Referendum procedures a cause for concern
Regan Sarmatiuk, Staff
From November 8-10, University of Manitoba students will have had the opportunity to vote in a referendum that will decide whether or not they want to be full-fledged and full fee-paying members in the Canadian Federation of Students. UMSU voted in favour of prospective membership in November 2004.
Regardless of one’s position concerning CFS membership, the methods by which this referendum has been conducted are cause for serious concern. On October 20, UMSU council passed a motion to suspend “all UMSU bylaws and policies or parts thereof relating to the referenda” in favour of the establishment of a Referendum Oversight Committee. The passing of this motion signaled the end of any intentions of independent, fair and unbiased oversight of the referendum.
In 1991, the last time a CFS referendum was held on the U of M campus, the Manitoban reported on some controversy over an advertisement in the UMSU daytimer. The advertisement in question stated that any students interested in learning more about CFS could contact their UMSU representative.
Chris Davis, chair of UMSU’s policy committee at the time, was so concerned by UMSU’s apparent bias and inability to run a fair referendum that he suggested three possible solutions to the problem: bringing in an independent agency to oversee the referendum, deferring the referendum until the following year, or forsaking the idea of a referendum altogether. Davis would surely be appalled at the state of affairs in the present-day referendum.
The Referendum Oversight Committee consists of two members appointed by the CFS, and two appointed by UMSU. It is obvious that the CFS representatives have a desired outcome in mind, and UMSU President Amanda Aziz, who is currently the Manitoba National Executive Representative for CFS and the head of the “yes” campaign, clearly has a specific outcome in mind as well. The ability of this oversight committee to make claims of fair and unbiased rulings in the operations of the referendum is questionable at best.
If UMSU’s bylaws hadn’t been tossed, a Chief Returning Officer (CRO) would have been appointed to oversee the running of the referendum. While this CRO would have been appointed by a less-than perfect selection committee (consisting of the UMSU Council Chair, the President, and three council members and two students at large both selected by UMSU’s Selections Committee), the position itself is at least an attempt at independent and fair oversight of a referendum.
One would assume that UMSU’s bylaws exist for a reason — surely, one of these reasons would be to prevent the implementation of biased and shady policies in the governance of elections and referenda. The absence of the bylaws in the current referendum has allowed some highly suspect practices to creep in.
For instance, Graduate Students are allowed to vote in this referendum in spite of the fact that they are already members of the CFS. Campaigning is allowed to continue right through the voting period (unheard of in any UMSU election, or federal election for that matter), and there is a total lack of financial regulation. While the official “yes” and “no” sides are allowed to submit receipts for campaign materials and will be reimbursed up to $250, there are no requirements to report to the Oversight Committee on spending, and thus the potential for unlimited and unbalanced spending exists. If UMSU’s bylaws had not been suspended, clearly defined regulations on spending would be monitored and enforced by the CRO.
The inherent bias of the Referendum Oversight Committee and resulting questionable procedures will inevitably raise concerns as to the validity of the referendum’s outcome. It also warrants closer scrutiny from students who are concerned with maintaining proper governance in student union affairs.
