This topic was discussed over and over, and I do not want to dwell too much on it.However, I am surprised about the Elections' office decision to fine Joseph W. Richards II for "campaigning" before the allowed date. What really shocked me about this was the fact that Dean Haldenby launched an official complaint. Of all people, this surprised me.
In all honesty, if anyone has had a "pre-campaign" it is certainly Dean Haldenby. Not everyone gets to be featured on the Front page of a student newspaper, not to mention the subject of the main news stories, editorials and even editorial cartoons of both campus papers! Haldenby also had the advantage of doing classrooms for the U-Pass, once again, getting seen. This is all without mentioning the fact that he has been VP Finance for the last year.
Some might argue, and rightfully so, that he was not directly campaigning before the allowed time. Granted. He was only getting "seen". Correct. I do think it is stretching it to say that a blog, seen by at most 20 people, indicating who JWR2 is and what he stands for, is getting an unfair advantage on Haldenby.
I understand that rules are rules. Haldenby was entitled to launch a complaint. The Elections Office was in its right to fine Richards. I am not contesting any of the events that took place today. I am simply surprised that they took place in the first place, considering how respectful and understanding the general elections were.
JWR2 is contesting the decision, as he states here.
Why we shouldn't go down this path...
I have already received this leaked email from the Elections Office:
''Dean Haldenby came in my BIO 2533 class in Lamoureux 121, MondayWhat will the Elections office do? Will they follow-up? Why shouldn't they?
February 11th @ 1pm to advertise his SFUO campaign for President.
According to the electoral regulations, you cannot advertise before Sunday
March 2nd at 4:30pm. I think it follows section 7.9 in the regulations''
Haldenby started this and the Elections Office contributed to it by giving a partisan/subjective complaint way too much credence. The 50$ fine was certainly not necessary. A simple warning would have sufficed.
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the conversations on this blog and elsewhere will focus on ideas, vision, leadership and debates... As opposed to this "politicking" we have been witnessing.
I want to be clear. Dean Haldenby had a right to launch a complaint. The Elections Office had a right to fine JWR2. I simply disagree that this is the best strategy for the frontrunner to be using and certainly think the Elections Office is setting itself up for a series of challenges and complaints by rendering such a decision.
Photo courtesy of Jason Chiu. The SFUO Blog™ exclusive.
7 comments:
For the record, the "elections leaked document" is probably referring to the fact that I was campaigning for the Universal Bus Pass referendum, and as a volunteer I was fully within my right to do so. I did not at any time make a presidential campaign presentation during the general elections.
Wassim, it is clear that you are not able to have promotional campaign materials up prior to the campaign start date. These are the rules that they are clearly indicated by the elections office.
I agree Dean.
Which is why I posted not once, but twice, the fact that you were within your rights to launch such a complaint.
Also, I did not lodge a complaint against anyone with regard to absences at the mandatory all candidates meeting.
What I still don't understand is how a serious candidate that is running for the highest position of a Federated body is not willing to follow the rules. Sure, Dean has has had publicity by having been the past VP finance, or even on the UPass referendum. However, like Dean stated, he, as well as any other election candidate, is entitled to a fair race. If, for example, Dean, had decided to start campaigning prior to the by-election period, I am sure you would have blogged about it.
In this instance, however, you decide to blog about how a candidate chose to follow strictly guided rules. You cannot go back and forth on the rules. You either follow them or you don't. It just so happens that a well known candidate chose to follow them, while a lesser known candidate chose to... not only not follow the rules, but also preferred to not show up to a mandatory meeting.
I agree with anoynomous (2). Being an underdog candidate doesn't give one the priviledge to ignore the rules.
Sure, any incumbent has an advantage in terms of media exposure, etc. But the three people who ran against incumbents in the general elections still respected the rules. And one of the three still won.
Maybe the sanction, a $50 fine, was exaggerated, but this was a decision of the Elections Office, not Dean's.
(For full disclosure: I am supporting Dean's campaign)
From what I understand from the Presidential race last year, this is nothing in comparison to the sorts of complaints that went on. I remember hearing of a candidate getting reprimanded for an endorsement in an MSN name during the campaign period (which, at the time, was against the rules). Even little things such as posters being in the wrong places were causing candidates to get penalized.
Rules are in place for a reason and I think we would probably get into an even stickier situation if the Elections Office started letting things slide.
During any of my past campaigns, if I had broken a rule, I would completely expect the Elections Office to address it since it is my responsibility, as a candidate, to be aware of the rules.
RE: MSN.
A complaint was logged against me, official rep, because my boyfriend who did not even go to UofO had my candidate's slogan in his MSN name and the official rep of the other candidate happened to be on his MSN list.
Completely ridiculous. And the complaint didn't even fly. I asked him to take it down just to get the other side to leave us alone.
However, when it comes to the actual rules, I think that you do have to pick and choose your battles. You shouldn't complain about everything. You have no idea how many things we let slide last year and that I let slide during my BOA campaign. But allowing too many things to "slide" leads to an unfair advantage for the rule breaker.
Dean is showing that he is serious and that he knows both the election rules and the constitution rather well, which is important in a presidential candidate.
Post a Comment