Election process was fair

Amanda Aziz

Though Mr. Jerema’s investigative journalism in “The banana republic of UMSU” (08/03/2006) was entertaining, I wish to clarify a great deal of misinformation that was contained in his piece.

Mr. Jerema seems particularly concerned about the use of closed session at UMSU council meetings. It appears that his absence from UMSU council meetings has led him to misunderstand the concept of closed session, which is to discuss confidential matters. Specifically, this year it has been used to discuss confidential contract negotiations UMSU has been privy to with the university administration, such as the extension of the Aramark contract.

Discussing these proceedings in open session could ultimately restrict UMSU’s ability to participate in confidential negotiations in the future. Closed session is also used to discuss sensitive human resource matters as well as legal issues that cannot be discussed in open session without the risk of getting into legalities.

In regards to the referendum conducted on membership in the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), had Mr. Jerema been paying attention to the council meeting where the CFS referendum oversight committee gave their report last November, he would have understood that the committee was made up of impartial members (including a staff member of UMSU) and that UMSU allocated money to the “No” campaign, even though UMSU Council endorsed the “Yes” side, in order to ensure fairness.

In addition, he would have learned that there were a number of posters removed that contravened the referendum rules on both sides of the debate and that no bylaws were, nor needed to be, changed to accommodate a change in the voting process that allowed students to vote at any poll.

Above all, it is no surprise that the referendum process is now being called into question by Mr. Jerema: his political bias is clearly stated in his commentary “A Case Against the Canadian Federation of Students” (02/11/2005) in which he urged students to vote “No.”

Regarding UMSU elections, Mr. Jerema should know that the process is, by design, removed from the powers of the UMSU executive. The Chief Returning Officer (CRO) is chosen by a selections committee made up of a number of council members and students-at-large, and then voted on by the entire council (in total, about 49 members).

To call into question the CRO based on her past organizational affiliations is desperate at best. In 2005, the UMSU CRO was also the CRO for the Red River College Students’ Association (RRCSA), which should have caused disadvantages for myself and Cathy Van De Kerckhove due to our less than ideal working relationship with the RRCSA in 2004-05. In 2004, the CRO was a friend of one of the UMSU staff members at the time, and arguably was biased in favour of the incumbents that year, who lost. The list continues, and becomes more absurd.

The elections expense committee (made up of council members and students-at-large) is tasked with the selection of polling stations, among other things. This committee took into consideration feedback about the polling locations during the referendum, and the revised list of locations was presented to council for input. In Mr. Jerema’s fixation on location of polling stations, he fails to mention that there were also no booths in Fine Arts, Pharmacy, Law, Dentistry, Agriculture, Music, St. Paul’s, Architecture, and other faculty buildings.

Perhaps the elections could use more polling stations in areas where students rarely leave their buildings (like Music and Law); however, it is inappropriate to now call into question the motivations of those on the committee, especially when this could have been called into question (and addressed) during the elections.

The turnout in the referendum last fall was 18 per cent — very high for the U of M. Polls were conducted at the new locations, and students were allowed to vote anywhere. These results were not replicated in the 2006 general election. At about 10 per cent, turnout was lower this year than last, but still comparable to elections of the past. Recall that voter turnout was only 4.6 per cent in 2002, about 9 per cent in 2003, 11 per cent in 2004, and 15 per cent in 2005.

Interestingly, about the same number of management students voted in the referendum (with no polling station in Drake) as voted in the 2005 UMSU general elections (with a polling station in Drake), and similar statistics apply to Engineering. As for overall turnout in the 2006 UMSU election (10 per cent), most faculties were down compared to the CFS referendum (18 per cent).

The elections appeals process also deserves some attention. The UMSU bylaws allow for students with legitimate concerns around the conduct of the elections to bring these before an elections appeals board (the Elections Discipline, Interpretation and Enforcement Board). No such complaints were submitted to this board, including by Mr. Jerema.

Rather than concocting diversionary allegations concerning the electoral process, I encourage Mr. Jerema and all students to participate in the policy and bylaws review currently being undertaken by UMSU council. If Mr. Jerema’s intention is to ensure fairness, there are many other ways to do so than writing sensationalized commentaries.

Amanda Aziz is president of UMSU.