|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| [RDC] Election Committee Decision 2 |
Contributed by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 05:30 PM CST
|
The following is a decision by the Election Committee in regards to a statement made by VPAF Candidate Yasid Gilbert.
On Wednesday, February 9th, an allegation was made that VPAF candidate Yasid Gilbert violated section G.1.a of the election procedure with regard to the following statement made on his website:
"For the last 3-4 years, Feds has not embarked on a single venture to help out those in need." This statement is posted at
http://www.feds.ca/elections/candidates/yasid_gilbert.html and at http://www.feds2005.com/7155.html.
The alleger states “this statement shows an intent to make potential voters believe that ventures to help those in need are less common than they are. Because the statement is absolute, showing that the statement is false requires only one counter example.
In November of 2002, less than three years ago, Feds Food Bank organized Meal Exchange to help those in need of food in the Kitchener-Waterloo community. (http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2002/nov/22fr.html WatCard funds can aid food bank).
Election Procedure 6, Section G reads in part as follows:
G. CAMPAIGNING PERIOD
1. Rules for candidates
a. No lying.
The Election Committee investigated the claims made on Mr. Gilbert's website and the counterclaims made by the alleger by visiting the relevant web site. Mr. Gilbert was contacted by the Election Committee to present evidence relevant to the alleged violation, but he did not arrive at the meeting on Wednesday, February 09, 2005. Regardless, the Meal Exchange program that took place in November 2002, as a venture “to reduce hunger in the K-W area”
does contradict Mr. Gilbert’s assertion that the Federation of Students have not embarked on a single venture to help out those in need in the past 3-4 years, and no evidence presented by Mr. Gilbert could change the fact that the Meal Exchange program did in fact take place.
The Election Committee has determined that Mr. Gilbert’s statements were false and that he is in violation of the election procedure, section G.1.a.
Mr. Gilbert is hereby fined 15% of his spending limit, taking the form of a reduction in his spending limit of $67.50.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sabrina should be next! on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 10:40 PM CST |
Election Committee Decision February 11, 2005
On February 8th, an allegation was made that candidate John Andersen
violated section G.1.b of the Election Procedure based on statements made in
his website’s campaign blog.
The allegation pertains to a conversation between the alleger and Mr.
Andersen that was then made public on his campaign website’s blog.
The alleger states the following occurred after the Feds Media Forum:
“Leaving that forum I did not feel good about my performance because I did
lose my temper and became aggressive. That evening I decided to call John
up to talk. In that conversation we discussed the forum, and I mentioned to
him that I was not pleased with my handling of that forum, and how going
into the elections I didn’t want to go down that route, and that I hope I
didn’t offend him in anyway, and if I did that was not my intention, and I
apologize.”
Some time after that conversation took place, a blog entry on
www.uwvotes.com, authored by Mr. Andersen, reported in part the following:
“Hi everyone, I know a lot of you have been approaching me upset with the
way many of this year's candidates have been behaving. I would like to make
my stance CLEAR...I am not interested in running a campaign based on
slandering the other candidates. Running a smear campaign without substance
only disenfranchises our student body. This election should be about issues,
and the future of the Federation. In no way should this election resemble
the adolescent bickering of a junior high school election. I know that
running an election campaign can bring out the worst in people, but there is
no excuse to disrespect one another. To date, the only candidate that has
apologized to me for her behaviour was [alleger’s name removed by Election
Committee], thanks [alleger’s name removed by E.C.], apology accepted…”
The alleger was made aware of this blog post and contacted Mr. Andersen,
stating the following:
“I was just reading your blog…I really don’t appreciate putting my name up
there at all. I talked to you the other day as a friend, and I should
repeat that I did not apologize at all for what I said, I felt very strongly
about that. I would appreciate it if you left my name out of your blogs,
and personal conversations out of it too. If you could please get rid of
that part of the blog, and don’t tell you can’t b/c I know you can. I don’t
wish to be a part of your website, and I think you should respect private
conversations. I know your intentions for putting that up on the blog were
good, however I think some people may take things the wrong way as your
comment was not very straightforward and incomplete.”
Mr. Andersen states that he responded to the alleger’s concerns by removing
any reference to the alleger’s name appearing in his blog by replacing it
with [blank]. To call attention to his actions and provide an explanation
for his deletion of information on a public website, he added the following
blog entry:
"To follow up on my last blog regarding the disrespectful behaviour of some
of this years candidates, I was asked to modify my previous blog to remove
the name identifying which candidate had appologized for their behaviour. I
have done so to respect that individuals wishes, but believe that any
sincere appology would be public, as the behaviour was public. I'm not
terribly concerned about a personal appology, but am much more interested in
seeing a change in behaviour. Time will tell."
Section G. of the Election Procedure reads partially as follows:
G. CAMPAIGNING PERIOD
1. Rules for candidates
b. No misrepresentation of another candidate’s statements.
When determining whether or not misrepresentation has taken place, the
Election Committee must take into account several factors, the foremost
being the original wording of the alleger’s statement versus what was
publicized in the blog.
Neither the exact wording of the message nor the scope of the message was
completely conveyed in Mr. Andersen’s blog statements. An open-ended
statement about the alleger’s hopes that Mr. Andersen was not offended, and
that if offence was felt, an apology was warranted, was turned into a
specific statement apologizing for her behaviour, which was not the alleger’
s intention. The alleger never admitted to an instance of disrespectful
behaviour.
The Election Committee recognizes that statements made orally are subject to
varying degrees of interpretation, and that mistakes in interpretation can
be made honestly.
Mr. Andersen interpreted the alleger’s statement to be an apology for
disrespectful behaviour when it was intended as a qualified admission of the
alleger’s hopes that she had not offended him in any way as it was not her
intention, and if she had, she apologized. Mr. Andersen’s publishing of
those misinterpreted comments amounts to misrepresentation.
The Election Committee has therefore determined that Mr. Andersen has
misrepresented the statements of the alleger and that he is in violation of
the election procedure section G.1.b.
Mr. Andersen is hereby fined 15% of his spending limit, taking the form of a
reduction in his spending limit of $67.50.
The Election Committee notes that its decision was not released in keeping
with the timeline requirements of the election procedure, section H.2.a.
-------
[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
|
|
