Comments on:

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:22:19 +0000

“so puritan to the point where a candidate should run in the other direction if someone else is postering on a prime location, or campaigning in the same cafeteria.”

Let’s not be naive and pretend that this is what was happening.

By: Gina Eom

Gina Eom — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:12:47 +0000

For what he has been accused of, his actions may fall under that "rule". You made a subjective judgement call which only the EA's office can make.

My argument is that the ambiguous and subjective interpretation of the EA's office of code can be a problem, ie, where she allows joint classroom announcements, but when it comes to campaigning on different sides of the cafeteria, it's a red flag worthy of retroactive disqualification.

The more worrisome issue in the long run is that because of this inconsistency and ambiguity, conjoined with a lack of precedence from year to year, a candidate is out to lunch when it comes to knowing exactly how knitpicky they must be in terms of following code, especially in the gray areas such as campaigning in the same class.

By: Andrew Forshner

Andrew Forshner — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 07:41:42 +0000

One of the major issues the AMS dealed with last year was a firm definition of what constitues slate. The definition is fairly loose, and from what Blake has been accused of, he does qualify as having broken the rules as what a slate is. However, so did I when I ran last election cycle.

Before Stephanie Ryan (former AUS Prez) and I were off of Council we tried to set a firm definition of slates. This would have allowed people to share resources, organize similar strategies, but ultimately be unable to endorse another candidate. This ammendment to Code was stopped by AMS Council by quite a substantial margin. The AMS, on both the left and the right, confirmed their strong belief in their opposition of slates on that vote last year. We may lament the misfortune that has befallen Blake, but it was not without precedent nor without strong support from the AMS.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:25:05 +0000

Being bound by precedent isn't necessarily needed but being guided by precedent should be required. The problem with increased specificity by Council is the danger that any list that's created becomes a list exclusive to all others rather than a list of features that exists as a starting point. As Chris says, flexibility is required.

What should be required is that election rulings (as well as Appeals Committee and Student Court rulings) be logged on the website so both candidates and the Elections Committee have access to previous rulings and can allow "case law" to develop.

Nevertheless Gina, good post.

By: Amanda Reaume

Amanda Reaume — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:03:16 +0000

There really are few people still on campus who actually know what ‘slates’ meant or seen them in action. As someone here doing my second UBC degree (I know, what was I thinking!) and who has been here for 6 years, I am one of the few who actually saw slates in action (and then only in my first year of undergrad). What occurred in this election was, in my mind, not a slate.

I agree with Gina that there has to be some sort of guidelines laying out specifically what is not allowed and what the punishment for those actions are. This would allow candidates to ensure that they do not violate these rules and allow EAs and ECs to punish candidates for violations in ways that are deemed by everyone to be fair and unbiased (after all, if you know what the punishment is and what the crime is… you’re asking for it if you do it). With the current situation I don’t think candidates even know what is actually okay and what is not as there are too many mixed messages being sent.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:39:47 +0000

I’m not entirely sure if you want EAs bound by precedents set by their predecessors. I mean, I once exiled your former boy from campus as a penalty for the remainder of an election, a penalty many through too extreme (I thought I was being lenient; amazing how ones perspective changes the view). Situations are always so different that discretion really is needed.