The following is a decision by the Election Committee in regards to statements made by VPIN candidate Anitta Satkunarajah.

On Monday, February 7th, a complaint was made that VPIN candidate Anitta Satkunarajah violated section G.1.a of the election procedure with regard to the statements made at the February 4th Media Forum in the Great Hall of the Student Life Centre. There were four specific allegations of untruths:

1) That the raising of the Tamil Flag during this event was carried out based on the wishes of a singular member of the Waterloo Tamil Students Association

2) That the club member in question was disciplined, and removed from the club

3) That the Federation of Students did nothing to communicate the issues over raising the flag, nor did it help facilitate discussion or attempt to help find solutions to the issue

4) That the Federation of Students held secretive Internal Administration meetings in which disciplinary actions were discussed, over and above the sanctions levied upon the club by the University of Waterloo

Election Procedure 6, Section G reads in part as follows:

G. CAMPAIGNING PERIOD 1. Rules for candidates a. No lying.

The Election Committee investigated these allegations, accepting evidence from the alleger, interviewing Ms. Satkunarajah, and consulting the audio record of the Media Forum. With regards to each specific violation, the Election Committee finds the following:

Allegation One - That the raising of the Tamil Flag during this event was carried out based on the wishes of a singular member of the Waterloo Tamil Students Association

At the media forum, Anitta states the following:

“I attended the event and a student decided to make a motion to raise this flag because he felt that it was his right to do so, he did so...”

Evidence supplied by the alleger states “the flag was raised after unanimous consensus from all club members in attendance, to deviate from University Policy, and UW administrative guidance.”

In background documentation supplied by Ms. Satkunarajah, the person who made the motion, Arikaran Kunaratnam, a first year student and an executive of WATSA, was supported by an overwhelming consensus of those in attendance. However, it was Mr. Kunaratnam’s motion that precipitation the act of civil disobedience supported by the club.

The Election Committee finds that Ms. Satkunarajah was not lying in this case.

Allegation Two - That the club member in question was disciplined, and removed from the club

At the media forum, Anitta states the following:

“…and he is being withdrawn from our club and he is serving the consequences for that.”

Evidence supplied by the alleger states that “no club member has ever been disciplined or removed from WATSA over this event, notice of which a club must supply to the clubs director.”

Documentation supplied by Ms. Satkunarajah states that following the event where the Tamil flag was raised, she met with Mr. Kunaratnam and other members of the WATSA exec. It was proposed that Mr. Kunaratnam would leave his executive position as a result of his actions and that he would not be eligible to stand as a candidate for WATSA exec in Winter 2005. Mr. Kunaratnam agreed to this and was no longer associated with the club. At the first General Meeting for WATSA in Winter 2005, club members were made aware of this punishment.

The Election Committee recognizes that Federation of Students clubs must submit detailed minutes of General Meetings to the Federation of Students Clubs Director as per Council Procedure 3, section F.h, and that according to the “constitution review checklist” found on the Federation of Students web site at http://www.feds.ca/clubs/resources/constitution%20review%20checklist.doc procedures for the removal of officers should be clearly stated in the clubs constitution. The Clubs Procedure also states “any change in the club executive must be communicated to the Clubs Director (or designate) of the Federation of Students within one week of the change” according to section B.2.d

However, the clubs procedure is silent on the issue of how clubs can discipline or remove their own members, and any other procedure used by the Internal Administration Committee (including elements of the Constitution Review Checklist that fall outside the language of the Clubs Procedure) must be approved in advance by a vote of Students’ Council. It was WATSA’s responsibility to communicate to the Federation of Students Clubs Director that a change in executive had taken place in December, but the club’s failure to do so does not invalidate Ms. Satkunarajah’s assertion that Mr. Kunaratnam withdrew from the club and otherwise suffered consequences for his actions.

The Election Committee therefore finds that Ms. Satkunarajah was not lying in this case.

Allegation Three - That the Federation of Students did nothing to communicate the issues over raising the flag, nor did it help facilitate discussion or attempt to help find solutions to the issue

Evidence supplied by the alleger states “the Federation of Students communicated in great detail with WATSA over trying to find workable solutions to the issue of how to appropriately display the Tamil Flag while not contravening policy...the club chose to deviate based on its own deliberations, and not due to a lack of knowledge about circumstances, as Ms. Satkunarajah claimed.”

At no point during the meeting did Ms. Satkunarajah state anything resembling the allegation. Her concerns with specific regard to the decision to ban the Tamil students from raising their flag were directed at the UW administration.

The Election Committee therefore finds that Ms. Satkunarajah was not lying in this case.

Allegation Four - That the Federation of Students held secretive Internal Administration meetings in which disciplinary actions were discussed, over and above the sanctions levied upon the club by the University of Waterloo

Evidence supplied by the alleger states “the Federation of Students and the IAC have not ever met to discuss the aftermath of the WATSA event...the IAC was given a heads up about what had taken place, but being that all of the details were not know about what had taken place yet (the University had not yet delivered a summary of the disciplinary actions it would take, to both the Federation of Students and WATSA), it was not useful to begin deliberating on disciplinary actions for WATSA through the IAC.”

At the media forum, Anitta stated:

“This situation, this topic, this actually happened behind closed doors with the UW Administration and had not been taken to IAC so far.”

Nowhere else in the record of the meeting does Ms. Satkunarajah suggest that the Internal Administration Committee was holding secretive meetings. For example:

“You see, if this type of situation was a Federation of Students problem, the club should have been notified that IAC is going to bring this issue up at the next IAC meeting, from what students have been saying is that they aren’t getting any communication on this matter and the university has made a decision but the Feds are looking into the situation, so the fact that this is being brought up here, a lot of students are going to have to come to current exec to ask about what went wrong, and why they didn’t know that club status would be brought up in a manner like this. Why were we the last ones to find out about everything?”

It is clear that Ms. Satkunarajah was speaking hypothetically.

The Election Committee therefore finds that Ms. Satkunarajah was not lying in this case.

In conclusion, the Election Committee does not find that Ms. Satkunarajah has violated section G.1.a of the Election Procedure.