OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Friday, January 23

#20402

OMG: From the Elections Procedures: "Campaigning may consist of, but is not limited to, all forms of advertising or communication ... designed and/or likely to influence voters towards a particular candidate"

How the hell can anyone think that some of those answers are not likely to influence voters towards a particular candidate? As was pointed out, even if this was in the works for months, could you not have postponed it until after elections? Or held it a couple of weeks ago even?

Ben, Stephane, Maaz, shame on you. I hope the voters realize how shady this whole thing was, and kick you out of office.

16 comments

  1. And no, this was not just about dispelling myths about Feds. Some of it was just general Feds questions, but the vast majority was questions about the exec's personal portfolio and what they have done, or are working on.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, when one of them comes in and says "well hopefully this will be a good learning lesson to create a policy for next year"--NO, we already have a policy. This is it! And you clearly violated it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep. It was a full-blown PR event, held right before the start of campaigning. Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shut up you fucking whiner. If you really think this will influence the vote, you are sadly mistaken. What influences the vote the most is posting shitty complaints on omguw and on fucked twitter accounts ensuring the tens of of people who follow and already agree with you are even more bitchy. Wait.. that doesn't influence anything. Neither did this. Go back to your hole, troll.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Then file an allegation with the elections commissioner. This can be done by sending an email to elections@feds.ca

    If the allegation is deemed non frivolous, they lose 15% of their campaign budget each.

    -- VP Internal Candidate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 15% is nothing, this is cheating and it deserves way worse...

      Delete
    2. Multiple violations of the elections rules can merit disqualification, 5a.

      Delete
    3. The budget for the entire team is $300, so a 15% cut is actually a decent amount. Also, in the past, teams have had multiple infractions, which keeps lowering their budget. If they spend more than their budget, they are disqualified.

      As well, if the Elections Committee decides something is malicious enough, they can just disqualify someone from the election.

      Delete
    4. Btw, no allegations have been placed yet, despite lots of whining. You can complain anonymously if you're worried about that.

      Delete
    5. Teams budget for allegations, it is such bullshit.

      Delete
  6. I'm undecided on its impact and legitimacy. I think the best recourse is just what OP did here. Call it out in the venue it occurred. Then we can decide how it will affect our vote. It may well be that the event backfires on the incumbents and they lose more votes than they gained. Or it could be helpful for them. It was a gamble. It was food for thought. I'm glad it happened in this venue. I agree the timing is questionable. As with practically everything that goes on omguw I will read all posts and reach my own decision, from explosive diarrhea and puking on one's lap, to counseling services. It's not true that any attention is good attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strangely enough no not PR. I posted 6. Since you seem to think so though I'll add this. I didn't buy a fair amount of the answers. For instance the consultant's strategy created opaqueness and reduced representation for the students. Both of these were in opposition to what students want. But the incumbents did not admit to it. I didn't buy their spin and it in no way undoes their actions that further pulled the student "union" further from the grip of actual students. In doing so they performed a disservice to those they claim to represent and insulted our intelligence by not owning up to it. Still sound like PR? If so I'll go on ...

      Delete
    2. 6b with a good point.

      As an aside FYI, it was the previous exec (under President David Collins) who chose to use an external organization for the governance review. But it was the current exec who chose to put the recommendations of that organization ahead of what their own members were telling them was good for the organization.

      Then when one of the recommendations (closing board meetings) was criticized, the rep for the company that did the review criticized US (the students), AT THE GENERAL MEETING, for not being engaged enough in our own student union, yet wanting transparency from them anyway. Condescending as fuck.

      Delete
    3. 6c, so they contextualized the exec's decision to withdraw from our view as being our fault. Cowardly of the exec to hire a consultant with our own money to tell us that.

      So we're to blame for what the exec does to us. How convenient for the execs.

      Delete
  7. Not impressed at all with execs giving their private email addresses to send concerns about UW's mismanagement of our safety at counseling services. That just further buries talks.

    As in other ways, Feds exec wants to create the appearance of resolving our concerns while actually doing the opposite.

    ReplyDelete