Controversial YFS elections bylaws pass near-unanimously

Jacqueline Perlin
Recruitment Manager

Student elections are slowly gearing up once again, but this year more than a few changes have been made to the elections process.
The York Federation of Students (YFS) held their Annual General Meeting (AGM) Dec. 10, where a number of amendments were made to York University’s election process. After some debate, the motion to make the changes passed near unanimously in a vote by the as- sembled student body.
The changes come following the storm of controversy surrounding the election process in recent years.
Last year’s concerns included issues regard- ing the criteria for disqualifying candidates, the appointment of the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) who oversees the elections, and also questions over what constitutes election materials.
Spurred by student complaints, York University conducted an election process review, headed by York ombudsperson John McCamus. The McCamus report, titled “Towards a More Level Playing Field,” was released Sept. 16 with a total of 48 recommended changes to help create a more impartial elections process.
The YFS also released an election audit Aug. 24 through Davis LLP, a third-party law firm. Both reports offered several recommendations that would increase transparency in student elections.
According to Jeremy Salter, executive director of the YFS, some of the recommendations from both reports have been accepted by the YFS and integrated into the new bylaws.
Issues concerning the hiring of the CRO have been addressed by changing the process from an appointment to an advertised hiring procedure followed by a secret ballot vote to avoid overt favouritism.
However, Greg Kay, the Schulich School of Business director for the YFS, remains sceptical regarding the recent changes.
“What’s going on right now is that there is no real election reform,” said Kay. “They say they’re implementing the changes, but they’re lying.”
“Essentially they’re going to be choosing the CRO yet again. It’s all just smoke and mirrors to show that they’re advertising, but Jeremy Salter receives all the resumes and will choose the three candidates he wants. It’s really not that transparent at all,” he said.
Salter, however, responded saying he has no place on the Board of Directors; the board is a democratically elected committee that chooses the CRO, and the process is extremely transparent and unbiased.
The YFS also put a spending cap on election campaign material. Presidential candidates have a limit of up to $300, while candidates running for director are capped at $100. These amounts are to be reimbursed to candidates, but those who exceed the outlined amounts face disqualification.
Kay, the Schulich director of the YFS, said the refund may not apply to campaigners who face potential disqualification during the campaign period.
“You have to look at how they worded those reimbursements,” Kay pointed out. “If anyone is disqualified, they won’t reimburse them […] and given what’s happened historically, the opposition has always been disqualified.”
Kay also noted that in past elections, candidates who have run against the incumbent party faced disqualification far more frequently, and only found out whether they were disqualified at the end of elections.
“[Disqualifying candidates] is a frequent thing to do to minimize opposition, and they’ve been doing it all the time,” said Kay.
Salter, however, refuted Kay’s argument, noting members of the opposing party are not always disqualified.
“I know Mr. Kay likes to put a negative spin on things,” he said. “But the intent of the spending cap is meant to equalize the playing field for individuals who are from marginalized backgrounds and would like to participate in the elections process.”
Salter employed an analogy when it came to reimbursing disqualified candidates, pointing out that students who lie on their Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) applications are not entitled to getting refunds on application fees – similarly, it’s only fair candidates who break campaign rules don’t get their money back.
One of the most contentious amendments to the process failed to make the cut: an amendment proposed at the AGM by Winters College Council member Farah Tamachi called for a ban on election campaigning by non-York students on behalf of candidates. A similar change was recommended by both the McCamus and Davis LLP audits, but at the meeting Krisna Saravanamuttu, president of the YFS, argued it was essentially impossible to try to police the behaviour of the campaigners in this way.
Tamachi argued that students who don’t attend York may not fully understand the issues York students face, and have no business telling them who to vote for. Kay agreed.
Salter, however, concurred with Saravanmuttu, noting it’s impossible to monitor all students who come onto campus, including those that help campaigning for their friends. He pointed out that both members of the in- cumbent and opposition parties last year had the help of friends from other schools.
Kay remained adamant that very few of the changes will benefit York in the long run. “They’re not looking to better York. They’re looking to better their party.”