msu-production.s3.amazonaws.com€¦ · web view2016-02-06 · liu asked if this was all word of...

2015-16 Presidential & Referendum Fines January 28, 2016

Elections Committee Meeting – Presidential Election & ReferendumJanuary 28, 2016MSU Boardroom, MUSC 201

Present Burke, Eom, Ibe, Liu, Oparin, Raza, Shah, SunLateAbsentOthers Present P. Gupta (CRO), H. Zeng (DRO), V. Scott (Recording Secretary)

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CRO

The CRO announced that they will be having the presidential fines meeting and once the fines have been ratified they will be looking at the results. The CRO explained that once they have seen the results it will take another 30 minutes to get the information posted before members are able to leave.

The CRO stated that the past couple of days have been interesting. The CRO explained that the Registrar’s Office gave the Elections Department the wrong list for voting, which included Midwifery students, MoMac and Conestoga Nursing students, and excluded first year Kinesiology students. The CRO stated that she and the DRO went through that list of 1200 students and deleted them from the list.

The CRO announced that voter turnout was 44.5%, the highest in recent election history.

FORMS AND FINES

a. Constitution Referendum

i. “Yes Side”

1. Circulation of Registration Form and Expense Sheet

The CRO circulated the forms.

2. Harassment

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that members of the Candidate’s team were asked if they saw something that was dropped by the campaign team of another candidate. The Candidate’s team members said that they hadn’t, and while walking away one yelled “and could (candidate’s) team please stop *expletive* harassing students”.

Discussion Burke stated that she would fine them as swearing and yelling are not necessary. Liu agreed that they

should be fined as it was disrespectful. Liu asked if this was all word of mouth. The CRO responded that this was all of the evidence that she had and told the Committee it was up to them if they felt it was enough. Eom asked if the team was notified of the complaint. The CRO responded that they were informed.

Moved by Ibe, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to the “Yes Side” for harassment of another campaign team in violation of rule 7.9.9 according to section 7.8.1

Ibe explained that the conversation was held. Liu stood by what she stated earlier.


Vote on Motion

In Favour: 7 Opposed: 1 Abstentions: 0Motion Passes

3. Late expense sheet

The CRO stated that the deadline was yesterday at noon.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for handing in their expense sheet late in violation of 6.4 according to section 7.8.2

Eom stated that this was standard.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

b. Presidential Election

i. Gill, Mike


The CRO circulated the forms.

2. Donated Banner

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that they found out that the banner of the Candidate was donated by a team member. The CRO explained that the rules are that all materials must be printed at Underground, and that the complainant wanted to make sure it was printed there. The CRO informed the Committee that she did contact the Candidate and was told that it wasn’t donated and that the Candidates was charged for sheets of paper and the banner was put together by a team member. The CRO added that this was on the expense sheet.

Discussion Oparin stated that it was expensed and so was the foam backing of the banner. Eom felt that this was a

misunderstanding.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Mike Gill for their banner.

Eom stated that there was proof that the banner was not donated. Liu felt that the items printed at Underground couldn’t have been used for anything else and must have gone towards constructing the banner.


Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

3. Campaigning through Facebook

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that on January 26 they were messaged through Facebook chat and encouraged to vote for the Candidate.

Discussion Burke felt that they could be misinterpreting the rule for Facebook, and if they started a new chat for the

express purpose for campaigning it would be different. Shah stated that if walking in MUSC team members at least ask if the student wanted to be engaged, on Facebook they are just doing it. Oparin stated that students walk through MUSC all the time and are berated by campaign teams and felt that it was equivalent to one message on Facebook. Burke stated that the rule didn’t explicitly say that private messages weren’t allowed. Eom stated that the rule stated chats and private messaging is still a chat. Eom felt that if they vote against this rule it needs to be because the Candidate didn’t violate it, and not because the Committee doesn’t agree with it. Sun explained that he would be voting this down as it part of it deals with the interpretation of the rules; he felt that Facebook messaging isn’t a private space. Burke explained that she felt the purpose of the rule was if there was campaigning in a group chat that was previously established for something else and that private messaging in a new message was different. Liu agreed with Eom and that the rule says no chats. Raza asked if it was mentioned to the candidates during the all-candidates meeting about the Facebook rule being about private messaging. The CRO responded that the candidates didn’t want to talk about the rules at the meeting. The CRO stated that the candidates felt that this rule was ambiguous and wanted a ruling for chats. Sun asked if the CRO told the candidates that this would be okay. The CRO responded that she said it was fine since the Committee didn’t respond within 24 hours and said that the Committee hadn’t come to a decision but it didn’t mean that there was permission to do it. Sun stated that with that context he didn’t think it was fair to fine them.

Moved by Oparin, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Mike Gill for using private messaging through Facebook for campaigning.

Oparin felt that they had a good discussion. Sun stressed the importance of consistency.


4. Use of MSU Logo

The DRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the Candidate was tagged in a photo of a campaign team member wearing an MSU Spark shirt, which contains the MSU logo, while saying to vote for the Candidate. The CRO explained that she did warn the Candidate of this and they replied that this person wasn’t on their campaign team. The CRO added that she informed the Candidate that it was their responsibility to ask the individual to take the picture down.


Discussion Burke asked if it was taken down. The CRO responded not to her knowledge. Eom felt that it wasn’t

campaign material and it just encourages voters to show support. Liu stated that it was posted during the campaign and even if it wasn’t intentional they should have known better.

Moved by Sun, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for the use of the MSU logo in campaign material in violation of rule 5.1 according to section 7.8.2

Burke stated that the rules are there for a reason, and it could have been taken down. Ibe felt that it wasn’t campaign material as it wasn’t released by the team. Oparin wanted to see if the Candidate had untagged himself from the post, and if they had then they can’t be faulted. The Committee checked to see if it was untagged/ taken down and it was. Liu stated that the team took the measures.

Vote on Motion

In Favour: 0 Opposed: 8 Abstentions: 0Motion Fails

5. Social Media – Use of Snapchat

The DRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the picture attached to the complaint was sent to multiple people as a story on snapchat, and was posted from a member on the team.

Moved by Ibe, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for the use of snapchat during campaigning in violation of rule 4.12 according to section 7.8.2.

Ibe stated that there was clear evidence of the violation. Eom expressed that snapchat wasn’t allowed.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

6. Breaking Residence Life Election Rules

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that numerous people spotted the Candidate in the lobby of Hedden Hall without a CA or IRC rep present. The complaint expressed that campaign team material was handed out in Mary Keyes and that there were testimonies from witnesses that are attached. Testimony 1: “I found mike gills notes in the door jams. So when someone opens it, they see it. I took it down because it was my door”. Testimony 2: The Residence Manager for Mary-Keyes kicked out someone from Mike Gill’s team who was in Mary-Keyes without permission. Testimony 3: A CA mentioned that there were notes in students’ doorways with some explicitly mentioning to vote for Mike Gill. The CRO stated that there were technically two separate violations, one was being in the lobby of Hedden and the other was going door to door in residence.

Discussion


Oparin asked if someone is in the lobby do they need to be with a CA. The CRO responded that it was part of the rules set out by Residence Life. Sun asked if it was possible that the Candidate’s escort was in the washroom. The CRO explained that the testimony pointed out that they saw the Candidate in Hedden Hall. Liu asked if they will be treating being unaccompanied in Mary Keyes and Hedden Hall as separate violations. The CRO responded that they will be discussing being in the lobby of Hedden Hall first and the distribution of materials door to door separately. The CRO explained that the team was told about this and said that ignorance wouldn’t be taken into account for this. Oparin asked about the testimonies and wanted to clarify about the RM kicking the Candidate out of Mary Keyes. The CRO stated that the testimony was submitted after the complaints as the CRO told the complainant that the evidence presented wasn’t enough. Raza asked for more clarification. The CRO explained that she received the complaint about Mary Keyes and interpreted it as that the RM kicked the Candidate out because of the distribution. Raza felt that through the testimonies gave enough to show that the team couldn’t claim ignorance of the rules as they were spoken to in residence. The CRO added that the Mary Keyes incident happened on January 20 and Hedden Hall on January 21.

a) Heddon Hall

Moved by Eom, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for being in the lobby of Hedden Hall without previous authorization or presence of a CA or IRC rep in violation of rule 4.9 according to section 7.8.2

Eom stated that the testimonies presented were clear evidence. Burke agreed.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

Shah stated that he felt that because of the testimony that the Candidate was also being in Mary Keyes was a separate violation.

b) Mary Keyes

Moved by Liu, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for being in Mary Keyes Residence without previous authorization or presence of a CA or IRC rep in violation of rule 4.9 according to section 7.8.2

Liu felt that since it was a separate even it should have its own violation. Liu stated that in the testimony showed that the Candidate was told. Sun explained that he wasn’t 100% if they actually had evidence of the Candidate being in Mary Keyes as they don’t know who the ‘him’ is in the testimony given by the RM. Oparin felt that they may be reading too much into the statement given. Shah explained that he felt that this complaint was part of the package even though it wasn’t written on the complaint sheet itself, as it was presented in the testimony. The CRO re-read the complaint to the Committee for clarification. Eom stated that she would be voting against it as the testimony wasn’t enough to show it was the Candidate. Raza felt that the RM does provide enough evidence and that RMs are known to be busy and sometimes fail to provide complete info if it wasn’t part of their original paperwork. Shah stated that even his own RM didn’t know the candidates’ names and they were all being referred to as ‘him’ or ‘her’. Shah felt that


the RM could have assumed that the Committee would know who they were talking about. The CRO added that the testimony says that the Candidate was kicked out of a CA meeting, which happens in the games room. The CRO stated that anyone can see the lobby from the games room but at the same time it isn’t clear, and that she didn’t want to put words in the RM’s mouth. Shah felt that the ‘him’ in this case would be the Candidate. Burke stated that the ‘him’ could be the whole team. Oparin stated that they should be treating the team the same and they can’t be in residence. Oparin asked for clarification if a team member lived in residence or was a CA. The CRO responded that would be different since if they lived in residence they wouldn’t be just standing in the lobby. The CRO explained that if campaigning was happening there needs to be a representative, and CAs have their own rules to follow by not campaigning in residence. Shah pointed out that the RM would be aware of who would live in the building and wouldn’t kick out someone who lived there.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

c) Distribution of Campaign Material in Mary Keyes

Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for distributing campaign material in Mary Keyes Residence in violation of rule 4.20 according to section 7.8.2

Eom stated that there was evidence provided that flyers were handed door to door. Raza explained that the Candidate can’t say that they weren’t aware of any door to door campaigning but this is still a violation perpetrated by team members.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

7. Distribution of Campaign Material

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that distribution of materials (warm fuzzies) was happening in MUSC when in the rules it stated that this wasn’t permitted. It added that paper airplanes were being made as well in the same colour material of the ‘warm fuzzies’

Discussion Oparin stated that this violated the MUSC rules. The CRO added that it also violates the rule of unsolicited

materials. Shah asked if there was a witness to the airplanes. The CRO responded that she couldn’t say. Oparin stated that felt that the unsolicited part wasn’t necessarily true as he was asked if he wanted a ‘warm fuzzy’ which was solicited. Burke stated that she had a different experience and was just handed one without being asked.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply two standard violations with a total fine of $30 to Mike Gill for distribution of flyers in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.2

Eom felt that there was enough evidence to support this.


AmendmentMoved by Sun, seconded by Eom to amend the motion to read: “Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for distribution of paper airplanes in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.2”

Sun felt that there are different opinions and would like to have two separate motions. Eom felt that they were the exact same thing. Ibe asked if it could be a severe violation as they were vastly distributed throughout the population. Oparin asked what the team said when told of the complaint. The CRO explained that she only received the complaint today and didn’t have a chance to talk to the Candidate. The CRO reminded the Committee that ignorance of the rules was not an excuse and same with having to warn them.

Vote on Amendment

Passes Unanimously

AmendmentMoved by Raza, seconded by Sun to amend the motion to read: “Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Mike Gill for distribution of paper airplanes in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.1”

Raza felt that this should be a severe violation due to the testimony receiving as well as that throwing the airplanes would be unsafe and it would be littering. Sun stated that he felt that more evidence would be needed if it was to be a severe violation.

Vote on Amendment


Vote on Main MotionMoved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for distribution of paper airplanes in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.2

Passes Unanimously

Moved by Liu, seconded by Shah that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Mike Gill for distribution of flyers in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.1.

Liu felt that this would be a severe violation as it was a key part of their campaign strategy. Shah stated that severe violations are given for deliberately violating any rule and that he felt that this act was deliberate. Shah added that the team was spoken to about this and didn’t stop. The CRO clarified that it was for residences, not MUSC that she spoke to them about. Oparin felt that if the team kept going into residence then that would be deliberate but they weren’t warned about MUSC so he felt that it wasn’t deliberately breaking the rules. Eom hesitated using the reason of this being a big part of the campaign to make it a severe violation, as they don’t know the impact it had. Raza pointed out that the MUSC rules stated that nothing can be handed out and that teams have to follow those rules.


AmendmentMoved by Sun, seconded by Eom to amend the motion to read: “Moved by Liu, seconded by Shah that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for distribution of flyers in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.2”

Sun felt that the team wasn’t deliberately violating the rule, but the team still broke this one.

Vote on Amendment


Vote on Main MotionMoved by Liu, seconded by Shah that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for distribution of flyers in MUSC in violation of rule 5.9 according to section 7.8.2

Passes Unanimously

8. Electronic Media did not provide link to MSU Elections Website

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant submitted a screenshot of a Facebook ad that didn’t have a link to the MSU Elections website. The rules state that there must be a link to the website on all main campaign materials.

Discussion Sun asked if this was a sponsored Facebook advertisement. The DRO explained that they didn’t have

access. Shah asked if this was expensed, the DRO responded that it was. Sun asked if the advertisement took the user to the Candidate’s page. The CRO stated that it did link back to the Facebook page.

Moved by Liu, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for not linking back to the Elections Department website for a Facebook advertisement in violation of rule 4.14 according to section 7.8.2

Liu stated that they had control over what was released in the post and should have posted the Elections website. Eom added that it was a visible ad that could reach out to a lot of people, and could have put the link if they wanted to. Oparin felt that it shouldn’t be a standard as it should be outlined where the link place. Oparin stated that the rules weren’t specific on putting the link, and that it could be fair game as it wasn’t part of an inclusive list. Oparin added that the post did meet the instructions given by the CRO as the Facebook page itself had the link. Liu felt that this was a good point and asked for clarification on what instructions were given to the teams. The CRO responded that she was specific in what she wanted, which was everything including Facebook profile pictures as they are visible in everyone’s news feeds. The CRO added that the team could have taken it that it would just be for those Facebook related items, she told the Committee to take it as they will. Eom agreed with Oparin and stated that when clicking on the sponsored post it takes the user to the election page.

Vote on Motion


Moved by Liu, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Mike Gill for not linking back to the Elections Department website for a Facebook advertisement in violation of rule 4.14 according to section 7.8.2.


9. Misrepresentation on Expense sheet

The DRO went over the complaint with the Committee. She explained that the Candidate asked for clarification on how to expense his domain for his website and the CRO asked them to pro-rate it at a monthly rate. The DRO stated that on the expense sheet the Candidate listed the website but only expensed it as two dollars, when if they did the calculations properly should have been six dollars. She added that there were a couple more items that weren’t listed on the expense sheet when they noticed during the campaign, such as display boards, lanyards, and bows. The DRO explained that misrepresentation on the expense sheet is a severe violation.

Discussion Sun asked if the Candidate went over budget. The DRO stated that when they re-calculated the websites it

came to a total of $448. The DRO added that they didn’t put a value on the display boards and lanyards and that would have put the Candidate over. The CRO stated that they went by every candidate’s tables to make sure that items there would be properly expensed, and that they noted items that were missed. Oparin asked for clarification on the website. The CRO stated that a team member came to her and asked if they could expense the domain by the month and not the yearly cost, the CRO stated that would be fine and told the other candidates the same thing. The CRO stated that the team chose to expense it by hours rather than the whole month. The CRO stated that the biggest concern was the lack of adding materials to the expense sheet. Sun asked if items could be donated. The CRO stated that teams were told that nothing could be donated, except for design time by a team member. The CRO explained that the candidates would have had to previously own any items they bring into the campaign in order to list it as zero dollars on the expense sheet.

Moved by Burke, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Mike Gill for misrepresentation on the candidate’s expense sheet in violation of rule 7.9.4 according to section 7.9.1.

Burke felt that this was a clear violation of the rules. Liu agreed.

Vote on Motion


Discussion of Disqualification

The CRO stated that the candidate had at least one severe violation and the rules state that disqualification must be discussed if the candidate had one severe violation or five standard violations.


Moved by Ibe, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee disqualify Mike Gill for the 2015-2016 Presidential Election.

Sun stated that there have been a lot of fines. Liu felt that the fines weren’t severe enough for disqualification. Oparin felt that the integrity of the election was still present and that the Candidate shouldn’t be disqualified.

Vote on Motion


ii. Jama, Sarah


The CRO circulated the forms to the Committee.

2. Late Expense Sheet

The CRO explained that expense sheets were due at noon the day before polling closes.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for handing in their expense sheet late in violation of 6.4 according to section 7.8.2

Eom stated that it was straightforward.

Passes Unanimously


The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant found the post in ‘Spotted at Mac’ Facebook group and it was a campaign team member telling a student to check out the Candidate’s website and platform points.

Moved by Oparin, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for posting in Spotted at Mac and campaigning on Facebook in violation of rule 4.17 according to section 7.8.2.

Oparin explained that there is the rule for a reason, and it was broken. Sun asked how this was not different than defending other candidates on pages. Scott responded that it was different than defending as it was listing platform points and the website and encouraged the students to check it out. Scott added that if a campaign team member was defending they wouldn’t necessarily tell them to check out the website and list the points.

Vote on Motion


Moved by Oparin, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for posting in Spotted at Mac and campaigning on Facebook in violation of rule 4.17 according to section 7.8.2.


4. Defacing McMaster Property

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the Candidate defaced McMaster property with drawing with chalk on external walls, and provided proof to the committee. The CRO explained that she had informed the Candidate that this needed to be taken down.

Discussion Sun asked if they were allowed chalk on the ground. Shah responded that candidates were allowed to

write on the ground in chalk, but this was on the walls of TSH. Shah added that the CRO asked for the candidate to take it down and it’s clearly still there. The CRO explained that she received a response from the Candidate saying it would be too hard to take it down.

Moved by Ibe, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for defacing property with chalk (CNH, Mills Library) in violation of rule 5.4 according to section 7.8.2

Ibe stated that the Candidate was advised and didn’t take it down.

AmendmentMoved by Sun, seconded by Liu to amend the motion to read: “Moved by Ibe, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Sarah Jama for defacing property with chalk (CNH, Mills Library) in violation of rule 5.4 according to section 7.8.1”

Sun explained that they broke a rule and Elections told the Candidate to take it down. The CRO explained that when she told the Candidate about it they asked about the fine and the CRO explained that it depended on the Committee. Liu echoed Sun and stated that the Candidate had warning and didn’t take measures. Raza explained that her issue was that they would have to take it off eventually, and whatever is being done the Candidate needs to make sure it can easily be removed. Raza it speaks to the Candidate’s excuse that it was hard to take off. Shad added that if the Candidate truly believed that it was too difficult to take the chalk off and still did it wouldn’t that be classified as defacing property. Shah felt that this would be deliberately violating the rule.

Vote on Amendment


Sun stated that he didn’t want future candidates getting the in mind frame that it was okay to do something and just take the fine. Sun explained that using chalk on exterior walls wasn’t allowed and if the Candidate felt that being fined was better than taking off the chalk, they will fine the Candidate.

Vote on Main Motion


Moved by Ibe, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Sarah Jama for defacing property with chalk (CNH, Mills Library) in violation of rule 5.4 according to section 7.8.1


5. MSU Employee – Not Taking a Leave

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The CRO explained that it was brought to their attention that a team member worked for the Silhouette as the video editor and didn’t take a leave of absence. The DRO added that they contacted the Silhouette about this and they informed the Elections Dept that they spoke to someone and was informed that they didn’t need to take a leave of absence. The DRO stated that they informed the Silhouette that that wasn’t the case, and the team member left the campaign for the remainder of the campaign period.

Moved by Sun, seconded by Shah that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Sarah Jama for having a campaign team member be employed with the MSU and not take a leave of absence.

Sun stated that he felt that this was a case of miscommunication or misunderstanding. Sun felt that the team member left the campaign, and didn’t influence the campaign from their position. Eom disagreed and stated that the team member violated the rules and needed to take a leave of absence. Raza stated that it was up to the Candidate and her team to make sure they knew to take a leave, not the Silhouette. Ibe felt that leave was about making sure that no one had a competitive edge and since this person was the video editor, and kept their equipment in the office there was an edge. Shah stated that the point of the leave was to make sure resources weren’t being used for the campaign. Oparin agreed and pointed out that was why they took away access to the Committee Room or booking out MUSC rooms overnight.

Vote on Motion


Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for having a campaign team member not take a leave of absence from their MSU job in violation of rule 4.8.1 according to section 7.8.2.

Eom stated that the team member had the chance and opportunity to use their office as they didn’t take a leave and that was unfair to the other campaign teams. Raza added that it was up to the team to be making sure who was allowed to campaign.

Vote on MotionMoved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Sarah Jama for having a campaign team member not take a leave of absence from their MSU job in violation of rule 4.8.1 according to section 7.8.2.

Passes Unanimously


6. Harassment

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that members of the Candidate’s team were asked if they saw something that was dropped by the campaign team of another candidate. The Candidate’s team members said that they hadn’t, and while walking away one yelled “and could (candidate’s) team please stop *expletive* harassing students”.

Discussion Oparin felt that since this was applied earlier and nothing has changed as it was the same action, it should

be applied. Sun felt that it wasn’t right to fine both teams. Burke responded that it wouldn’t be fair to fine one group and not the other. This person was being disrespectful.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Sarah Jama for harassment of another campaign team in violation of rule 7.9.9 according to section 7.8.1

Eom stated that this cannot be applied to just one team. Liu stated that this was disrespectful.


7. Bad Taste

a) Facebook

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant attached evidence that the Candidate’s team member posted in a private facebook group, and stated that false claims were made and they felt it was campaigning, and done in bad taste and that the Candidate should be disqualified. The CRO explained that a campaign team member made this post but was removed from the team after notification this post was made.

Discussion Ibe felt that the post didn’t have any allegations in it. The CRO clarified that this wasn’t campaigning. Raza

stated that the campaign team member posted on a group and posted allegations and asked if they can confirm that this action was done on the team member’s own and not by other campaign team members. Oparin stated that the description on the Facebook group shows that it’s not McMaster affiliated. Liu felt that this violation wasn’t a means for disqualification like the complainants asked. Liu stated that while it could be interpreted as ‘bad taste’ she didn’t think that the team member’s intent was to slander and was more of getting information/advice on the subject. Burke stated that based on the screenshot it wasn’t campaigning. Shah didn’t perceive the post to be slanderous as the team member didn’t state who the candidate was or the situation in general. Eom stated that the only part of the post that concerned her was that the team member was advocating for the other candidate to not run. Liu stated that in the context of the election she didn’t think it would be right to penalize the Candidate because a team member was asking for assistance for an issue. Liu pointed out that in the statement that the team member did explain that they were looking for information on their own.

Moved by Ibe, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Sarah Jama for campaigning in bad taste through Facebook against another candidate.


Ibe stated that he thought that the team member was trying to reach out for support on getting different opinions, and whether it was appropriate or not could be reflected. Liu agreed with Ibe and thought that it would only be considered ‘bad taste’ or slander if advocating for the other candidate to not run. Liu stated that the team member was asking for support or clarification.

Vote on Motion


b) Twitter

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the Candidate’s team re-tweeted a statement about another candidate that was in bad taste, and felt that it was harassing and sabotaging. The tweet was "@MikeGill2016 again just for those who missed it, a known sexual assaulter coopting a phrase for having sex....awksssss" The CRO explained that when she spoke to the Candidate about this and told them to remove it as it was slander. The CRO explained that the Candidate informed her that it was a volunteer and that the password was given out to everyone on the team. The CRO stated that the Candidate deleted the tweet and informed the CRO that they had changed the password and that two volunteers were removed from the campaign team.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Sarah Jama for campaigning in bad taste through twitter in violation of rule 2.1 according to section 7.9.5.

Eom stated that this was a highly visible media account that was accessible and open. Eom felt that this was sabotaging to the other candidate’s campaign and that this could have impacted the votes. Raza asked about the time period of when the tweet was re-tweeted and then removed. The CRO stated that she wasn’t sure how long it was, but that she was informed shortly after the incident happened and then informed the Candidate. Oparin stated that it didn’t matter as it happened and it was out there.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

8. Exceeding the Spending Limit

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. She explained that the complainant submitted the attached evidence that Alexander Boris created the Candidate’s website and charged $500 for this. The complainant stated in the complaint that the integrity of the election was put into question.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation to Sarah Jama for exceeding the spending limit and be fined 100% the overage for a total of $435.15 in violation of rule 7.8.3 according to section 7.8.1.


Shah asked how they would know that this wasn’t pro-rated. The CRO explained that with the other candidate’s campaign it was broken down by month, and that she didn’t know if this was a yearly or monthly fee. The DRO stated that the Candidate had the website designed for $500.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

9. Misrepresentation on Expense Sheet

The CRO explained that since the Candidate didn’t expense the Website on her expense sheet, this is misrepresentation and would be considered to be a severe violation.

Moved by Burke, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Sarah Jama for misrepresentation on the candidate’s expense sheet in violation of rule 7.9.4 according to section 7.9.1.

Burke stated that the Candidate misrepresented on the expense sheet and by doing so broke the rules. Raza stated that the evidence was presented.

AmendmentMoved by Ibe, seconded by Liu that the motion be amended to read: “Moved by Burke, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with no monetary value to Sarah Jama for misrepresentation on the candidate’s expense sheet in violation of rule 7.9.4 according to section 7.9.1.”

Liu stated that she felt the previous fine was large enough.

Vote on Amendment


Vote on Main MotionMoved by Burke, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with no monetary value to Sarah Jama for misrepresentation on the candidate’s expense sheet in violation of rule 7.9.4 according to section 7.9.1.


Discussion on Disqualification


Moved by Sun, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee disqualify Sarah Jama from the 2015-16 Presidential Election.

The Elections Committee discussed the possibility of disqualifying the Candidate. Sun explained that the Candidate exceeded the spending limit, plus had the ‘bad taste’ fine and he felt that the necessity to disqualify was strong. Liu agreed with Sun as she felt that there was an unfair advantage. Ibe felt for those


reasons that the Candidate shouldn’t be disqualified as they don’t have the complete information on the website and they don’t know how to compare, also that the Candidate may have received the same amount of flak for re-tweeting that tweet about another candidate. Sun stated that while he feels for the Candidate, another candidate was just as disadvantaged because of the Candidate’s actions as the tweet received a lot of publicity. Sun stated that there is an appeal process to shed some light on what may have happened with the overspending. Eom stated that based on the evidence that they received she would be voting for this. Raza stated that she didn’t see an expense for the website on the expense sheet so that was very questionable. Shah felt that the integrity of the election was blatantly disregarded as it’s about everyone running on the same level. Shah explained that the differentiation should be about platform points and not how much money they have spent. Ibe stated that he was hesitant to disqualify a candidate because of the position they will be holding, and felt that the minutes will be released and anyone can appeal. Ibe agreed that they must uphold the integrity of the election but he didn’t if disqualifying a candidate would do that, especially as the Candidate has already been fined enormously. The CRO reminded everyone that they should make this decision with pure confidence. Sun felt that any decision that they make would be scrutinized, and either way they will be having one of the campaign teams telling the Committee that they made the wrong decision. Sun stated that they shouldn’t be afraid to make a decision because of the possible outcry. Liu stated that she was thinking about the fines that were given to the Candidate and couldn’t know how it would have affected the integrity of the election, and explained that while she was hesitant to disqualify there were also the other fines that were incurred. Shah agreed with Liu as they can’t account for the advantage it gave, and felt that they accounted for this with the fines given. Burke felt hesitant to doing anything at that moment but that in the rules it clearly states that the Committee shall disqualify for sabotaging another candidate’s campaign. Burke stated that this was brought up during the fines and in her eyes the tweet was sabotage. Ibe stated the question should be about integrity and asked if the Committee felt that the election was compromised by the Candidate’s actions. Sun explained that there was a re-tweet where the twitter account had many followers, and there was also misrepresentation on the expense sheet. Liu stated that the evidence given to the Committee would say that the Candidate would have an unfair advantage. Raza felt that the integrity of the election was lost due to the high amount that the Candidate spent, as well the ‘bad taste’ allegations. Eom explained that she was undecided as well, but that the Committee made the rules and they are quite clear and not hard to follow. Eom stated that they shouldn’t be handing out these fines or violations, and that it’s not hard to make sure that campaign team members are taking a leave of absence, or defacing property, or re-tweeting and giving out passwords, and filling out an expense sheet truthfully. Ibe was unsure about the breaking of integrity and did know for sure that all teams had websites and certain procedures on social media. Ibe felt that the Candidate should be fined for the misrepresentation but not disqualified for it. Ibe felt that if they disqualify the Candidate that they would be giving the other candidates an unfair advantage and felt that would be compromising the integrity of the election. Eom disagreed with Ibe and stated that the impact isn’t the Committee’s responsibility, and that if they disqualify the Candidate it would be on the ground that it gave other candidates a disadvantage in the election and that they would be redistributing the advantage. Shah asked what their interpretation of integrity. Ibe responded that there are rules to uphold the elections and making sure that it is equitable and that the student body would be able to fully participate and maximize the electoral process. Liu responded that upholding the integrity of the election is holding up the rules set out. Liu explained that severe violations gave the Candidate an unfair advantage and this statement stands true of other candidates who have it as well.

Vote on Motion


Moved by Sun, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee disqualify Sarah Jama from the 2015-16 Presidential Election.


iii) Monaco-Barnes, Justin



2. Poster Violations

a) Poster Size

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the Candidate had posters over the size of 8.5x11. The CRO explained that Candidates were allowed posters up to the size of 11x17.

Moved by Ibe, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Justin Monaco-Barnes about poster size.

Ibe stated that they were given the information and he felt that this wasn’t grounded. Oparin felt that something was clearly missed with the complaint as it didn’t seem like anything was over the poster limit. The CRO stated that they can’t make assumptions about posters being over the limit when the complaint states that the posters were over 8.5x11, which isn’t a limit. Raza stated that due to the ambiguous nature of the complaint they don’t have proof from the team that they were over the poster limit.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

b) Lawn Signs

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that there were lawn signs all over campus and that candidates were not to poster outside. The CRO added that the Committee made a decision earlier on in the campaign stating that lawn signs would be allowed to campaign off campus.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Justin Monaco-Barnes about Lawn Signs.

Eom explained that the EC made a ruling on this earlier that they didn’t consider lawn signs to be posters as they weren’t taped. Eom stated that it was just a different and creative use of campaign materials. Raza agreed that they were approved and that they shouldn’t go back on their word.


Vote on MotionMoved by Eom, seconded by Raza that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Justin Monaco-Barnes about Lawn Signs.

Passes Unanimously


The DRO went over the complaints with the Committee. The complainant submitted evidence that showed the Candidate in three different photos that were used on snapchat.

Discussion Shah asked if they were confirmed to a team. The DRO stated that one was on another candidate’s team.

Shah asked what if it was just an engaged student. The DRO responded that the complaint looked to come from the same account that was cited in a previous violation for another candidate.

Moved by Liu, seconded by Shah that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Justin Monaco-Barnes about use of snapchat.

Liu felt that this wasn’t enough proof to show that the Candidate was campaigning using snapchat, and no evidence to show that those in the picture are team members.

Vote on Motion



The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that their roommate was sent a message through Facebook and told them to vote for the Candidate. The complainant added that they didn’t know who sent the chat as when the information was sent along to them the names were scribbled out.

Moved by Burke, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee dimiss the complaint against Justin Monaco-Barnes about campaigning through Facebook chat.

Oparin stated that the previous agreement was that personal chat didn’t constitute inappropriate campaigning.

Vote on MotionMoved by Burke, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Justin Monaco-Barnes about campaigning through Facebook chat.

Passes Unanimously


5. MSU Employee - Not Taking a Leave

The DRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The DRO explained that the team member was employed at CFMU, and they were given the option to take a leave of absence or leave the team.

Moved by Sun, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for having a campaign team member not take a leave of absence from their MSU job in violation of rule 4.8.1 according to section 7.8.2.

The CRO stated that the campaign manager was under the impression that they spoke to her and she said that it was okay. The CRO explained that she remembered giving a verbal yes to the lawn signs but not to an employee not taking a leave of absence, and that the request should be been written. Burke asked if the role gave an advantage. The CRO stated that the person was the CFMU Music Director. Raza stated that it was unfortunate that they weren’t notified but the team should have made sure their volunteers weren’t employees not taking a leave.

Vote on Motion


6. MSU Resources

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that the youtube video being used to campaign for the Candidate had the MSU and Child Care logos visible, and that they were using job title inappropriately. The CRO notified the Candidate of this and the team put a ‘censored patch’ over it. The CRO explained that candidates are allowed to talk about their experiences and what they’ve done. The CRO added that the video was filmed in the Underground.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for inappropriate use of the MSU Logo in violation of rule 5.1 according to section 7.9.1.

Shah asked if there was any way students would know this was Underground. The CRO responded that they wouldn’t unless they have been to the back of the space. Oparin stated that no one would have access to do their video in MSU space. Oparin felt that it could have been perceived that the MSU was condoning the video to be produced. Raza stated that she didn’t know that was Underground until this moment, and felt that it didn’t impact the campaign in any way. Shah agreed with Oparin and stated that the Candidate was using a resource not available to other candidates. Raza stated that a standard fine could then apply for the MSU logo.

AmendmentMoved by Raza, seconded by Sun to amend the motion to read: “Moved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for inappropriate use of MSU resources in violation of rules 4.5 and 5.1 according to section 7.9.1.”


Sun felt that the fines should be together as it was two separate parts of one video. Oparin disagreed and felt that it should be two fines as two different rules were broken. Eom stated that it made sense to make it two separate fines and will vote against the amendment.

Vote on Amendment


Vote on Main MotionMoved by Eom, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for inappropriate use of the MSU Logo in violation of rule 5.1 according to section 7.9.1.


Moved by Sun, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for inappropriate use of MSU Resources in violation of rule 4.5 according to section 7.8.2

Sun explained that each violation should have separate motions.

Vote on Motion


7. Bad Taste

a) Twitter

The DRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that they felt that the Candidate’s team member was attacking and harassing their candidate by using the hashtag ‘anyonebutmike’, and then re-tweeting negative comments about the other candidate’s campaign. The DRO stated that two pieces of evidence were sent showing two instances of alleged harassment.

Discussion Sun felt that the second tweet was worse than the first one. Burke wasn’t sure as it was used on the team

member’s personal twitter and not the Candidate’s. The CRO stated that it wouldn’t have made a difference if it indicated a team.

Moved by Raza, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for campaigning in bad taste through twitter in violation of rule 2.1 according to section 7.9.5.

Eom stated that the one with the hashtag was done in bad taste, but the other tweet seemed like harassment. Raza disagreed and felt that they were both done in bad taste. Raza felt that this should count as two counts of bad taste instead of one.


AmendmentMoved by Eom, seconded by Liu to amend the motion to read: “Moved by Raza, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee apply two severe violations with a total fine of $60 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for campaigning in bad taste through twitter in violation of rule 2.1 according to section 7.9.5.”

Eom stated that it was two separate occasions. Liu added that they didn’t separate them out for others.

Vote on Amendment

Passes Unanimously

Vote on Main MotionMoved by Raza, seconded by Eom that the Elections Committee apply two severe violations with a total fine of $60 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for campaigning in bad taste through twitter in violation of rule 2.1 according to section 7.9.5.


b) Facebook

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant stated that a team member of the Candidate had launched a Facebook page, video, and other various forms of media that were targeting another candidate’s campaign, and felt that it was very derogatory and mocking. The CRO stated that when the complaint came in she notified the Candidate and asked them to look into it. The CRO added that since the warning came out another post on the team member’s Facebook page referenced the fact that it received a complaint and then proceeded to go ahead and do another post in bad taste.

Discussion Burke stated that she wouldn’t know how to deal with this, especially since the Candidate was trying to fix

it.

Moved by Raza, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 for campaigning in bad taste through a facebook private group in violation of rules 2.1 and 4.17 according to section 7.9.5.

Sun stated that even though this was clearly meant to be a parody it does come off as offensive to the other candidate’s team. Ibe felt conflicted as he knows that the individual was on the Candidate’s team, but it is part of the democratic process to parody and be critical of other platforms. Ibe added that perhaps the individual was more critical than acceptable but they were getting their point across. Liu stated that she was conflicted as well because they could see where the team member based their points off of but it was really farfetched to say the other candidate was attacked directly. Shah felt that the video was not done in bad taste and that it was being critical of the platform points amongst others, and pointed out that the post on Facebook attacking was not nice. Sun stated that it was okay to be critical of the platform and that was the video’s intent. Sun added that the disrespectful post on Facebook deserves a bad taste violation. Ibe stated that there weren’t any endorsements for the Candidate’s team and felt that the team shouldn’t be penalized for that. Sun asked if the individual was still on the Candidate’s team. The CRO stated that she hadn’t heard anything otherwise. Liu stated that the page was


independent and she felt that it was a separate entity. Raza stated that they all agreed that the video was just a parody and critical of points so it wasn’t bad taste. Raza stated that they should be focusing on the Facebook post about how the team member’s actions were reported to the Elections Department and blamed the other candidate. Raza pointed out that this shows that the Candidate reach out about the team member’s actions and instead of taking the onus they made another post instead. Oparin felt the post was done in bad taste and would be voting in favour of this.

Vote on Motion Moved by Raza, seconded by Sun that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 for campaigning in bad taste through a facebook private group in violation of rules 2.1 and 4.17 according to section 7.9.5.



Moved by Oparin, seconded by Ibe that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Justin Monaco-Barnes for handing in their expense sheet late in violation of 6.4 according to section 7.8.2.

Oparin stated that this was in the rules.

Passes Unanimously



Moved by Sun, seconded by Ibe that the Elections Committee disqualify Justin Monaco-Barnes from the 2015-2016 Presidential Election.

Oparin stated that the two violations about MSU resources and the logo are isolated and didn’t make it unfair or influence the election. Oparin added that he felt that the violations that were in bad taste were sufficient enough to disqualify. Eom stated that the bad taste violation was rude and added that the team member was distant from the campaign so she wasn’t in favour of disqualification.

Vote on Motion


iv. Mowatt, Devante




2. Pre-Campaigning

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The CRO stated that the DRO overheard the Candidate talking about their campaign to someone else outside of the MSU office, and the DRO didn’t know that this person was on the campaign team. The CRO explained that when they informed the Candidate of the violation they stated that the person was on their campaign team. The CRO stated that this was confirmed after.

Moved by Ibe, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Devante Mowatt about pre-campaigning.

Passes Unanimously

v. Tonietto, Jonathon




The CRO explained that the complaint didn’t come through with the official complaint form, and that she wasn’t given any information on the snapchat itself.

Discussion Eom stated that they can’t verify if this person was on a campaign team as there was not sufficient

evidence.

Moved by Eom, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee dismiss the complaint against Jonathon Tonietto about using snapchat.

Burke agreed with Eom’s statement.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously

3. Defacing McMaster Property

The CRO went over the complaint with the Committee. The complainant submitted a photo of chalked campaign information being on a trashcan.


Discussion Eom asked what the response to taking it down was. The CRO stated that the team said they would but

that she didn’t follow up. Ibe stated that the Candidate told Ibe he knew he was breaking the rule but put it up anyway because there was high traffic in the area.

Moved by Oparin, seconded by Burke that the Elections Committee apply a severe violation with a fine of $30 to Jonathon Tonietto for deliberately defacing property with chalk in violation of rule 5.4 according to section 7.8.2

Oparin stated that they have heard enough evidence to know that it was deliberate.

Vote on Motion

Passes Unanimously


Moved by Burke, seconded by Liu that the Elections Committee apply a standard violation with a fine of $15 to Jonathon Tonietto for handing in their expense sheet late in violation of 6.4 according to section 7.8.2.

Passes Unanimously



Moved by Eom, seconded by Oparin that the Elections Committee disqualify Jonathon Tonietto from the 2015-2016 Presidential Election.

Eom stated that it was proper to vote on this as they did have one severe violation.

Vote on Motion


RATIFY FINES

Moved by Liu, seconded by Eom to ratify all fines for the 2015-2016 Presidential Election and Referendum.

Passes Unanimously


RATIFY RESULTS

Moved by Sun, seconded by Eom to ratify the results of the 2015-2016 Presidential Election and Referendum.

Passes Unanimously

Adjourned at 4:10am

/vs

msu-production.s3.amazonaws.com€¦ · web view2016-02-06 · liu asked if this was all word of...

Documents