The Martlet

Changes in the UVic Student Society election policy might force candidates running as independents to campaign at a disadvantage, say some board members.

Three motions with policy changes proposed at the Jan. 12 UVSS board meeting were of particular concern.

The first motion added mass messaging via social networking sites to a list of prohibited methods of mass communication, such as listserves.

David Foster, the Access UVic rep, and board member Erin Lacharity opposed the motion on the grounds of free speech.

“Access would like to see an open election,” said Foster.

Another motion that was passed removed a stipulation from electoral policy, saying that candidates could not campaign within 50 metres of the polling stations. Candidates may now campaign without this restriction.

However, campaigning within sound of a polling station is still prohibited, as per the policies.

“Metres are really long,” UVSS Chair Caitlin Meggs told the board. Director of Finance Tracy Ho said that once 50 metres from all polling stations had been mapped out, very little space on campus was left for campaigning, most of which is where the First Peoples House is now being built.

UVSS Director-at-Large Dylan Hardie ran as one of the two independents elected in the last election.

He recommended that 50 metres be reduced to 15 or 20, or that blackout areas be implemented, rather than removing the distance restriction altogether.

“By removing that 50 metres you can have literally someone standing [around the corner],” said Hardie.

He said candidates on slates (parties) can cover more polling stations than an independent, handing out leaflets with their entire slates’ names on it right as students go in to vote.

Foster proposed the motion be tabled until better policy could be written, adding that sight and sound are subjective.

One motion which didn’t pass would have allowed candidates to mention the names of other candidates from their slates in their campaign material. Currently, candidates can reference their slate, but not other candidates.

Hardie strongly opposed this motion.

“Simply put, the average slate is 14 people and the independent is one,” he said.

Hardie said that, theoretically, a candidate for chair could have his or her name on the entire slate’s material. Because policy restricts the number of leaflets and banners a candidate can put out, Hardie says this could give slate members a significant advantage.

“Suddenly it becomes not just 500 leaflets,” Hardie said. “If I ran for chair I’d have my name on my three banners and 500 leaflets. [But one person] could have her name on 42 banners [and] 7,000 leaflets.”

Meggs said the point of the motions wasn’t to make things more difficult for independent candidates, but to make better, more clear policies.

“The intention of it was ... to say that people can refer to their slate and people on their slate but not to people on other slates,” said Meggs.

One issue that came up was “chalkboarding.”

Meggs said last year an arbitrary rule was created quickly to determine whether or not writing on classroom chalkboards was included in the classification of campaign materials.

Candidates were allowed to reference slate members while chalkboarding if boxes separated the candidates’ names.

Last election, Meggs ran with Team Fast, though several Team Fast members elected as Directors-at-Large voted against the motion to allow the mention of other candidates.

“First of all, I’m not opposed to slates,” said Team Fast member Brodie Metcalfe, who voted against the motion. “I think a lot of it had to do with a bit of misunderstanding.”

Metcalfe went on to explain that he hadn’t realized the extent of the problems created by the ambiguity of the current policy, and that he thought the only issue was that it was slightly annoying to see campaigning on chalkboards in various classrooms around campus.

“Afterward, I was informed there was actually a lot more stuff going on that I wasn’t aware of,” said Metcalfe, noting the policy would be revisited.

Meggs said voters have the right to know who is running together, and that slates themselves don’t give candidates an unfair advantage.

“Every political system that I know of has people who run together and people who work together,” Meggs said. “I think it’s only fair for students to know that Caitlin and Tracy work together on the same ticket.”

Meggs added that all candidates have the option to form a slate or to run as an independent.

“There are advantages to running in a slate for sure, but they aren’t unfair advantages,” said Meggs. “They’re strategic advantages.”

She also added that candidates from the same slate don’t necessarily all vote the same way, as was proven at the last board meeting.

All three motions were put forward by Ho based on recommendations by the organizational development committee.

Members of Team Fast currently hold the four executive positions of Director of Finance, Director of Academics, Director of Services and Chair.

Seven out of 11 Directors-at-Large are also Team Fast members.

Another slate, Students for Students, won two positions within the Directors-at-Large — the same as the number of independents who won.