One Final Bang

I hate to do this. As I was supposed to end this blog on a positive note. But three scrutineers have recently informed me about major irregularities during the vote counting. I want to be clear, these have not affected the results... this year. But if a more stringent system is not put into place, these irregularities can create a lot of problems.

1) When a student spoils one portion of the ballot, should the rest be counted?
For instance, if student X decides to write scribble all over the University Affairs box while making arrows and pointing to Seamus and making comments... Should that ballot still be counted for the other positions, if those marks are made in proper fashion?

2) If a student does not vote on the executives, but only chooses to vote on the referendum ones.
There was a ballot with "I do not care about the executives, but I want to vote on the referendums, so please count this ballot." A very strange request, as I would expect all ballots to be counted, and every "Readable" vote to be counted as well.

3) Piles of ballots not necessarely accounted for.
During the night, a stack of ballots were found. There was a long debate on whether those ballots were counted. When they realised that they were not, they thankfully counted them. But they still did not the source of the votes. RGN? UCU? FTX?

4) No clear rule to judge on these situations.
It is up to Candidate Reps to make a decision on certain questions. There are no general rules dictating the process. It is assumed that Official Reps will act in good faith and make responsible decisions, as opposed to partisan ones.

***

Before scrutineers get upset about this post, I want to be clear. NO RESULTS were affected by the irregularities described above. NONE. All races were clearly won.

I also realise that after a few hours, everyone knows who won the races. They are still "stuck" in the room, obliged to count every single vote, and after a while, a general lethargy starts creeping up on everyone.

***

One person in the room felt that Official Reps had way too much power to make extremely touchy decisions. For instance, if someone spoiled their ballot on the Seamus/Blake race, but decided to vote for Picard, Séguin's official rep might say the ballot should be spoiled. And Vice-Versa. I am not saying this is what happened, I am saying this is where certain conflicts can occur.

Also according to this person, these decisions should be made prior to the voting period, to allow students who do vote, to understand the consequences of their vote.

***

Some will say if it is not broken, why fix it?

Why wait until we get a problem? Surely the situation is problematic enough as it is now for someone to bring forward some changes to the methodology before the Presidential byelections.

More details to come in the next issue of La Rotonde.

-The End- (seriously)

The End

This blog was created on a whim at 2am.
25 hours later, I can happily state "Mission accomplished."

25 hours.
92 posts.
0 hours of sleep. (In roughly 48 hours)
Dozens of guest interviews.
Over 30 high quality images, all courtesy of Jason Chiu.
Over 150 comments.
Over 40 emails.

UPDATE: In 25 hours... SFUO BLOG got over 300 unique visitors from 19 cities across Canada... and two in the United States. (Houston Texas and New York), 8000+ viewed pages, average stay time on the site: 22 minutes... (Source: Google Analytics)

I enjoyed the interaction. Both with candidates and with readers. I want to thank Jason Chiu for offering his help today... And who probably delivered our biggest scoop. Thank you to the candidates who agreed to join in on the concept. Thank you to readers who decided to comment/email. And finally, thank you to scrutineers, volunteers and other well connected students who kept me informed throughout the entire day.

Thank you all. Enjoy your reading week and thank you for making this experience so memorable.

Post-Game: Clarifications

It was a hell of a run. For those wondering why I have not blogged in the last two hours, rest assured, I was not sleeping. In fact, the Internet connection at 1848 was simply pathetic. Just like the internet connection all over the University of Ottawa.

There seems to be certain misconceptions about some of the posts.

1) Sylvia Havard-Lewis and myself have a very particular relationship that dates back to two years ago. Even though it seemed like we were at war during the tally, we met up afterwards and exchanged kind words.

2) Pam Hrick. Likewise for the President of the SFUO, who was caught red-handed during the vote tally using a laptop. I have enough faith in Pam to know she will be able to get out of this situation.

3) 1848. I was relatively aggressive towards our student run bar. To be honest, I think it is one of the best locations on campus. I like the ambiance, as well as the low prices and pretty friendly staff. I do have a problem with the horrible choice of music... And the absurdly loud and abusive MCing. Oh. And the fact that 1848 presented zero bilingual content during the entire night was a bit of a turn-off. Nonetheless, I do feel like there is great potential to the student-run bar and despite certain frustrations during the night, it was a fitting place for the evening.

Next post: The End.

Analysis

The executive is in. Well, almost. The SFUO still does not have a President for next year. But the rest is pretty clear.

On the two slates presented, one clearly came out on top.

Seamus Wolfe, Danika Brisson, François Picard and Roxanne Dubois ran, albeit unofficially, a pretty standard slate. Every candidate passed, easily, except for Picard who lost a narrow race to Julie Séguin.

Julie Séguin's platform had no elements that would clash with the rest of the executive's projects. As stated before, there is more of a clash of personalities than of ideas. I am confident this SFUO will be effective and the new blood inside of the exec, alongside Joël Larose and Roxanne Dubois, will bring much good to it.

Assuming Dean Haldenby passes his bilingualism test, next year's SFUO should resemble last year's, but probably a more cohesive and more experienced bunch.

Congrats all candidates.

---

As for the BOA, there is no doubt that many students were approached to run, in order to have a majority at the board. They were approached by outgoing executives, and for the most part, they got elected.

Next year's board will be much more cohesive, which will be good for efficiency, but might hurt democracy. That being said, if Picard's idea is adopted, and the SFUO actually goes with General assemblies, it really does not matter what the BOA or executive does. Well, it does. But it matters less.

Photo courtesy of Jason Chiu. The SFUO Blog exclusive.

PRIME TIME: Referendum Results

1) Women’s Resource Centre

Do you agree to contribute $1.00 per full-time student and $0.50 per part-time student per semester in order for the Women’s Resource Centre to operate as a service of the SFUO?

Yes 2247
No 1160

2) Universal Bus Pass

Do you agree to contribute a maximum of $125 per full-time student per semester (fall and winter) for a Universal Bus Pass, with such a contribution coming into effect as of the time that the pass is available at this price for students?

Yes 2481
No 940

3) ombudsperson

Do you agree that the University of Ottawa should have an office of the ombudsperson?

Yes 2238
No 973

***

Students reading this might think their student fees will be rising next year. Rest assured, two of the three referendums are non-binding. In fact, at best, the OC Transpo Bus Pass referendum will be effective in September 2009, if at all.

As for Ombudsman, there were no fees attached, and it is unclear as to what we will be seeing following this vote.

Finally, the Women's Resource Centre will now be a service of the SFUO.

I don't want to go on too long on this issue. But notice how more students vote in favour of the U-Pass than on the non-binding, no-cost question of Ombudsman. I'm not sure what it means, but it is interesting.

PRIME TIME: BOA results

The first numer indicated the total number of votes received. The other ones basically go by choice? I am really no sure how they compiled these results, but the most imprtant stat is the first row. I put all winners in Bold.

ARTS (Top 5)

Hajjar, Crystel 162
Miville, Serge 177

Boteler, Sarah	221
Dunsby, Jenna	229
Lamarche, Michèle	231
Montgomery, Cameron	251
Carito, Antonio	259
Book, Melanie	275
Cheevers, Michael	294
Kennery, Ryan	473

Kennery, Cheevers, Book, Carito and Montgomery made the cut.

SOC SCIE (Top 6)
L'Heureux, Mathieu		390
Fancie, Mike		395
Trottier, Jacques		430
Horton, Ted		432
Breau, Samuel		450
Lehn, Faris		455
Kishek, Amy		529

Kishek, Lehn, Breau, Horton, Trottier and Fancie made the cut.

SCIENCE (top 3)
Alteen, Matthew	253
Dornan, Mark	261
Mah, Richard	304
Fair, Joel	370

Joel Fair, Richard Mah, Mark Dornan made the cut.

MED (Only one)
Mondoux, Shawn	50	0									50
Wallace, Becky	59	2									61

Becky Wallace made the cut.

HEALTH SCI
Rashotte, Laura	30/6	248/60
Ryc, Kyle A.	32/6	226/78

Both candidates were elected.

telfer
Dupuis, Joël	21/1	145/35
Khadijah, Kanji	13/9	128/52

Both candidates were elected.

law
Benovoy, Jason	47/9

Jason Benovoy made the cut.

Prime Time: Exec Races

3400 students voted. Winners in bold.

VP Communications
Picard - 1428 (43%)
Séguin - 1927 (57%)

VP Student Affairs
Brisson 2080 (65%)
Doneathy 1117 (35%)

VP Social
Laplante 1341 (43%)
Larose 1790 (57%)

VP University Affairs
Wolfe 2481 (78%)
Thibault 683 (22%)

VP Finance
Roxanne Dubois
YES - 91% (2926)
NO - 9% (298)