BOA Shenanigans

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)
So what happens when you try to makeshift a transparent and legitimate process? Well, take a look at our system and that’s what you’ll find.

Remember way back when Julien resigned in a storm of controversy (which has yet to be resolved btw) claiming that current SFUO President (and Election Committee member) Seamus Wolfe was interfering in the election process? Well, I certainly haven’t forgotten!

The problem is simple: the Election Committee exists to provide oversight to the elections office and the overall process. After the resignation of the Election CEO (Julien) the Election Committee usurped/co-opted the process and was no longer providing oversight but instead control. The oversight they are supposed to provide is simple: when a decision is made by the CEO/Elections Office, a candidate can appeal that decision to the Election Committee. So where are appeals supposed to go when it is the Election Committee making decisions? Hell if I know!

Two candidates for BOA Social Sciences have been disqualified for signature issues. Both Amanda Iarusso and Amanda Marochko were legitimate candidates, and in my opinion, contenders for seats in the original (more legitimate) election earlier in February. Now, according to them, they have been mistreated by the Elections Committee. While I am not here to debate the merits of their signatures, I am here to discuss the process which unfolded.

From what I can piece together it went down like this:

There were some issues with signatures of Amanda Iarusso’s nomination form. Apparently one of the students who signed her form is not in Social Sciences. Now, having not enough valid signatures is a problem. Here’s how it was taken care of: Seamus Wolfe called Amanda and met up with here to inform her of the situation, and give her a day to prove to him that her faulty signature is in fact in Social Sciences. It’s kind of a non-meeting however, since if the student is not in S/S (and she told me he thought he was) then there is nothing she could have done. Instead, she did some research and argued these points:

-Julien gave people 24 hrs to get new signature
-3 candidates were told they can use their old forms
-the Academic Advisor mislead the student and told him he was in Social Sciences.

To me, it would seem fair to allow a candidate to either use signatures from their original form if they wanted to. As well, giving students 24 hours to get a new signature is also a fair option to all candidates. I mean, I could sign people’s sheets and say I’m in their faculty. It’s not the candidates fault.

Where the story gets funner: while Amanda is arguing on her own behalf, Mr. Wolfe informs her that she is not he only one in this situation (it’s around 11:30PM last night). She inquires as to who else, and he tells her that Amanda Marochko is also in the same situation. When Amanda I. informed Amanda M. about this, it was the first she’d heard about it. Mr. Wolfe said that he’d been contacting people “all night.” The Amanda’s weren’t impressed. And well, neither am I.

While this issue certainly isn’t over, I’m gonna end the post with the words of Amanda Iarusso:

“I am so disgusted that he came to me as a ‘friend’ and then totally discarded anything I presented. He said he was there as individual, and not part of the Elections Committee. Then how can he discredit all of my proof and arguments without going to the rest of the elections committee? That’s not his call, that is their’s.”

Again I ask, who do people appeal these decisions to?