punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

The CRO may have checked the website only an hour before it had gone up, but it had actually been launched at around 4AM that day

There may be more bad news for Jamie Arron to come – we’re hearing allegations (unproven, etc.) that there are more offences out there.

I say bad news because anyone may submit additional charges to the CRO in writing up to 5 school days from the close of voting. Given the timing of reading week, this leaves 14 more calendar days to submit more charges. (The Elections Committee can of course also identify charges on their own volition). The Elections Committee will meet to discuss any these charges and can be compelled to report publicly their decision to fine or not to fine. Those decisions are appealable in the same way; you need only be a member of the Union to make an elections appeal to the elections committee or the JB.

Hang in there, folks – this is nowhere near the end of the story.

As an intellectual exercise, let’s talk about avenues of appeal.

To be clear, I think the Elections Committee did a very solid job. I think everything they say is a reasonable interpretation of the elections rules and they have a very defensible position. Still, any appeal will ultimately hope that the JB sees things differently, so that will be the focus of this discussion. I will for the moment don the hat of someone trying to help Aaron Beale with a frank assessment of his appeal chances.

For each I’ll assume they happened and that the candidate is responsible (either personally or through a volunteer). If this assumption is not true, the appeal is quite obvious, so not much of an intellectual exercise.

Beale

29 handbills posted around Howe, $5 per poster: $145
I see two ways to appeal this.

1. The $5 per illegal poster is clearly specified in the Constitution. All candidates are expressly prohibited from putting up posters of any kind; this is in response to the utter shitshow that posters used to be.

You could argue a handbill is not a poster (an anonymous tipster made the same suggestion just now): the Constitution says that to be considered a handbill, the piece of paper must be less than 4.25 inches by 5.5 inches in size. The problem here is the moment you post something to the wall, it is pretty clearly a poster, and I would give that argument precedence over a size argument. The argument is then a handbill is less noticeable than a full-size poster so the fine should not be the same. That’s a tough argument but worth a shot. They would then have to argue that the other provision also does not apply (illegal displays, $20 per display). If those provisions do not apply, the amount is at the discretion of the E.C. Assuming a handbill is 1/3 to 1/2 the size of a poster, this argument would get them down to $50 or $75, plus or minus.

2. Argue that the individual fine amount does not apply; Constitution says that fines of up to $50 may be applied for “gross violations of the aforementioned” fines, including the $5 per poster fine. Though this is clearly at the discretion of the Elections Committee, and is arguably intended to INCREASE the fine not DECREASE the fine, Beale could argue that the Elections Committee should have ruled this an egregious violation and fined him $50, not $145. Of course if upheld this would set a poor precedent, like the basketball mantra “if you’re going to foul him, foul him hard”: if you must violate one of the rules, go all out. This would not be in keeping with the spirit of the rules. But if you get a strict constructionist JB…

There is a risk to this argument as well: if the handbills/posters are indeed ruled an egregious violation, then the post-campaigning related to them would also be egregious, and it may be appropriate to up the fine to the $50 amount for that.

Post-campaigning (re: the handbills), $20

This seems pretty incontrovertible. There may be some latitude to say he should be fined for one or the other but not both, but that argument has never held up before although it has been tried. Campaigning that is otherwise illegal and also occurs outside of the campaign period has always been fined twice.

Soliciting in Shirreff, $20

I can’t think of an appeal to this one. Soliciting in residence is against University policy, and may even violate a municipal by-law. The Elections Committee is required and empowered to enforce these laws. There is an “I didn’t know” defence here, but that is not normally held to be a reasonable defence.

The amount is at the discretion of the Elections Committee. $20 is a perfectly reasonable amount given the other fines in the Constitution; $20 “per incident” appears to be the rule of thumb. Beale could argue for them to use their discretion to lower the fine but that would be very hard to justify.

failing to remove chalk from walls, $20

Again the only avenue I can see is arguing for the Elections Committee to use their powers to decrease the fine, with it being no easier to justify.

I’m sorry to be the one to say that even an optimistic scenario would only see the second appeal avenue for the poster/handbill fine upheld, which would still leave Beale with $50 + $20 + $20 + $20 = $110 in fines.

That’s not to say this is over; I thought the appeal to the J.B. in 2004 had no chance whatsoever and it was upheld (though in that matter they INCREASED the fines and admonished the E.C. for being too reluctant to levy fines). There may also be extenuating information not captured in the judgment. Beale may be able to come up with far more clever arguments than I can. Only the Elections Committee, and then the Judicial Board, can settle this one.

This one is a little easier; assuming no other fines are levied, only one of these has to be overturned for him to be re-instated. Again, I think the Election Committees position is very defensible, but let’s see what arguments are available. The same assumptions as before are in place.

Arron

Website pre-campaigning, $20

Expressly forbidden and the fine amount set by the Constitution, plus witnessed personally by a member of the EC. Not much room for movement here.

There is actually a risk here: by what I assume is an accident of the Constitution, violations of the limits on online campaigning are subject to Automatic Disqualification. Seriously.
One of the 5 causes for automatic disqualification is “violating any part of Section 12(c)(iii)(b) for campaigning purposes”. 12(c)(iii)(b) used to be banning websites back in the Dark Ages. It now reads

The Elections Committee shall, on a yearly basis set the guidelines for online campaigning that will be available to candidates and registered campaign teams before the beginning of the campaign period.

The Judicial Board could in theory find that if any of these online violations happened, disqualification is automatic.

I suspect this is not what the DSU intended; I imagine they updated 12(c)(iii)(b) to leave websites etc. up to the discretion of the CRO, but totally forgot about the reference from the Automatic Disqualification section. But it is how the rules are currently written and should probably be fixed. (It’s possible this was fixed at the recent AGM but I suspect not).

Use of DSU video footage, $20

The Constitution bans “the use of Union or University facilities not available to all candidates” and any use of “the facilities of the offices of the DSU or any society under its jurisdiction”. An anonymous tipster tells me there’s an argument that the various videographers hired by the DSU own the video content (as opposed to the DSU). That’s a start; if he can also show that his executive position didn’t given him special or unique access to that footage, for instance that the video is posted publicly on the DSU’s website, there is some room here. If the name and/or location of the video was not easily found (for what it’s worth, I can’t find it), this fine may stand.

Disregarding instructions to take down illegal video, $20

Again, if this happened, damn. If anything there is a risk here is that the fine would be increased. Directly disregarding a specific request represents an escalation, I’m surprised he wasn’t hit with a bigger fine. I’d tiptoe around this one as much as possible.

Facebook status post-campaigning, $20

The amount of the fine is not appealable. In theory Arron could appeal the interpretation of the status: it asks people to vote for a new wave of engagement, and not the same old insiders. It’s hard to argue that a current Vice President isn’t an insider, so perhaps it wasn’t campaigning for anyone. Unfortunately the whole campaign has used the same messaging so while in isolation it is strange, taken in context it’s a pretty clear call for support for himself.

Soliciting in residence, $20

An anonymous tipster tells us that Arron will claim he was an invited guest by a student leader in Risley, came in to write on the res boards, and spoke only to students in the hallways. This is a “it didn’t happen” defence which per my earlier assumption is boring, but might be effective.

I bring it up because if other candidates were not given the same invitation, this would be misuse of society resources. Remember that “the facilities of the offices of the DSU or any society under its jurisdiction are NOT to be made available to candidates for campaign purposes”. Risley Council is under the jurisdiction of the DSU. So he may be excused from the soliciting in residence charge, but he’ll have to tread very carefully to avoid getting hit with a new fine.

Facebook wall posts post-campaigning, $20

Assuming the candidate posted messages, the question is were they campaigning. Candidates are expressly permitted to encourage students to vote; if that is all he was doing, he’s fine. He explicitly endorses individuals and refers to “my dream team”. The “my dream team” is tough, though his inclusion on that team as the leader is only implied. Again this will be interpreted in the larger context, per past precedent; if he did in fact previously reference his team as being himself plus those three other candidates, that’s a steep uphill battle. The Elections Committee further asserts that campaigning for other candidates is also post-campaigning, citing the definition of campaigning. Indeed, this does appear to be within their authority though I’ve personally never thought about it. Taking the contrary assumption – that campaigning for other candidates should be allowed – leads to a situation where two candidates form a pact and campaign for each other after the campaign period, which should not be allowed.

In summary, if he can handle the residence thing delicately enough, he may be able to achieve re-instatement. The other possibilities are the wall posts and the video ownership issue, which I view as long shots but are worth a try.

There is a final avenue for both candidates that I’ll discuss separately: going on the offensive instead of playing defence. They both ran in two-candidate races. If they can find proof, evidence, or claims about the other candidate in their race, they may be able to get them disqualified on appeal. Not everyone is inbounds all of the time; they have 14 days to find or trump up charges and take a shot.

If both candidates are disqualified, the position will be vacant. There will be a by-election for President, and the VP Academic/External position will be filled by Council election through the nominating committee process.

It’s ugly, but it’s an option.

In re: the Facebook post-campaigning, why is it that the results of the elections for which Jamie supported a single candidate are considered valid? (Such as the VPSL race)

@MC It would probably come down to the fact Jamie is not an official agent of that persons campaign.

@Mike Smit

re soliciting in residence– to me it seems irrelevant that someone invited him in. Just as candidates are told of the policy against campaigning in residence, they are also told they can’t campaign in libraries. If a librarian invites a candidate in and says it’s okay to campaign it does NOT mean that the rule no longer applies. It means that the candidate has to know the rules and follow them!

@JP

I agree that who invited him in is not as important. Similarly, if a bartender invited them into the Grawood it still wouldn’t be legal.

The more important part is the suggestion that he spoke only to students in the hallways, i.e. was not going door-to-door. It’s not that there are circumstances where soliciting would be okay, rather it’s the possibility that he wasn’t soliciting. I don’t think there’s a blanket ban on campaigning in residence though I could be wrong.

@Mike Smit

As far as I know, there is no blanket ban on campaigning in residence, they just have to follow typical residence rules. I know for sure that candidates are allowed to campaign in residence cafeterias IF they are a patron of the dining hall (ie. if they have paid to eat there). While I’m not 100% sure on in-residence campaigning, as someone who has lived in residence forever, I would think that if a candidate were invited in, they would be allowed to talk to students they pass and encounter, but they would for sure not be allowed knocking on doors, as any type of solicitation is forbidden.

I have to say, I’m surprised Aaron Beale didn’t get more than just a $20 fine for knocking on doors in Shirreff. That seems like it would give him a huge advantage. From what I’ve heard (and I actually live in Shirreff), he visited every single part of the building, which means he potentially talked to all ~400 students (although realistically, the number is probably much lower). I know I’m much more likely to vote for a candidate I had a one-on-one interaction with, rather than for the candidate I never met.

All-in-all, I would suggest the rules for campaigning in residence be stated more explicitly in future elections!

Come pundits and DSU Exec
Please head the call.
Don’t stand in the doorways
Don’t block up the halls
For he who gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled.
While the battle outside ragin’
Will soon shake your windows
and rattle your walls,
For the times, they are a changin’.

@Mike Smit

according to page 13 of the Dalhousie Community Standards Guide ( http://ancillaries.housing.dal.ca/images/residenceandhousing/CommunityStandardsGuide2011.pdf ) there is to be no “tailgating” and people found to be loitering or “any soliciting in the building” are to be reported — which I would take to mean that the action is not allowed. By definition, soliciting does not reduced to just knocking on doors, but rather “to seek to obtain by persuasion, entreaty, or formal application” – this seems to me that by Arron being in the [locked] hallways, encouraging people to vote for him would fall under this definition and violate university policy…

@Nicole Students should be harassed in cafeteria’s by candidates when they’re eating, because someone paid to eat there as well?

Aren’t we trying to avoid that issue by providing a set time for students in residence to meet candidates? Hmm.

I may be old fashioned, but I’d assume that paying to eat somewhere would be paying to eat somewhere, not paying to skirt the rules and invasively campaign in, for lack of a better word, home.

ALL of this year’s execs most definitely campaigned is residence cafeterias last year, if its worth anything. AMAZING use of Bobby D by the way.

@HK

Fair enough – like I said, I think the Elections Committee has a very solid case and that’s a perfectly valid interpretation. Certainly no one could fault them or call them biased for holding that interpretation. Were I on the Judicial Board, I would likely uphold their interpretation barring exculpatory details from Arron. I just think of all the charges, it’s the one with the most room for alternate interpretations. For instance, if you can argue that you were approached by students and not the other way around… or that it was a residence event authorized by the Risley student leaders… or any manner of things. Don’t mistake my intellectual argument for an argument for reinstatement.

@Henry

I think there’s an interest when establishing rules in encouraging candidates to help publicize the elections. Not to say it’s right to exploit a captive audience, but it sure is tempting. I have to believe residence campaigning rules can be put in place that allow candidates to reach out to residences while still respecting the fact that they are campaigning in the dining room and bedrooms of the residents’ homes.

@Mike Smit

I guess I should try to clear this up. I was at least one of the people who say Mr. Beale campaigning in residence. I witnessed him with a Shirreff Hall resident on 3rd floor Old Eddy knocking on doors. I also spoke to him (and the Shirreff resident) directly after about residence policy regarding solicitation (while he was campaigning in the dining hall). I highly doubt he will be contesting this issue.

Interestingly enough however, I was not the person who submitted the campaign violation…

@Andrew Mecke

That certainly seems unambiguous – thanks.

I should note it was Mr. Arron who I thought might have a little wiggle room on the residence charge – I too heard it was pretty cut and dry for Mr. Beale.

First I would like to say The Elections Committee did a fantastic job with the election process this year. One item I really noticed was the display of posters throughout both campus which I can say was professional.
Personally the elections process has taught me a lot about winning and losing. But most important to me is holding ones integrity. I would sooner lose an election and walk away with my integrity than to win without my credibility.

Here Here Karl. That’s something you and I both have experience with. I would just like to say that I had a wonderful time running against you both times. I thought we had some good conversations about the position we were vieing for and it stayed clean both times. Nary a fine laid to either Candidate in either year…both losing efforts though.

Come elections committees,
throughout the land;
Don’t criticize what you can’t understand,
Your Arrons and Beales are beyond your command,
The old road is rapidly fading,
Please get outta the new one if you can’t lend your hand,
For the times, they are a changin’.

@Evan Price
Yes, I agree Evan and sorry I did not get back sooner. It was a clean election in which we both went head to head against each other. But remembering in the end of the day it was not about winning or losing. Holding ones values is more important.