Paul Browning files complaint regarding SFSS by-election
This complaint was filed today with the Independent Electoral Commission:
I have been advised that four other election complaints have also been submitted to the Independent Electoral Commission by Paul Browning, but the Commission staff refused to deliver these to me for some reason....
To: SFSS Independent Electoral Commission(I do not have the "message" that allegedly constituted 'unauthorized campaigning.')
I am hereby submitting a complaint as follows:
The message below (both the message and the forward) were sent to a Departmental Student Union e-mail list.
In this message, contents of a blog/weblog by Titus Gregory at his website, www.studentunion.ca were copied by an individual named Theresa Hughes and then further distributed by an individual named Anita Swallow. The original posting is accessible on studentunion.ca is accessible as a posting on December 5th, 2006 with the title "SFSS By-Election: The Candidates."
I believe that this is a biased commentary on the candidates that could influence the election and could therefore be considered an unauthorized form of campaigning by Mr. Gregory, as well as the individuals that forwarded the message.
Also, in the comments underneath the posting, Xenia Menzies makes a comment on how she is voting which can also be considered an unauthorized form of campaigning. Furthermore, if you view the comments on the wesbite, other individuals including Derrick Harder and Chris Sandve also answer people's questions and/or give out their e-mail addresses in cases voters would like to contact them. I consider the postings of Harder and Sandve along with the numerous third-party comments to also be forms of unauthorized campaigning.
Sincerely,
Paul Browning
I have been advised that four other election complaints have also been submitted to the Independent Electoral Commission by Paul Browning, but the Commission staff refused to deliver these to me for some reason....
Labels: sfu
28 Comments:
Wow, Paul Browning is being....well Paul Browning I guess. No offense to this guy, but what a load of crap. So what if there are supposedly biased views on this site? It's Titus' private site, and he can damn well say whatever he wants to, whether Browning likes it or not. And if other people take one person's opinion as the end all advice on who to vote for, then the people who did that need to give their head a shake. I mean Titus isn't the preeminent source of information for the by election, no offense Titus. If people really wanted information, they could have asked...oh I don't know, the candidates themselves! I think this is just an attempt by Browning to slow the process of allowing the SFSS to get on with it's business.
Hey Titus,
You are not alone in this. I have already been warned that my blog is a violation of MSU Election bylaws and that any candidate that I support or am seen to support will most likely be disqualified for illegal campaigning. Here, at McMaster, a candidate can be disqualified if there is any electronic campaign which includes the posting of any message using any electronic means by anyone regardless of there lack of affiliation with the candidate.
Candidates have been fined at McMaster for people having MSN names that say "I am voting for ~insert name here~ on ~insert date here~, how about you?",
"Vote ~insert name~".
It is so bad that last year, I had three candidates beg me to not mention anything about the individual candidates or their platforms because of the threat of disqualification.
The Elections Committee has taken it further that critism of a candidate by electronic means by anyone can result in fines against other candidates for unauthorized campaigning.
We have, in Canada, student unions that believe the only source of infomation and opinion should be the student politicians and that freedom of speech must be crushed at all costs.
How else do you explain some of the election rules in place across Canada and the recent actions at Carleton?
Also, for the record, I am not going to shy away from expressing my opinions on student elections this winter and neither should you.
I will definitely be keeping an extensive list of blog links on student elections. Students should have the right to an opinion and frankly people running for election should be allow to interact with the people they are looking to represent.
Paul Browning is an ass and a cfs sycophant. I expect the IEC will tell him to go blow.
I agree that this is a load of crap. Anyone can post to Titus' blog, and since most people at SFU can be emailed at firstname_lastname@sfu.ca, a couple of candidates posting their email address is hardly a big deal. The initial post, as far as I can tell, gives the "results" of applying a common -- and quite reasonable -- research methodology to all candidates: google, facebook, and Peak archive searches. I would consider this a pretty unbiased method in scientific research (I'm a scientist), and I think it washes fine in political reporting too. The comments are a whole lot bolder, but candidates from all slates take a beating, and pretty much all the criticism posts are countered by other posts that disagree.
I wonder if Mr. Browning would have filed a complaint had the Revive slate been elected, somehow I doubt it. This is merely a continuation of his efforts to delay and bungle the will of the people. I see nothing wrong with the fact that I posted this on my website. It was written and posted for information purposes only, this is yet another complaint by this faction that is completely without merit.
Yes, I believe that Paul Browning is annoying but...
Does he have a valid point?
Does what has occurred on this blog violate SFSS election policy?
If so, what does that mean and what actions should be taken?
I have not read the SFSS Election Policies nor will I pretend to understand them having not read them. The following is all generalities.
Are the election policies restrictive in the sense that what has transpired on this website can be seen by a reasonable person to have violated the policies?
If so, what action is required by the election commission under those policies?
How much action is to the discretion of the commission?
Is this a matter of bad policy or bad procedure?
If it is bad policy, then the policy must change.
If it is bad procedure (the policy is good) then action must be taken based on the complaint.
The man thing I want to state is that I agree that Paul Browning is annoying and smells of the CFS but.... that does not dismiss his complaint.
Yes, if the CFS slate had won, Browning would not be complaining but if we only allow those on the winning side to complain about the process, then we defeat the purpose of appeal.
so you're saying that all I have to do to get someone disqualified from an election is display information about them on a blog?
that is... interesting.
It has been my experience at UVic, long ago, that the ruling CFS slate amended the electoral rules to ban every innovative thing "the other side" came up with and thus created an unworkable set of rules.
I see this happens elsewhere, it's probably in the CFS handbook.
IMHO, a basic set of rules has to included in the University and all these Student Societies formalized instead of being under the Society Act.
paul browning, i know you are reading this. being that you failed in your defense of your pathetic cfs hack buddies, and in chairing their meetings, now you are challenging a valid election, which will be rejected by the elections committee, as sure as you are an abusive and anti-democratic meeting chair. are you on the cfs/catalyst creative payroll, or just a shill for harassing society staff that are not climbing the i-want-a-job-like-joey-hansen ladder? word is you used to be a decent, albeit insecure, fella who found a sense of belonging through political activism. maybe you have finally found some folks that value your contribution? please, give in already. you are going nowhere fast; a mere annoying speed-bump on the the road to a stable and effectve sfss.
Great work Paul, Tell them How it is?
Your Boyz are Behind you
These ppls are have one track Minds i am happy at least one person on this Blog can think "outside the box" and tell it how it is
You know, this is an issue that's going to start to come up all over the place. Generally I think student unions are years behind the game as far as election policies and the internet are concerned. There are still dozens of schools that forbid any kind of internet or email campaigning - and that is going to have to change.
You can't stop people from talking about an election of the candidates. On the contrary, election policies should be structured to encourage such dialogue.
This whole idea of being able to control campaigning on campus, and limiting that campaigning to a defined geographical area, is antiquated.
If anyone knows of any schools with up to date election policies that embrace the internet, please post - I'd love to see them.
I only heard this from Lindsay Gabelhouse's campaign info, but it seems that UBC has had some form of electronic voting for some time now. I'm not aware of the details, or if this is actually enshrined in their policy, but it seems to be something useful that can be implemented for SFU.
Of course, maybe I'm just too lazy to look it up myself :P
I often find that the best way to show just how ridiculous comments like these are is to place them in a "real world" (read: non-student politics world) scenario. Read the following quotes as if they were referencing a municipal, provincial, or even federal election:
"I believe that this is a biased commentary on the candidates that could influence the election and could therefore be considered an unauthorized form of campaigning...Furthermore, if you view the comments on the wesbite, other individuals including Derrick Harder and Chris Sandve also answer people's questions and/or give out their e-mail addresses in cases voters would like to contact them. I consider the postings of Harder and Sandve along with the numerous third-party comments to also be forms of unauthorized campaigning."
Are we really going to disqualify mayoral incumbent Miller in the Toronto race because of a blog post promoting him? Or because the Toronto Star wrote a favourable editorial and posted it on their website? What about the smear campaign launched against all federal politicians in the last election by each other and their supporters in the blogosphere and in the pages of the national newspapers? What kind of reaction would we have if journalists were fined for commenting on a politician's past performance during an election season?
We have to realize that we are student politicians and student journalists and the operative word in these terms is "student". We are learning to operate in the real world and the real world demands fairness and open debate in all aspects. Muzzling commentary results in an uninformed electorate who then make poorer and misinformed decisions at the ballot box. Voters need to be aware of any candidate's qualifications, both good and bad, and history has shown that trusting the candidates themselves to provide this information is a really bad way of going about it.
I echo Joey's comments: if this is a matter of policy then the policy needs to be changed. If it's poor action resulting from good policy then someone needs to call BS and let the commentary slide. But, honestly, muzzling open independent debate surrounding an election? You're kidding, right?
Sorry, Paul, but your argument doesn't hold any water and ultimately sounds more totalitarian than democratic.
But is he calling for disqualification? Many student unions have smaller penalties than disqualification for breaking rules, such as fines, or demerits points or other stuff like that.
If they broke the rules, they should face some penalty.
Paul Browning's motivations aside, it doesn't seem that any specific rules have been violated, at least from a reading of the Constituition and the Rules, Standing Orders, and Administrative Policies, both of which enumerate the basic election policies.
Of course, these are the only documents I have access to; there could be another set of policies of which I have no knowledge, but as it stands, it doesn't look like Paul Browning has much of a case.
The only specific prohibition on campaigning methods is explained in By-Law 14, Sections 13 and 14, which state that literature much not be "inflammatory" and that expenses shall be limited to $50 per candidate.
There are additional rules about campaining that are set by the IEC and distributed to candidates in the form of an info sheet entitled "Candidate Information" at the start of the election. I've just scanned & posted this info sheet here.
Unfrotunately, these rules don't seem to be easily available (i.e., not referenced or available anywhere on the SFSS website), and most non-candidates are probably totally unaware that they exist. I believe that these rules also change somewhat each year.
One thing that seems crazy to me is that people who have no connection to a candidate and are not candidates themselves can be fined for breaking these rules -- rules that most students can't be reasonably expected to know even exist. And further that a candidate can hypothetically be fined or disqualified in connection to the violation of these rules by a 3rd party who can't be expected to know that these rules exist.
I'll say right now that I've personally witnessed all the slates violating the rules in this election. But all the violations that I witnessed seemed too trivial to matter to the outcome, so I didn't report most of them. It seems to me that many of the decisions of the IEC are probably discressionary, which means that having an impartial IEC with good judgement is imperative, and just as important as what the rules say.
To me, the rules seem overly restrictive, especially in light of current place of internet in society. I'd like to see major changes.
Bob Wilkins here, Titus.
The IEC can't refuse your request. Use Society Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 433, sec. 37.
If you want a copy of the current candidate information package, email me and I'll send it to you for posting. FYI, emailing to DSUs is a violation only if done by candidates, and your blog (and Xenia's) isn't. Posting on message boards is also against the IEC campaigning rules. I've bought drinks that cost more than the fines they dole out, so the only real punishment is diaqualification, which gives the IEC the power of deciding the election.
Cheers,
Bob
I agree that emailing a DSU list is only a violation if done by a candidate -- according to the written rules. But the chief election commissioner (Gavin Steininger) has said that this rule can also apply to non-candidates. Which makes sense in a way, since a candidate could just ask a friend to do all their rule-breaking campaigning for them in order to circumvent the rules. This is why the IEC has to use their discression wisely.
But on the other hand, this perhaps gives the IEC too much power. If there are too many rules and all candidates end up breaking some, the IEC essentially has the power to "choose" the winner of any election (although, of course, the BC Supreme Court can use its discression to overturn decisions of the SFSS election commission).
Another issue is that since the Board of Directors appoints the IEC, the incumbent Board could hypothetically stack the IEC with people friendly to them in order to increase their chances or re-election. This becomes a problem mostly if a single slate dominates the Board, since appointments to the IEC require a 2/3 majority vote by the Board.
I think it would be better if Forum appointed to the IEC, being a larger, less partisan body. But the appoinment of the IEC by the Board is laid out in the By-Laws, and can therefore only be changed at a quorate General Meeting. So this is unlikely to change.
However, the risk of the Board stacking the IEC could be reduced by scrapping the slate system, which exists by virtue of an administrative policy that could be changed by a vote of the Board (i.e., no quorate general meeting required). Overall I'm not 100% sure whether I'm in favour or against the slate system, but this would be 1 more argument against it.
So, how does it work,
if one wants to express his/her opinion by e-mail, especially when they are not involved in any campaigning and they are not candidates, then they are doing something 'illegal'?
Isn't that called freedom of speech?
yes and no. In this election the IEC has said that it's okay to send an email to one or a few individual people, but not to a "closed" email list (one that you need permission to send to, like the DSU lists). My understanding (perhaps incorrect) of the rationale is this: (1) it would give an unfair advantage to a candidate who somehow has access to a DSU list, if other candidates don't have access also; (2) they tried letting all candidates email to the DSU lists a couple of years ago, but this enraged students because many people considered it spam.
However, I think this rule has to go. The DSU lists shouldn't be thrown open to all candidates, but nonetheless, many private email lists (incl. the DSU lists) function as discussion forums for students, and students should be able to discuss what they like on these lists. I think that rules banning discussion on private email lists (or blogs!) do more to undermine the democratic process than to protect it. Public discussion is fundamental to democracy. Private email lists tend to be self-regulating anyway - anyone who sends a bunch of vote-for-me emails to a DSU list will have to face the wrath of people who consider this spam. But it the list members consider it useful discussion then it probably is just that.
Bob again,
Two things on emailing DSUs.
First, last election we got tons of emails from candidates to our private, internal email list, not to our public list. The IEC should have contacted the list owners prior to distributing it, and didn't. If they do it again, many DSUs will say no because of the poor way it was handled last time.
Secondly, like it or not, it violates sfu policy, and the DSU lists, or at least mine, was an sfu.ca list.
The SFSS electoral rules are incredibly antiquated and prone to abuse. My number one desire for SFSS reform is of the electoral system.
Just a few points:
1) IEC members should be selected by random draw from a pool of candidates nominated by their fellow students in a manner similar to that as nominating candidates for elected positions.
2) SFSS elections and Senate elections should occur on opposite ends of the annual calendar.
3) Limits on campaign funding should be maintained, but costless campaign methods (ie, electronic) should not need authorization.
As a cynical side note: If Paul Browning's complaints do hold water I'm going to write positive statements about CFS candidates in upcoming elections in order to disqualify them for receiving unauthorized election support.
Tip of the hat to Bishnu
Before people paint the IEC with a big brush of idiocy, wait until the ruling is made. At UBC I certainly found that a competent, independent, and resourced Elections Committee usually made the right decisions.
AMS elections have been online for four elections now. Facebook groups were a big component of last years efforts. The only real restriction is the use of AMS central/constituency/resource group resources to further efforts - for instance the listserv of the Student Environment Centre.
That said, I suspect that a lot of the innovative methods currently used were technically illegal, but AMS elections are slate-free and it usually doesn't happen that an individual candidate has the time or inclination to watch everything done by the other candidates.
sometimes people want information but they do not want to go look for it. what if one e-mails a list you are a member of, sending info on all slates and candidate? is that camapaigning? I really do not think so.
and what if the list is open?
and what if, for once in their life, the SFSS really made their website useful and posted those IEC rules that just a small group of people seem to be aware of?
in brief, apart from the strict rules, I am sure that the IEC is able to discern and distinguish unlawful propaganda from discussion, and react to those complaints accordingly.
This isn't the first time someone's tried to use IEC rules to make trouble for people. I was a polling clerk one election and the ballot box was getting full, so I had to use a ruler to try and shove the ballots in so they wouldn't overflow.
Well, the dumb fuck who had deposited his envelope decided he wanted to make an issue of it. I thought he was joking about the foreign object thing, and then realized he was actually going to make an issue of it. Luckily two of the guys from the IEC were there, and they made short work of el jerk-off.
I agree - IEC regulations need to be updated and broadly publicized so everybody knows what to do and what not to do.
I believe thanks are in order for a certain candidate (he knows who he is) and Clea Moray for helping me become less ignorant :)
After a review of the points aformentioned, I do believe that some manner of reform in election policies is needed. Certainly, we need to update the rules with regards to campaigning; I think it would be prudent to de-regulate Internet electioneering as long as definite restrictions are it place (i.e. no using students@sfu.ca or Society computers).
However, I think the main priority for now would be to increase the independence of the IEC. Having Forum appoint, or at least recommend, candidates seems like a good idea (though that seems to have been the case anyway for the current IEC). It also seems sound to have a random balloting system. Perhaps these issues can be brought up at the next meeting of the Constitutional and Policy Review Committee...
Anyway, that's my two cents, measly as it is.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home