|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Referendum result declared void |
Contributed by: Morgan on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 11:46 AM CST
|
The referendum committee has declared the results of the WPIRG referendum void, and has taken the ballot offline.
At 10:47 AM on Monday, March 28, the following decision was released:
Referendum Committee Decision 13
March 28, 2005
On Thursday March 24, 2005, at 2:49PM, the Referendum Committee disqualified the Yes Team from the referendum.
The Yes Team was required, under section D.2.j, to remove all their posters, take down their committee website, and refrain from further campaigning. The Yes Team was given 48 hours to comply with the Referendum Committee’s ruling.
On Thursday, March 24, 2005 at 5:08PM, Yes Team chair Nic Weber sent an email that stated in part as follows:
Mr. Sweet has withdrawn our funding and ordered our committee to remove our posters. We will not remove our posters.
As of 2:49PM, on Saturday, March 26, the deadline as specified by the Referendum Committee, the Yes Team’s campaign posters were still posted around campus. As well, their website, www.uwvoteyes.ca, was still online.
This noncompliance with the Referendum Committee’s March 24th ruling is considered a violation of referenda procedure section 2.o. Furthermore, the Yes team’s actions have jeopardized the fairness and the dignity of the referendum process. Continuing to campaign after being directed by the
Referendum Committee to cease campaigning shows disrespect to the referendum process, the Federation of Students, and the student voters at the University of Waterloo.
Therefore the Referendum Committee declares this referendum to be void, as per section D.2.f.ii of the referenda procedure.
Voting in this referendum will be halted effective immediately and the ballots taken offline.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sean J. on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 12:08 PM CST |
Can we get some more input as to what's going on ?
Nice of them to cite alphanumeric sections and all, but can we know in english what rules were broken ?
Why was the "yes" team supposed to take down their posters ?
As of this morning I still see a ton of "No" posters around campus.
Smells fishy to me.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex Sloat on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 01:06 PM CST |
This is bullshit! I cannot believe that something so easily faked(Team No photocopies a Yes poster, stamps it in a pile of No posters so it doesn't get noticed, and posts it - not that that's what necessarily happened, but it easily could) results in a disqualification and the voiding of a student petition. I've said before that I wasn't backing either side, I wasn't on that petition, and I wasn't planning to vote, but I'm behind Weber 100% on this one(especially since I've seen a couple No posters over Yes ones, which I decided to move instead of photograph).
What disappoints me the most, however, is the fact that the Feds has been so obviously biased in this one. Between Lehman's BS motion to support the No side("responsible government" is not the reason for this, you bloody liar), the decisions to force Team Yes to mutilate all of their posters, the decision not to allow time for an appeal on any of their other decisions, despite the fact that an appeals process does exist(if Yes had waited to process the appeal, then they would have been fined extra or possibly DQ'd for missing the compliance deadline, despite the decision being in appeals as of said deadline), and now this, I don't think that this referendum was even close to fair. The Feds should be ashamed of itself.
But I suppose I should look on the bright side here - if I ever want to win a Feds election by default, I now have a perfect strategy. It could be worse, right?
---
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" - P. J. O'Rourke[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Shaun T on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 01:41 PM CST |
| If you think this decision was a crock, e-mail Brandon Sweet and let him know (bbgsweet@feds.uwaterloo.ca) [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emmatthi on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 01:56 PM CST |
If we step back and look at the whole situation we can clearly see that Brandon Sweet (Chief Referendum Officer) is at the heart of a corruption scandal in the FEDS.
His decision to cancel the referendum is clearly in favour of the No Committee. WPIRG is the only club on campus that receives $150,000 from the students each year and has no impact on the student body at the University of Waterloo. The imprint informs the student body of events at the School. Every large institution in the world has a forum for information. Waterloo Radio has the same effect, but to a smaller degree. WEEF (for engineers) buys lab equipment computer labs including the one am in right now. WPIRG runs and participates in many groups that have heavy political intonations.
The argument that the FEDS presented was that we must address the bigger issue of refundable fees and determine how they are established. They are wrong. The issue at hand here is favouring one club over the others and WPIRG is the only club that is favoured. Laurier University has a PIRG and they are able to sustain it without levies on the students. Perhaps there are better, more motivated and intelligent people in the Laurier PIRG and so they don't need to rely on student levies.
The Yes team was disqualified because they posted ONE of their posters over a No team poster. An unbias individual photographed the same event perpetrated by the No Team and sent this photo to Brandon Sweet who ignored it. So clearly both teams commited the same 'crime' and yet the decision of Brandon Sweet was clearly in favour of the No team.
Whatever the reason, it is clear from the FEDS council vote to support the 'NO' team and this subsequent decision to cancel the referendum clearly indicates that Brandon Sweet and the FEDS council are not interested in fairness and equality, but instead they would prefer to abuse their positions of authority to help out their friends in the WPIRG club.
I find it funny that so many of the WPIRG No posters preached about equality in some far away place, but when they are required to practice it here in The University of Waterloo, they fall short. This situation is reminiscient of an election I endured in Zanzibar off the coast of Tanzania last year. The election was declared before people even finished voting. Brandon Sweet, I think Paul Martin may have a position ready for you in the Federal cabinet.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thytsun on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 01:56 PM CST |
Laurier does not have a pirg. they have a club that advocates Pirg. They are not a chapter part of the Ontario PIRG ring. WPIRG is a registered non profit organization. They're not a club.
I do agree that there are loopholes in the referendum. the fact the Nic Weber is able to contact everyone on the WPIRG supporter list previously posted on the internet and hassle each of them about why they're supporting WPIRG shows how the referendum bylaw currently does not protect the parties involved. FEDS was contacted but nothing was in violation.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 02:10 PM CST |
http://feds.ca/government/documents/Bylaws.pdf
XIII. REFERENDA
A. A referendum for any purpose connected with the affairs of the Corporation that is not inconsistent with the Cor-porations Act may only be called:
3. Upon the petition in writing of not less than 10% of the voting members of the Corporation; or
4. By the decision of a vote of a general meeting.
There's a general meeting on Thursday at 4:30. If enough people come, could another referendum be called then?[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The JG Society on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 04:17 PM CST |
I think the extend of Brandon Sweet's blatant partiality, besides ideology, can be partially attributed to the fact that he and WPIRG Coordinator Daryl Novak used to be neighbours in Uptown.
Food for thought, folks![ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: booyah on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 04:30 PM CST |
| Eat my shit, fuckers! [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhTf on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 05:48 PM CST |
I can't believe how bias this entire process has been since the start. The YES team gets disqualified, even though anyone with two eyes can see that their posters are disappearing much faster then the no's. Fishy eh?
This entire process has been an interesting look at the real workings of FEDs. I think I may go back to being apathetic. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 10:32 PM CST |
| Jeez, I was actually looking forward to the results of this referendum. No, they had to go screw around and eff it up. Jeez, stop wasting my time, money and Fed resources. You guys screwed around and neglected to follow the rules, which were pretty simple. It was a level playing field for both sides, so don't whine about it being unfair. The teams made it unfair by messing around. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: some guy on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 11:09 PM CST |
I'm glad to see that the yes team was disqualified. Not because I support the No side or wanted the referrendum cancelled, but becasue it means that's $500 less of studeent money that was wasted. If I want to prevent my money from going to WPIRG, I can get a refund. If I want to prevent it from going to CKMS, I can get a refund. If I want to prevent it from going to these ass-clowns, I can't do anything about it.
If your ideology is really to stop wasting student money, and a new referendum happens, you should pay for this out of your own pocket, instead of forcing me to pay for it out of my FEDS fee.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 11:22 PM CST |
From: lists.feds.ca/pipermail/fednews/2005-March/000002.html
For Immediate Release
NO UNILATERAL RESTART IN WPIRG LEVY REFERENDUM
Referendum Appeals Committee Only Appropriate Recourse Under Procedure
WATERLOO, ON (March 28) - The Federation of Students acknowledges that
there have been difficulties experienced by both sides during the current
referendum and echos the sense of frustration. However, the Federation will
not pressure the Referendum Committee to restart a non-binding referendum
nor will it hold an online poll of its own.
"Though we have a referendum procedure that admittedly has its flaws, it is
the procedure," said Becky Wroe, President of the Federation of Students.
"The decisions both on Thursday to disqualify a committee and today to void
the referendum as a whole were made in compliance with the procedure and
stand. While appeals pending may ultimately overturn Referendum Committee
decisions, the procedure states that the verdicts are binding on the
committees and on the Federation." Both committee chairs signed a document
that both acknowledged receipt of the referendum procedure and stated
agreement to abide by the procedure.
"Any data resulting from a restarted referendum would be tainted and would
objectively be all but useless," said Jeff Henry, Vice President Education
of the Federation of Students. "Ultimately, a result in the affirmative in
either direction would not provide an answer to either the question of
support for the WPIRG levy nor the broader question of refundable fees.
Notwithstanding a successful appeal, another referendum would still need to
be instigated."
The Federation of Students represents the interests of nearly 20,000
full-time undergraduate students at the University of Waterloo. For more
information, visit the referendum online at
www.feds.ca/elections/referenda/
-30-
For further information on the Council position, contact:
Becky Wroe, President, Federation of Students, University of Waterloo,
519-888-4567 x2478
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sean J. on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 09:23 AM CST |
Your exactly right, we don't know WHO messed around with the posters, simply that it happend.
It is entirely possible that someone from WPIRG familiar with the rules went out and intentionally changed the posters to make the "Yes" team look bad. It is also entirely possible that some non-affiliated supporter of one or the other teams did it thinking they were helping their cause.
In any case, it seems rediculous to call off the entire thing because of it. Like I said previously, if one side or the other wanted to appeal a decision based on childish nonsense with posters than fine, but the entire point of the referendum was to hear what students think. That never happend.
Imagine a federal election being called off and one candidate disqualified because an over zealous supporter wore a pro-candidate t-shirt to a voting station. Seems a little silly doesn't it ?[ Parent ]
|
- ya Authored by: WhTf
- Loophole Authored by: Anonymous
| |
| Authored by: smckenna on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 09:29 AM CST |
My question is: what is the worst possible punishment for the side that supports the status quo in a referendum?
In this case, the side that wanted to change the status quo (YES) did not comply with the ruling of the committee and thus the referendum was declared void.
If it had been the status quo side (NO) that had failed to comply, what would the equivalent punishment be? Voiding the referendum is effectively a victory for the status quo side, so it seems like the penalties are completely unbalanced.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Suck my cock on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 01:06 PM CST |
| You heard me. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: You heard me on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 01:07 PM CST |
| Yeah you. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hmmm? on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 05:16 PM CST |
the YES side is www.wpirg.com. vote YES to get rid of WPIRG, vote NO to support...
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Larry on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 06:41 PM CST |
looks like things are back on track. The right articles and discussion topics mean everything.
PS: FEDS = corrupt[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sarah Edwards on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 06:44 PM CST |
bbgsweet@feds.uwaterloo.ca
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Giant Space Hamster on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 12:14 AM CST |
I know that nothing is really ever going to happen regarding refundable fees. And this is my last term here, so I don't know why I really care. That being said, here's a proposal for a system that I think is reasonably fair, and still maintains funding for existing organizations. I think it's based on the Queen's system, from what I recall of previous discussions.
1. Charge each student a $20 non-refundable "Student Life" fee.
2. For the first month of the term, Feds has a website where students can distribute their $20 to different organizations if they want to. Any student organization like clubs, Midnight Sun, Imprint etc. can sign up. You can give $1 to 20 different organizations, or $20 to 1 organization, or some combination.
3. WPIRG, Imprint, and Radio Waterloo each get 2 shares. SFF and Science Foundation each gets 1 share (because they are faculty specific). These are the 'default' organizations. All the contributions from students who don't bother with step 2 instead get divided up among these default organizations.
4. Feds gets the money from UW, and sends the appropriate amount to each organization. No need to monkey around with refunds or anything similar.
5. Feds has the authority to add new default groups and to change the amount levied.
So what will basically happen is that students who actually care will send their money to groups which are more important to them. However, the vast majority of students will succumb to apathy and continue to send money to the default organizations.
Net result: Current organizations more or less maintain their level of funding, but more groups will get a little bit of money, and people don't need to support groups they disapprove of.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Zalasta on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:35 AM CST |
I think the easiest thing to do would be to have check boxes beside each refundable item on the Quest fees statement. Have the check boxes start as marked, ie. start with all fees included and let the student uncheck boxes of fees that they do not wish to pay (ie in the old system fees that they would have requested refunds for). Have this system available for about a week prior to the university sending out tuition bills so that bills can reflect the students fee choices. It would make things easier on the organizations too, they would not have to deal with refund lines and angry people.
This should be fairly easy to implement given the number of techincally capable persons at this university.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Shaun T on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 06:08 PM CST |
| We just have to go to the AGM and vote some of our own into the leadership roles. The new leadership can then tell the FEDS they want the fee removed and the FEDS surely wouldn't say No... or they'd look like even bigger idiots than they already are. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2005 @ 05:58 PM CST |
| Take your crap down now guys. DC looks crappy enough without your posters littering up the whole building. How about you guys stop wasting the time of the custodians huh? Thought of that? [ Parent ]
|
- adsff Authored by: asdfasf
| |
|
|
|
