error,” said Sindhu.

Ashraf also spoke against the motion and said, “Rejecting our appeal might also imply that the [Election Appeals Committee] is not interested in a recount because it might uncover potential tampering.”

Director of English and VP Equity candidate for RISE Christine Villa, spoke in favour of ratification and said, “Claiming tampering and the lack of integrity [in the] process is, I personally say, disrespectful to the people that have been involved.”

International Student Director Carlos Paez Gonzalez spoke against the motion, citing “…the overall atmosphere of the election, the comments I’ve heard from both teams, and the misleading process that has been outlined in the EPC,” as the reasons. 

Shifara spoke in favour of the motion and said, “As SCSU, we do have a responsibility to analyze the process and to make sure that we are transparent with the students. However, we also have a responsibility to uphold what the student body wants. At the end of the day, it was the students who voted for whom they wanted in office. So, not ratifying these results means disregarding what the student body wants.”

Fawzia Elhag, RISE VP External candidate, was also at the meeting and questioned the validity of the BOD’s ability to vote on ratifying the election results.

“Is this actually a fair vote to see whether we should ratify the [results] if the opposing team is the one that is voting for the ratification of students from the other team?” 

Both RISE and INSPIRE candidates are part of the current BOD. The motion to ratify the election results failed, with six votes in favour, 11 against, and three abstentions. 

RISE conduct concerns 

Director of Historical and Cultural Studies and incumbent BOD candidate on the RISE slate, Alexandros Grekos, spoke against the motion for ratification during the meeting. He shared his experiences as a RISE team member, which led to his resignation as a candidate. 

Grekos shared that he felt “police-patrolled” by RISE executives, citing an instance where they told him to stop commenting on the livestream of the All Candidates’ Debate, despite using his private account to comment. 

He explained that this was one of the reasons the CRO recommended abolishing team slates for BOD candidates in their report. 

In an email to The Varsity, Shifara wrote, “Given that there were a lot of disturbing comments being made about various candidates, our intention was to ensure that our team members did not engage in behavior [sic] that could potentially result in demerit points.”

“We would like to make it very clear that at no point did [Grekos] bring these concerns to my attention or to the executive in question, so we were unaware of how he felt until the Board meeting,” she added. 

In an interview with The Varsity, Grekos clarified that he apologized to his teammates, but added, “I do think that they did not make me feel comfortable enough to do so.”

Grekos had posted about these concerns on his Instagram, sharing screenshots of executives telling him to stop commenting on the livestream. He also shared a screenshot of Shifara telling the RISE team in a WhatsApp group chat: “If you are seeing the other team cheating, please take a photo and send it to me. They are racking up demerit points and don’t need that much to get disqualified.”

In an email to The Varsity, Shifara wrote that “Throughout the elections, I consistently communicated to my team the importance of adhering to campaign regulations, including that no one from our team should be campaigning within polling stations and avoiding any and all actions that could lead to additional demerit points.”

Grekos also raised concerns about RISE’s attitudes towards the other slate, including comments made by RISE executives about their slate being “diverse” and implying that INSPIRE was not as diverse. 

In response, Shifara wrote, “The accused executive never made any statements about the diversity of others” and that “Team RISE has only ever spoken about our own members.”

“Comments spreading hate” 

Other candidates also pointed out comments being made on Reddit and during the livestream of the SCSU executive candidates’ debate by students in general.

During the meeting, Sindhu said, “There was a lot of hate being thrown around, and while there was no evidence for it, it was very clear that people were trying to influence the outcome of the election.”

“For example, at the [executive] candidates’ debate, there were new accounts [leaving] comments spreading hate about one team. Yet, the comments weren’t turned off. That’s disrespectful to the candidates.” 

A satirical Reddit post published after the BOD meeting expressed that the concerns raised by INSPIRE UTSC about the election procedure were trivial. 

“Denying students the leadership they voted for”

Villa expressed “frustration” over RISE’s stance on the non-ratification and emphasized that the EPC should be updated before the elections process, as many of the election concerns stemmed from the code’s lack of clarity. 

With the board not ratifying the results, the current SCSU executives and directors will remain in office until successors are elected. According to the SCSU’s by-laws, the next opportunity for an election will be during the Fall By-Election, which takes place between September and October. The board will be provided with more details on the process and expectations at a future meeting.

“If Board members had concerns about the election procedures, the appropriate response would have been to propose changes to the process moving forward, rather than punishing incoming executives who had no role in designing or implementing those procedures,” wrote Shifara.

She added, “Instead, the Board’s decision has unfairly stripped elected representatives of their positions, denying students the leadership they voted for.” 

The SCSU did not respond to The Varsity’s request for comment in time for publication.