Controversial motion brought to BOA meeting
photo by Laura Clementson
Studying slates: BOA members debate and deliberate at the Nov. 15 meeting.
BOA members vote against slates in elections
AFTER A LONG debate, the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa’s (SFUO) Board of Administration (BOA) voted against a proposal to incorporate slates into body’s the electoral proceedings at a Nov. 15 meeting.
A slate is a group of individuals running for office who campaign together, similar to a political party. This results in a set of candidates running together as a team to take advantage of strength in numbers.
The motion was brought forward by SFUO President Seamus Wolfe after the elections committee conducted research at four students unions of similar size, in order to compare practices. The unions chosen for comparison included the University of Alberta Student Union, the University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society, the York Federation of Students, and the University of Toronto Students’ Union.
On behalf of the campaigns committee, Wolfe explained what constitutes a slate and how this trend is becoming more popular at universities across Canada. The motion, had it passed, would have changed the SFUO’s current policy as outlined in By-law 4.7 (b), which indicates no candidate is allowed to “participate in any way in the campaign of one of more other candidates.” The proposed changes sparked a lengthy debate among many at the meeting, and soon several arguments were made both in support of and against the motion.
Wolfe voted for the motion and explained what he thought slates could accomplish.
“I think that to increase the transparency of the actual democratic process and to have a more engaging debate about ideas and not individual popularity contests, it would be beneficial to recognize candidates who are working together,” said Wolfe.
Not everyone at the BOA meeting was in agreement, though. There were many objections to this motion, particularly to the idea of “popularity contests;” these arguments stemmed from the idea that slates were comparable to cliques, where individual students would find it harder to run for a position due to the dominating power a slate may have.
Among those who thought this was BOA Arts director Scott Bedard, who shared his thoughts on why slates are not a positive change for students.
“[Slates] decrease the influence of individual students, they decrease the individual student’s ability to get involved—[slates] really decrease any influence by the individual,” said Bedard. “When there’s a machine, like we see in some sections of campus right now, it becomes more difficult to get involved. It could be disadvantageous to students who want to contribute in a meaningful way.”
However, Wolfe stated that he felt it wouldn’t decrease individual interest in student politics.
“Everyone around this table got involved at some point for a completely different reason. And if we were to [have] slates, that would be another reason for people to get involved,” Wolfe said to the board.
SFUO VP Social Alex Chaput voted against the motion, and spoke to how hard it is to run on one’s own versus a slate.
“I feel [a slate] is a huge disadvantage to any student who’s not part of a slate who’d want to run for an SFUO position. Having more money doesn’t compare to the amount of support you get from the slate,” said Chaput, referencing a clause in the motion that would seek to give more funding to non-slate candidates. “Anyone who stands independent and is running against the slate is at a huge disadvantage.”
Some BOA members abstained from voting, feeling that the issue had not looked into slates as thoroughly as they should have. Among them was SFUO VP Communications Julie Séguin, who felt that although it was a valid motion, students should be more aware of the changes that could follow after potentially incorporating slates into elections.
“I [have been] getting a lot of questions, and that makes me think that now is not the time [to vote on the motion], although I think it’s a good idea,” said Séguin. “I think that a good survey, a mass email, [or] an open public discussion will get the people who care to come and show up and tell us what they think.”
The motion did not pass, due to the fact that it could not obtain the support of a two-thirds majority of BOA members.
