Letters to the editor

Send your letters to tobaneditor@umanitoba.ca or drop them off at 105 University Centre

Jerema is irresponsible

In reading Carson Jerema’s article about the accountability of UMSU, I found myself questioning his memory of UMSU executives of the past. I found it ludicrous to suggest that the only measure of accountability at UMSU today is the placement of a suggestion box. Perhaps Mr. Jerema needs to be reminded of a few other changes that have happened in the last two years.

Last year, students’ speaking rights were returned to council. The finance committee has become active (from almost complete inactivity) in overseeing the finances of UMSU. The executive produces consistent reports of their biweekly activities to council.

The UMSU office has adopted an open-door policy.

Five new seats were added to make UMSU accountable to historically underrepresented and oppressed groups on campus and in the larger community.

To cite personal misgivings regarding the conduct of the CFS referendum and UMSU elections totally negates the fact that voter turnout has been higher than it has been in any recent memory at the university. To completely ignore the increased interest in and awareness of UMSU dismisses the intelligence and ambition of the students at the university who vote to give legitimate mandate to our elected representatives.

Finally, to insinuate that the in-camera sessions are something other than the responsible conduct of councillors making decisions on behalf of more than 27,000 students is immature and verges on irresponsible and unsubstantiated journalism.

Sincerely,
Tara Williamson
UMSU Aboriginal Student Community Representative

Jerema should listen in research methods class

I’m astounded by how petty Carson Jerema has become. The latest example is his weak evidence to suggest some kind of conspiracy in the placement of voting tables for UMSU elections.

As a student in commerce, I can tell you right now that I found it just as convenient to vote outside my faculty.

It’s way more flexible to be able to vote at any polling station. I can also see why they would want to eliminate some polling stations: there were too many. Before, it was too arbitrary which faculties had voting booths. It seemed like it was based more on some “tradition” or which faculties made a fuss than on encouraging students to vote.

The new system encourages voting based on issues, not based on some Neanderthal sense of faculty loyalty. Thanks to UMSU for bringing us into the modern era! The fact that UMSU decided to place ballot boxes where students live and walk most frequently is a credit to their rational thinking and ability to plan.

And, if Aziz and Van De Kerchkove were so mischievous with the ballot boxes, why were they inconsistent about it, as Jerema notes himself? I didn’t notice any ballot boxes in Fine Arts and Architecture or Human Ecology, where they do pretty well, for example.

Finally, I find Jerema’s suggestion that merely being involved in another students’ organization is basis for casting doubt on the ability and fairness of the Chief Returning Officer insulting.

Carson, man, you need to get out more! You should also listen better in research methods class: your data is not supposed to fit your conclusion, your conclusion is supposed to be based on the data.

Sincerely,
Mark Metner

Jerema should apologize

After reading Carson Jerema’s allegations of corruption in the recent UMSU general election (The Banana Republic of UMSU, 08/03/06), I feel it necessary to respond as one of the UMSU election expense committee members responsible for so many of the decisions he thinks “skewed” the election.

With respect to polling stations and the new system of voting, the committee members and CRO were faced with a challenge regarding poll locations: setup polls across campus to allow as many students to vote as possible, but keep it within a reasonable budget. All the committee members agreed that allowing every student to vote at any poll was important. This decision – which we felt made voting more accessible to the average student – necessitated higher costs due to the new computerized voters list to prevent errors, such as those that occurred in the CFS referendum.

Part of offsetting these costs, as well as ensuring that the election was not $20,000 over budget as was the case last year, meant reducing the number of polling stations. We decided to place polling stations in locations that would “capture” as many voters as possible. We were not assigning poll locations by faculty, but by areas of high traffic (thus UCentre, Fletcher Argue, and Armes) and areas where students live (St. Johns, Pembina Hall, University College). Mr. Jerema’s subtle suggestion that a poll should not have been placed at Bannatyne is especially ridiculous. If Mr. Jerema feels a one-minute walk for students in Management and Engineering is unreasonable, how could he possibly justify a 30 minute bus-ride to and from Fort Garry campus for Bannatyne students?

Mr. Jerema contends that we intentionally did not place polls in Management and Engineering in order to discourage those students from voting. That is simply not the case. There were two polls within short walking distance of Engineering, in Architecture and University Centre, both very high traffic areas. In addition, many engineering students have classes in the science complex, which means they pass no less then two polling stations each day.

With respect to Management, those students were within a one-minute walk of the Fletcher Argue poll, and most pass it on their way to classes outside their building, or on their way to one of the campus parking lots. Besides, Management and Engineering had the forth and fifth highest voter turnout of all the faculties. This was an impressive turn out considering they are the fifth and seventh largest faculties (U1, Arts, Sciences, Continuing Education, Commerce, Education and Engineering).

In the end, I feel the election was held in a very fair and un-biased manner. All the changes were overseen by multiple individuals (including an independent and un-biased CRO), committees, and ultimately UMSU council. The entire process was open and transparent, and there were multiple opportunities for any concerned students to be heard. I feel Mr. Jerema owes the election expense committee, as well as the CRO, an apology for calling their integrity into order. I for one am insulted by the implications that decisions I was involved in making were biased.

While I’m sure next year’s election expense committee will review what we did this year and make changes to improve on our work, I’m quite pleased with both the voter turnout and the success of the new voting system and polling locations, especially considering the minimal number of candidates that contested the election.

Jason Kelly
Graduate Student, NRI