The banana republic of UMSU
A Choice for More . . .
Carson Jerema Staff
UMSU elections are typically spectacles of Machiavellian pettiness, and this year was no different.
The outgoing executive claims to have brought openness and accountability to UMSU. Unfortunately, the practice of repeatedly using closed sessions in council meetings to discuss substantive issues — the convention in the past is that closed council sessions are rare and only used for discussing human resources — is only one example that UMSU’s idea of accountability and openness is merely to provide a suggestion box outside the main office.
Nowhere is the lack of accountability and utter contempt for democratic principles more evident than in election procedures, illustrated in last fall’s referendum that saw UMSU join the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). The referendum would act as a precursor to the conduct of the recently concluded UMSU presidential election, which saw the election of Garry Sran, a former campaign manager for the outgoing executive.
The CFS referendum
UMSU suspended their own referendum by-laws, and while the rules drawn up for the CFS referendum were largely based on those by-laws, some important omissions were made. There was no attempt to seek an outside election overseer as there was no chief returning officer (CRO). Instead, a Referendum Oversight Committee, with two representatives from UMSU and two from CFS, was put in place.
UMSU’s by-laws state that all materials, even those already in existence, must be given a dollar value and counted toward a pre-determined spending limit. There was no financial accountability during the referendum to ensure that the weight of the multi-million dollar CFS did not unfairly affect the outcome.
Campaigning during voting days was also permitted and has since been formally added to the by-laws. The result of this was students being practically pushed into the polls and told to vote “yes.” And yes, campaigning during voting happens every year, but so do smear campaigns and other questionable election practices.
Third-party campaigning, usually prohibited by UMSU by-laws, also characterized the referendum, as the University of Winnipeg Students’ Association (UWSA) executive actively campaigned on the U of M campus in favour of joining CFS.
The collection of “no” side posters was taken down in its entirety twice. The first time was because the campaigners didn’t get the posters approved. The reason they were taken down the second time is unclear, but the history of UMSU elections and referendums featuring sabotage certainly leads to speculation.
Perhaps most telling was a change to election by-laws prior to the referendum. As most students have noticed, it is possible for one to vote at any polling station, as opposed to only in home faculties, residences and colleges.
On the surface this appears to be an added convenience, but it gave the Referendum Oversight Committee the authority to choose where polling stations would be situated. And surprise — there was no polling station in the management building (Drake), where the “no” side campaign was based.
The 2006 UMSU election and the CRO
The current executive’s desire to achieve its ends was again clearly demonstrated in the recent UMSU presidential election. A CRO was appointed, Caitlin Brown, but her ability to act as an objective referee was questionable at best.
Brown was vice-president for student services of the UWSA for 2004-05. The UMSU and UWSA executives have been working very closely since outgoing president and vice-president Amanda Aziz and Cathy Van De Kerckhove were elected for the first time in 2004.
Given that UMSU president elect Garry Sran is a former campaign manager of Aziz and Van De Kerckhove, it doesn’t take much to see who stood to benefit from the appointment of a former UWSA executive as the CRO. The CRO is entrusted to ensure that by-laws are respected as well as to determine where polling stations are located. Two Deputy Returning Officers (DRO) assist the CRO.
Polling station shenanigans
Polling stations were absent from the two largest faculties after arts and science — management and engineering. Neglecting to put polling stations in these faculties for the 2006 election would appear to have more to do with strategy than with convenience.
When they were first elected in 2004, Aziz and Van De Kerckhove only received 21 votes in management, whereas their opponents, Shawn Alwis and Mark Attunes, received 102, and Dana Gregoire and Paulo Fernandez received 83.
In 2005, Aziz and Van De Kerckhove lost management to Kalyn Bomback and Josh Bloomfield by a margin of 252 to 90. The fact that one of the DROs is herself a management student doesn’t negate this omission.
In engineering, Aziz and Van De Kerckhove had a good showing in 2005, losing by only eight votes, with a final count of 107 to 99. But in the previous year they only received 17 votes to Gregoire and Fernandez’s 185 and Alwis and Attunes’ 40.
Sran campaigned on a continuation of the platform first initiated by Aziz and Van De Kerckhove — hence his slogan, “A Choice for More.” As such, his ability to do well in management and engineering was uncertain to say the least. The omission of polling stations to serve these two faculties was reinforced by where stations were actually located.
The home faculty of Sran’s opponent, Patrick Smith, (science) was represented with a station in Armes. However, it is telling that in both Aziz and Van De Kerckhove’s election and re-election they dominated among science students, beating opponents in 2004 with 128 votes to 53 and 59. In 2005, they won with 304 votes to 151.
St. John’s College, which has a small electorate, had a polling station this year as well. Aziz and Van De Kerchove took it last year. In 2004, they lost it but not by much. Bannantyne Campus was also a logical choice for a polling station, as Aziz and Van De Kerckhove took medicine in both years that they stood for office. And of course there was a polling station in Fletcher Argue, primarily serving arts — Sran’s expected stronghold.
There was a station in Pembina Hall, where Aziz and Van De Kerckhove lost twice, but nowhere near the margins by which they lost in management and engineering in the past, suggesting that Speechly students could have gone either way. And while the support of Speechly students for Sran wasn’t inevitable, it doesn’t make up for omissions elsewhere.
It might be said that polling stations were chosen in an objective manner and that some faculties were inevitably going to be left out. However, if the choice of polling stations was indeed a matter of convenience then it makes little sense to leave out two of the biggest faculties at the U of M. The evidence suggests that polling stations were chosen to limit the participation of students who would have voted against Sran.
In the end
Every year, UMSU presidential hopefuls and their campaign volunteers use underhanded tactics to help them in their pursuit of office. Smear campaigns and attempts to see opponents disqualified are often popular approaches. This game has been taken to a new level with election procedures themselves being overtly manipulated to help ensure the desired outcome of the current executive.
The posturing of openness and accountability that has characterized UMSU in recent years has become little more than populist rhetoric. All students, especially those that have been swayed by such rhetoric, should take notice and be concerned that UMSU has been transformed into what can be best described as a banana republic.
Carson Jerema is a fourth-year political studies student and the Manitoban’s Comment Editor.
