[spacer height="20px"]By Elliot Fung

The Ward 1 councillor candidates are promising a number of changes that aim to improve McMaster student life. While ideas such as support for landlord licensing and the light rail transit project can be found in multiple platforms, the candidates differ in their approach to some key areas.

With the constant rise of housing prices, affordable housing, which includes student housing, is considered a top priority for all candidates. However, there are many unique proposed methods to tackle this election issue.

Carol Lazich proposes cooperative student housing initiatives and the purchase of excess land for construction of student housing complexes. Sophie Geffros proposes that new developments be required to have 15 to 25 per cent affordable and geared-to-income units.

On the other hand, Both Ela Eroglu and Sharon Cole propose intensification and infill developments. Harrison White also supports cooperative student housing initiatives and proposes the re-introduction of rental-property based tax breaks.

Sharon Anderson proposes an increase in the number of medium density developments through zoning by-law adjustments. Linda Narducci proposes better negotiations between existing landlords, patrons and developers.

Another issue pertinent to McMaster students concerns the health and safety problems caused by absentee landlords of student rentals and education about tenant rights.

Candidates Maureen Wilson, Cole, White, Geffros and Lyla Miklos support a licensing system for rental properties that would help to ensure that tenants’ rights are sustained. They also promote educational programs for students to ensure that students understand tenant rights and what landlords are legally allowed to do.

Geffros’ plan includes a $10 to $50 fee for landlords to lease a home; in return, the city would inspect rental units to ensure they are up to health and safety standards. Eroglu proposes a different approach through a two-year pilot project in the Ainslie Wood area aimed at enforcing rental housing by-laws. Lazich proposes the implementation of stricter regulations and penalties for landlords if properties are not maintained.

Candidates Wilson, Narducci, Jason Allen, White and Anderson aim to address street and traffic safety, an issue particularly relevant to students coming to campus every day from surrounding residential areas. Some proposed plans include better enforcement of speed limits and working with the city of Hamilton to clear roads and sidewalks after snow falls during the winter.

Retention of McMaster graduates in Hamilton is another issue that Lazich and Eroglu aim to address. In particular, Eroglu proposes to attract new businesses to set up in Hamilton. Lazich proposes partnering with corporations and small businesses and providing grants to students for startups.

Moreover, some candidates are promising the launch of new services and initiatives unrelated to the most significant issues at play.

For instance, Lazich wants to introduce a number of new services concerning students including dog therapy, an Indigenous Enriched Support Program, male support groups for first years, promotion of student success programs and education programs for cannabis use.

Geffros aims to address safety, hate crimes and sexual violence in Ward 1 by creating well-lit pedestrian paths, implementing emergency poles and funding free bystander intervention training.

With this year’s large number of candidates, there is a great deal of consistency across platforms with respect to themes and topics being prioritized. But while candidates are focusing on the same issues, they diverge when it comes to how they intend to address them.


For more information on candidates' platforms:

[button link="https://www.thesil.ca/meet-your-ward-1-councillor-candidates" color="red"]VIEW ALL CANDIDATE PLATFORMS[/button]

Questions on how to vote?

[button link="https://www.thesil.ca/ward-1-voting-101-a-voting-guide-for-mac-students" color="red"]WARD 1 VOTING GUIDE[/button] 


[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

[spacer height="20px"]By Angela Dittrich

As young adults, we experience a lot of exciting and important milestones — getting our driver’s license, attaining legal adulthood and entering university, college or the workforce. An often overlooked milestone is becoming a voter, or rather, becoming individuals with a rarely-exercised right to vote.

McMaster University students are a vital part of the Ward 1 community, and yet we continuously fail to show up to the polling stations. And before I continue, yes, you can vote here. Not only can you vote here, you should — whether you live in residence, in a student home, or commute from another part of the city.

On October 22nd, 2018, The Municipal Elections will take place to determine the new Mayor and Ward Councillors for the Hamilton area. Get your voice heard by voting is upcoming election. #MacVotes https://t.co/Q9arEqrdc0 pic.twitter.com/kALkZgbmTw

— McMaster Humanities (@mcmasterhum) October 12, 2018

Hamilton, for better or worse, is your home for on average four years of undergrad, and potentially beyond. Electoral issues such as housing, transit, and safety affect every one of us on a daily basis. If we speak up and elect a councillor willing to listen, we can influence real change in this city. This election, I urge you to consider some of these major issues, evaluate what matters most to you, and make certain your opinion is heard.

With 25,000 undergraduate students and only 4000 beds on campus, navigating through off-campus housing, landlords, and leases is part of the typical McMaster student experience. Unfortunately, there are homes packed to over-capacity, absent or negligent landlords and rising costs of rent which create levels of stress beyond what students should be experiencing.

As well, safety has become a major concern for many student housing neighbourhoods due to an increased number of break-ins this year. We are much more than university students; we are members of this community. We need to elect a councillor who will make housing a priority, hold landlords accountable, and address our safety concerns to make our neighbourhoods a better and safer place.

One of the most defining features of this election is transit. The fate of our proposed light rail transit system hangs in the balance as Doug Ford threatens to revoke the promised provincial funding. While transit is not the most exciting issue, it significantly impacts our everyday lives. McMaster would house an LRT terminal, providing us with a faster and more reliable way to get around and explore the city. The McMaster Students Union has taken a pro-LRT stance, and if we want this project to succeed, our Ward 1 councillor and mayor must be on board.

A more current issue is the Hamilton Street Railway. In 2017, students voted to increase tuition fees in exchange for expanded HSR service. However, last fall, there were over 200 hours of missed bus service each week, to the point where students could not rely on public transit to arrive to their exams on time. McMaster students are the HSR’s largest rider group, contributing over $4.5 million annually, yet we are constantly overlooked in times of financial stress. By voting, we show the city that our transit needs must be valued, and that the level of service provided needs to match our financial contributions.

If you’re still unsure, think about it this way — your voice is just as powerful, just as important, and just as valued as those who have lived in Hamilton for decades. We are all impacted by at least one key issue in this election: housing, transit, safety, the environment, student relations, student job opportunities, or economic growth.

But voting comes with great responsibility. Take the time to research the Ward 1 and mayoral candidates, as well as their stances on the key issues. Many young adults feel like their vote doesn’t matter, and unfortunately, by the way we are viewed by most of city council, that feeling makes sense. But this can change if we vote.

Go out to lunch with your friends and swing by the voting station. Talk to your classmates about why you’re planning to vote. Make a post on social media about your voting experience or issues that matter to you. We should all leave a place better than we found it, and making your voice heard in this Hamilton election is an incredible first step. On Oct. 22, make your vote count. See you at the polls, Marauders.


For information on Ward 1 councillor candidate platforms:

[button link="https://www.thesil.ca/meet-your-ward-1-councillor-candidates" color="red"]VIEW ALL CANDIDATE PLATFORMS[/button]

Questions on how to vote?

[button link="https://www.thesil.ca/ward-1-voting-101-a-voting-guide-for-mac-students" color="red"]WARD 1 VOTING GUIDE[/button] 


[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

This article will hit newsstands on the same day as Ontario’s 42nd general election. I’ll be making my way to the polls, but a large number of Ontarians, specifically younger adults, won’t be. 

Ontario’s election turnouts are among the lowest in the country. A dismal 51 per cent of Ontarians showed up to the 2014 Ontario vote, not terribly far off from a frankly embarrassing 43 per cent who cast their ballot in the 2011 election. 

To make matters worse, only 34 per cent of young people, aged 18 to 24, said they bothered to vote in the 2014 election. While new reports have found that millennials are becoming more mindful of their democratic right, only about 43 per cent of young Ontarians said they were “extremely likely” to vote in the 2018 provincial election. 

This will the first provincial election in which more millennials will be eligible to vote than baby boomers. That means young people have a significant amount of power to take issues that are important to them into their own hands.

The fact is, a large portion of the issues at stake in the June 7 election are ours to lose. Transit plans, talks of student debt relief, health and dental coverage and environmental impacts are among the many issues that will affect young people this election, and for that matter, voting is integral. 

So, why aren’t young people voting? 

There are several reasons why young people may think their vote doesn’t matter, or that they’re lacking the information to properly exercise our democratic right. 

Young people are reportedly twice as likely to believe that they can’t cast their vote because they don’t think that they’re registered on a voter list. They’re also 51 per cent more likely to say that we lack enough information to make an informed decision during an election. 

Some reports say that the explanation behind this mentality may rest in the lack of exposure to traditional mainstream media. 40 per cent of young people say that they rely on social media as a political news source, while roughly 57 per cent of all adults say they rely on mainstream media, including newspapers, and TV for their political coverage. 

At this point, these are genuinely insufficient excuses. 

There are various initiatives that are pushing the youth vote. Elections Ontario launched an e-registration platform that allows users to check and edit their information online. The McMaster Students Union held an all candidates debate on May 29. Various organizations are coming together to encourage young people to get informed. 

As for the lack of knowledge regarding candidate information, it is genuinely easier than ever to review a candidate’s platform online. Some outlets have even compiled and organized information from each major candidate’s platform, making research a simple task. 

For democracy to work properly, people need to cast a ballot. With stakes as high as they are in this election, it is more important than ever to let your voice be heard. On June 7, vote as you please, but please vote. 

 

[CORRECTION: on June 7, we published that McMaster University hosted an all candidates debate on May 29. However, the debate was fully funded by the McMaster Students Union.]

In the coming months, the city of Hamilton will see another election, this time to vote in the new city council. Ward 1, the ward in which McMaster University and many of its students reside, is known for having a relatively high voter turnout; during the 2014 election, Ward 1’s voter turnout was 40.7 per cent, while Hamilton’s overall turnout sat at 34 per cent. But a lot can change in four years, and the city keeps on changing. Here’s a look at the major changes.

Ward 1 stretches from Osler Drive at its western border to Queen Street to its east. It contains popular student neighbourhoods such as Westdale and Ainslie Wood in addition to well-known streets like Locke Street. Currently, Aidan Johnson is Ward 1’s city councillor after taking on the role from Brian McHattie back in 2014. 

The last time census data was taken for each individual ward was in 2011 and 2006, collected and presented by the city of Hamilton. Over those five years, numbers have fluctuated but the same narrative arises again; a ward full of well-educated people paying too much for rent.

 2006

In 2006, Ward 1’s population was 34,409. Recently landed immigrants made up 5.7 per cent of the population, which contrasted Hamilton’s 3.3 per cent in 2006. 36.3 per cent of Ward 1 residents held some form of post-secondary education, a much higher percentage than Hamilton’s overall 18.8 per cent. The unemployment rate for Ward 1 sat at 7 per cent, slightly higher than Hamilton’s 6.5 per cent.

At the time, 45.7 per cent of Ward 1 residents were renters, with 45 per cent spending over 30 per cent of their income on housing. Only 31.7 per cent of all Hamiltonians rented during 2006. At this point, McHattie had been Ward 1 councillor for three years, and would continue to hold that role until 2014.

2011

The most recent data, as reported by the city of Hamilton, paints a similar picture filled with change and uncertainty. As of 2011, Ward 1’s reported population sat at 29,764. It also appears that Ward 1 had remained a relatively popular destination for recently landed immigrants, with the proportion of recent immigrants in Ward 1 slightly higher than the proportion throughout all of Hamilton, sitting at 5.8 per cent and 2.9 per cent, respectively.

Just over half of all residents have attended a post-secondary institution, with 50.9 per cent of residents holding some sort of degree. The unemployment rate for Ward 1 sat at 9.6 per cent, while Hamilton’s overall rate was 8.7 per cent.

This additional education still does not guarantee housing tenure, though; 47.5 per cent of residents are tenants, and 46.6 per cent of tenants report that they spend over 30 per cent of their income on housing. Ward 1 has also has a higher proportion than renters, with Hamilton’s overall percentage sitting at 31.6 per cent, with an overall 42.8 per cent of renters spending over 30 per cent of their income on housing.

By 2011, McHattie had been Ward 1 councillor for eight years. 

What It Means

A brief survey of Ward 1 statistics points to a clear story that has been consistent for the last decade or so; Ward 1 residents are well-educated, but lack secure housing.According to the Wellesley Institute, a non-profit think tank based in Toronto, anyone spending over 30 per cent of their income on rent may be considered at risk, meaning that a significant number of Hamiltonians in Ward 1 live in precarious housing.

According to research released in Nov. 2017 by Rentseeker, a real estate website, the average rent price for a two-bedroom apartment in Hamilton sits at $1,103. In comparison to other cities in the Greater Toronto Area, Hamilton is one of the cheaper options, with cities like Burlington and Mississauga sitting at $1,366 and $1,333, respectively.

To add to the overarching issue of affordable housing, research released by the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton in June 2018 also discovered an increase in evictions occurring in Hamilton.

The SPRC argues that a lack of rental protection is the cause of such high eviction rates, pointing to Quebec City and its low eviction rates as the model for Hamilton to follow. The SPRC argues that in order to stabilize rental prices in Hamilton, policies must be enacted that allow tenants to know how much their units previously cost before signing a lease, and financial barriers such as expecting the first and last month’s rent must be taken away.

The SPRC argued that Quebec City and Hamilton share enough similarities, such as similarly proportioned growth, to qualify for comparison.

As of now, only two candidates have registered to run in the Ward 1 municipal election: the incumbent Aidan Johnson and McMaster graduate Sophie Geffros. The official nomination period will not end until July 27, meaning candidates have nearly two months to make their candidacy official.

While it’s unclear what these two candidates plan to advocate for, common themes have arisen through even the briefest of looks at census data, pointing to affordable housing issues, questions about unemployment or underemployment and other issues that affect students.

Whether McMaster students vote depends on many factors, but as of now, precedence does not lend itself to suggesting McMaster students will vote en masse: the last McMaster Students Union election saw a voter turnout of 28 per cent. But overall, the Ward 1 election holds one of the higher voter turnouts in the city.

Statistics have their limitations and can’t tell you everything about a race and candidates may decide to focus on issues other than the ones listed above. Since census data for Ward 1 is not available, it is unclear how Ward 1 fared while Johnson was city councilor, but likely will not be out before the municipal election is over. With that said, it still looks like it will be an interesting race.

Connor Wong

Ikram Farah

Kirstin Webb

Kyle Pinheiro

Muhammed Aydin

Lindsay D'Souza

Rabeena Obaidullah

1) Get a lead and maintain it

Voters will rank every candidate from one to seven. Round one simply indicates everyone’s first choice on the ballot, and the candidate with the least amount of first place votes is knocked out. For the rest of the rounds, the ballots for losing candidates are redistributed to their top remaining preference. This continues until a candidate reaches more than 50 per cent of the vote.

However, the preferential voting system has historically meant far less than you think it has. In the last five years, only one year has had candidates move position in the standings from round one to the end of the process. The largest of these was Sarah Jama who moved two spots from fourth to second overall in the 2016 election.

Close calls do happen. Teddy Saull’s 68-vote lead over Jacob Brodka in the first round of the 2014 election decreased to 66 and 11 in rounds two and three, respectively. This still ended in a 101 vote win for Saull in the final round.

Having a solid base of first place votes has shown to be important for momentum, and it is unlikely that a candidate that relies on votes coming from the preferential system will win.

However, with such a large number of candidates this year, the possibilities for overlap between platforms and voter bases are incredibly high. This year has the most amount of candidates since the 2013 election, which also had seven. This year has a higher than usual possibility for a candidate in first place during the first round to be upset in the later rounds.

2) Have MSU experience

David Campbell went from second place in 2012’s presidentials to vice-president (Administration) to winning the presidency in the first round in 2013. He was the only candidate in the last five years to win at any point earlier than the final round. Ehima Osazuwa was involved with the Student Representatives Assembly before winning in 2015. Justin Monaco-Barnes’ experience with the Underground represented some unconventional MSU qualifications before winning in 2016. Chukky Ibe was involved with the SRA, MSU Diversity Services and the Student Success Centre prior to his win in 2017.

The one exception to this was Saull in 2014 who noted, “I had never been a part of politics before, except for watching The Ides of March,” in his interview with the Silhouette after winning. He was the president of student council in high school and was involved as a Community Advisor for Hedden and Bates, but was still a candidate from outside of the MSU.

You can win as an outsider, but it has generally taken a lot of work and close calls.

This year features four candidates with SRA experience, one with unique MSU experience and two without any MSU experience.

3) There is an increasing need to have one big point

Campbell replied, “Study space, space in general on campus and library hours,” when asked to identify one issue that was the most important to students. Saull promoted the theme of community and made a few points off of this such as off-campus security, the student life enhancement fund and a bigger Frost Week.

Osazuwa’s run arguably changed the dynamics of MSU presidentials. The substantial focus on tuition advocacy resulted in criticism that mostly revolved around how alternative solutions may be better rather than the idea itself. Monaco-Barnes expanded on this with his unique background by promoting the idea of more affordable courseware being printed through Underground. Ibe’s main point of better WiFi completely overrode the lack of consulting on his other points because it was a point so prominently featured on his and so minimal on everyone else’s.

It is possible to have complete, top-to-bottom platforms win, and having one main point does not mean that the rest of the ideas are weak by any means. It is simply a great way to get people interested in your campaign and to express what your top priority is in a long list of ideas.

This year, oddly enough, appears to be going back to old presidential tendencies with the lack of any one candidate heavily promoting one idea. Each seem to promote themselves as the brand or some tagline or theme with multiple platform points under that. We will see how this develops during the MSU debate on Jan. 18 and our debate on Jan. 21.

4) How important is gender?

In a broader look at the statistics since the 1970s to present done by the Silhouette last year, it was mentioned that only 13 per cent of president elects have been female. It took 22 years to break a streak of male presidents with Mary Koziol in 2010. There have only been four women presidents elected in the history of the MSU.

In a Silhouette article in 2013 addressing the lack of women running for president, Koziol noted, “I was told repeatedly not to put women’s issues at the forefront of my platform. I think that’s an interesting dynamic — that it’s okay to be female and run for an election, but you have to be careful about how proud you are about being female.”

In 2014, the Silhouette noted that McMaster ranked eighth out of nine major research universities in Ontario for equal gender representation in student government.

Koziol appeared again in a similar Silhouette article in 2015 stating, “It’s challenging to say what the MSU could be doing differently. … The ultimate answer is we need a culture shift; one in which people who are traditionally underrepresented feel supported and safe in pursuing positions of influence.”

Another article in 2016 about women in the MSU mentioned Karen Bird, professor of political science at McMaster, who noted, “It is so puzzling that it is the case for local politics and for young women. Women are the majority in most desciples now, at least across the university. Women tend to do better in their GPA. They have all the skills and all the ability but there is still something that is keeping women from stepping forward.”

There have been no female presidents in the last five years. It is statistically likely that either this point or the second point about MSU experience will break this year considering all of the candidates with SRA experience are women and only one out of the remaining three have any MSU experience.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Every September, a new cohort of first-years come to McMaster, some for the very first time. With these new students comes a new election, this time for the McMaster Students Union First Year Council. By the time you have read this article, the 2017-2018 council will have been voted in and will begin their journey in representing first-year students in student governance.

The need for FYC is simple: the MSU holds elections for their Student Representative Assembly and their committees during the winter for 12-month terms, meaning first-year students do not have any representation within the governing body of the MSU. FYC attempts to fill that void.

Last year, much of FYC’s structure changed to make up for the shutdown of the Inter-Residence Council in 2016 following an internal audit. The IRC was a student council who represented students living in residence and worked with the Residence Life to enact change. IRC was largely responsible for material changes to residence improvements, such as the extended Centro hours during the exam periods.

Following the IRC’s dissolution, FYC took on their roles. They introduced residence councillors, who act as a mini IRC within the larger FYC body.

FYC focuses on advocacy, mentorship, event planning and volunteering. They often collaborate with other MSU services such as Spark and the Maroons to hold events for first-year students. During the MSU presidential campaign in 2017, FYC held “meet the candidates” events in residence to introduce first-year students to MSU politics.

In particular, FYC held a formal in conjunction with Spark in November, first-year Olympics and a paint night with the Maroons.

Hazra Chowdhury, the FYC coordinator, hopes to continue the advocacy and events of their predecessors. She is currently working with Kevin Beatty of Residence Life to create consultation committees within residence. Her main goal is to make the committees more efficient and effective, by first condensing the original six committees into four and working on communication between both FYC and Residence Life.

“The six committees that were in place last year had been in place with the IRC for a very long time, but that doesn’t mean they’ve been the most effective,” said Chowdhury.

In addition, Chowdhury hopes to work with Residence Life, particularly residence orientation representatives, to put on more programming throughout the year.

“This year we’ll be extending [the programming] but I know that as a first year it’s difficult to run an event when you’re the only chair,” Chowdhury said.

“Since RORs this year have a full year contract and community advisors are there to help, it’s a part of the alternate programming committee; those RORs will help students put on events throughout the year,” she added.

As the election results are tallied, one can expect FYC to continue to do work throughout the school year to support first-year students and have their voices heard within the union.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

After the assembly of an ad hoc committee last summer and a public referendum during this year's Presidential elections, the beginning of some changes have finally come for the McMaster Students Union's Vice-President elections process.

The Student Representative Assembly ratified several of these changes on March 6 following some slight revisions to the new policies brought forward by Miranda Clayton, the Operations Commissioner of the SRA.

This shift is a result of some of the dissatisfaction with the internal voting process, both inside and outside of the SRA. In January 2016, a general referendum to move VP elections at-large failed to reach the required two-thirds majority by about 20 votes.

One of four major changes includes the decision to elect candidates in a semi-open ballot. While voting will remain private during the meeting, each SRA member's vote will be released in the meeting minutes, with the goal of improving transparency.

“The SRA should ideally be acting as an electoral college, meaning that they should be gathering as much feedback from their constituents as possible,” said Clayton.

The assembly also approved a long-overdue change to the votes of SRA members who run for a position on the Board of Directors. Any VP candidate that is serving as an SRA member will now be required to abstain during the voting period.

This was based on several recommendations that the VP ad hoc committee made over the summer. For a decision made by a group of less than 40 students, this is an important revision for those who don’t hold a seat on the SRA when they run for a position.

While internal pressures and politics will remain, it's a welcome change for students who want to burst the “MSU bubble.”

“A lot of the time, the older SRA members know somebody who's running,” said Clayton, discussing some of the implicit and explicit pressures.

“So new SRA members will get a message that's like, 'Oh, you should vote for this person, because I know they're the most experienced.' But it doesn't really give new SRA members a chance to really critically think for themselves.”

Said Clayton, "I don't think this cultural shift will happen overnight, but I do think it'll happen over time."

The other two changes stem from one of the major internal complaints from last year's VP elections, whose meeting extended to 22 hours, an enormous barrier for students trying to remain fair and engaged during the whole process.

Based on this feedback, the policies have outlined a shift towards a debate-style format amongst candidates, as well as a significant reduction in time allotted for VP presentations.

Clayton explained that this helps in fixing a great deal of redundancy, as all VP candidates spend a significant amount of time meeting each new SRA member beforehand.

The Speaker is also elected during the same meeting as the VPs, and the changes will also be reflected in the time allocated to Speaker candidates. Current MSU Speaker Inna Berditchevskaia explained that this will also help shift the focus away from their platforms, which is less important than for the VPs.

“[The Speaker's] platform isn't quite as important as how [they] handle a question period," she wrote in an online conversation.

"I think the biggest concern was just that this is the same meeting as VPs."

With all of these changes, there is the hope that more students will engage with an organization that has been criticized for being too insular.

Asked on her thoughts, Clayton said, “I would have preferred it was at-large, but I think given the circumstances this is the best we could do, and I am happy with these changes.”

“The final voting power is not in the hands of students, which is what I would have liked instead, but if we start this cultural shift now ... I am really interested to see where this goes.”

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

Following a three-week long election period, the race for MSU President has finally come to an end.

After Sarah Jama’s reinstatement into the presidential race and the retabulation of votes on Friday, Feb. 5, Justin Monaco-Barnes remained the winner of the 2016 presidential election. Jama came in second overall, and Jonathon Tonietto fell to third place.

Justin Monaco-Barnes is now officially the MSU President for the 2016-2017 year. Some highlights from his platform to look forward to in the next year and a half include: his promise to print cheaper courseware through Underground, work towards sustainability at McMaster and efforts to continue addressing sexual violence on campus. The Silhouette interviewed Monaco-Barnes for our Feb. 4 issue which can be found on our Issuu page.

webonly1

Sarah Jama was initially disqualified due to charges of misrepresenting expenses to the Elections Committee and a severe violation of “bad taste.”

The Elections Department released the minutes for the Jan. 28 post-election period meeting alongside the appeal decision. Following Bylaw 10 of the elections process, disqualification was briefly considered for Monaco-Barnes, Gill and Tonietto as well.

To counter the claim that she spent $500 on her website, Jama presented evidence that her campaign website was designed by a volunteer on her team who is also a co-founder of a website design company. Jama chose to display his logo on her website to promote the volunteer’s company as a sign of gratitude for his volunteer work. However, Jama told The Silhouette that she was still fined for not including her website designer as a part of her core team.

Jama’s campaign was also fined for a controversial retweet by one of her volunteers of an anonymous account that accused another candidate of sexual assault.  The CRO acknowledged, as the candidate herself posted on her Facebook page, that Jama took quick action to delete the tweet and remove two members from her team.

The retweet played a significant role in Jama’s initial disqualification. However, as stated in a press release by the MSU, following their deliberations on Feb. 5 the Elections Committee decided that the tweet did not significantly affect the integrity of the election.

With the end of perhaps the most contentious MSU election in nearly a decade, we can all go back to forgetting about student politics until the Student Representative Assembly elections in early March. See you then.

Photo Credit: Michael Gallagher/ Production Editor

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

 [adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

With the announcement of the new President-elect, the MSU also revealed the results of the VP electoral referendum. During this election period, students not only had the chance to vote for their choice candidate for president, but to also vote for or against (or abstain) initiating an election process for MSU Vice-Presidents.

The referendum resulted in 66.4 percent of the votes in favour of the process, with 4,590 students saying “yes” to VP at-large elections. While this number is impressive, it wasn’t enough for the referendum to pass. A constitutional referendum requires two-thirds of the votes to pass, or in other words, 66.67% “yes” votes. Had it received 20 more votes, or roughly 0.27% more support, McMaster would currently be moving towards an at-large VP electoral system.

“We were angry and disappointed in ourselves. We could have made just one more class talk, or ask more people to vote in order for it to pass,” said Esra Bengizi, one of the managers of the pro-VP reform campaign, in an interview with a Silhouette reporter.

The pro-referendum campaign group formed in early November after the Student Mobilization Syndicate presented a petition with over 800 signatures to the Student Representative Assembly requesting the right for students to vote for their VPs (Education, Administration and Finance) — a task that is currently done exclusively by the SRA. The SRA addressed the petition at their Nov. 1 meeting and decided that the vote would go to referendum as opposed to becoming a constitutional amendment.

Had the referendum passed, McMaster wouldn’t be the first school to switch to an at-large VP electoral system. Western University currently runs on a system that allows students to vote for two of their five VPs. The system has proven successful — as they have managed to continually elect a candidate for each position — but over the years voter turnout has decreased, and voter fatigue is assumed to play a role in this.

Although this recent loss is a blow to the efforts of pro-referendum campaign group, this may not be the end of the group’s campaigning. The VP Referendum is not the first to fail on a ballot, and this year doesn’t have to be the end of its campaigning. The Health Care Referenda, which constituted of three different questions related to the student health plan, failed the first run during the elections for the 2014-15 MSU President. The referenda were added to the ballot again the following year, and after increased promotions and education, all three referenda passed.

“With a team of only ten people we were able to get 4,590 voters to say yes,” Bengizi said. “Imagine if we had more. I was shocked to see such a success, and seeing this makes me even more ambitious to try again… we will not give up, we are going to continue to fight”.

*Files from Shalom Joseph

Photo Credit: Michael Gallagher/ Production Editor

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2024 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.
magnifiercrossmenu