The Official University of Manitoba Students’ Newspaper
Motion for an UMSU presidential revote ruled out of order for second time Colton McKillop, staff
News
members to reach quorum and failed to announce its decision by the required deadline.
Judicial board presents its case At the meeting, judicial board member Elbethel Masresha gave a presentation explaining the judicial board’s view. Masresha asserted that the judicial board had a total of 24 hours after the end of the initial meeting with Langan to make its decision, explaining that the election manual stipulates it may call a recess of 12 hours and must announce a decision within 12 hours of the end of the meeting — meaning, according to Masresha, that the board would have had to announce its decision by 6:15 p.m. on March 10. The judicial board issued its decision at 3:20 p.m. on March 10. Masresha cited a section of the election manual stating that all rulings from the judicial board should be “final and binding,” and that there is no appealing its decision on an appeal. Masresha disputed the argument that the judicial board did not have quorum, saying that quorum was “not applicable in this situation,” as points 26 and 27 of section seven of the UMSU Governance and Operations Manual — which specify that the judicial board must have six members present in order to reach quorum for a hearing — are in reference to hearings for complaints against UMSU executives or board and committee members, as well as appeals regarding those complaints. She claimed that the entire board did not have to be present for the hearing as it was “an information gathering hearing and not a setting where any motion or formal decisions are made.” There is no definition of an “information gathering hearing” in UMSU’s governing documents.
3 Editorial
graphic / Dallin Chicoine / staff
D
uring a nearly four hour special UMSU board meeting last Thursday featuring what UMSU president Jaron Rykiss called a “very heated, emotional” debate, a motion to hold a revote for the position of UMSU president was ruled out of order. This is the second time a motion to hold a revote for presidential election was ruled out of order. The first was moved by the UMSU chief returning officer (CRO) at an emergency meeting held on March 13 following the disqualification of presidential candidate Justin Langan. At 2 p.m. on March 8, Langan was disqualified from the race. That same day at 11:17 p.m., Langan submitted an appeal of his disqualification to the judicial board. A hearing took place on March 9 at 6:15 p.m. The judicial board chose to take a break until the next day following its meeting with Langan to include a third board member in order to reach a unanimous decision. At the time, the judicial board only had three members due to the recent resignation of four individuals. The judicial board upheld Langan’s disqualification and informed the CRO at 3:20 p.m. on March 10. An email was sent to students announcing the ruling with only 45 minutes left to vote in the election. Langan received 22.1 per cent of the vote. A petition to hold a second board meeting concerning a revote gathered 50 signatures, including numerous student group leaders, UMSU board members and representatives. Langan and presidential candidates Roleen Alarab and Victoria Romero — who altogether received 67.1 per cent of the presidential votes — also signed the petition. The petition argued that the judicial board failed to schedule a meeting for Langan within the required timeframe, did not have enough
Masresha also referenced sections of Robert’s Rules of Order — a guidebook for parliamentary procedure used by UMSU — which states that quorum shall be defined as the majority of board members, unless a different quorum is provided by other governing documents. She pointed out that the elections manual does not stipulate quorum for complaints or appeals. UMSU’s bylaws state that the bylaws themselves are given precedence over the union’s Governance and Operations Manual, Robert’s Rules of Order and the Election Manual. UMSU’s bylaws state that quorum for the judicial board must be six members, and that “no action of a governing body shall have any force or effect in the absence of quorum.” The bylaws also specify that the Governance and Operations Manual supersedes the Election Manual. The former stipulates that the judicial board must have no fewer than eight members. The judicial board decided not to overturn the CRO’s decision to disqualify Langan and counted votes for him as
8 Comment
abstentions. Masresha said that the board did not consider this issue to have the potential to void the results of the election, but viewed it as a decision regarding a violation from an individual campaign that “lacked integrity.” The judicial board’s presentation was followed by a question period which lasted for over an hour. Nathan Dueck, who attended the meeting as a student-at-large, argued that the meeting with Langan to hear his appeal and the meeting the next day to make a decision should be considered two separate meetings. Masresha explained that the judicial board chose to take a break until the next day to include a third member of the judicial board in order to reach a unanimous decision. She acknowledged that she “didn’t explicitly call a recess” or motion for one at the end of the meeting with Langan on March 9.
the effort to gather signatures to hold the special board meeting and drafted the motion to hold a revote, also gave a presentation laying out the case for holding a revote. In his presentation, Dueck referenced sections of the UMSU Elections Manual which state that an election, or part of an election, may be declared void if there is a “serious contravention of the election” resulting in an outcome that “could not reasonably be deemed to indicate the actual preference of the voters.” “It doesn’t mean there has to be a bomb threat,” Dueck argued. “It doesn’t mean there has to be ballots stuffed.” “It just means that something happened that was so remarkable that it calls into question who actually won.” He pointed out that the elections manual also stipulates that if a violation may result in a voiding of the election, any appeal hearing concerning that violation must be held within 12 hours of receiving the appeal.
Dueck argues for a revote Dueck, who was involved in
Arts & 12 Culture
Cont’d p. 5 / Final
21 Sports
>
23
Reduce, reuse, be thrifty
A chill day
Words mean things
Sushi’s all that
All bets are off
UMSU hosting fun events for Sustainability Week
An account of 24 hours in the Canadian arctic
Political terms shouldn’t just be thrown around
’Toban about town reviews Aburi Sushi
The relentless new world of Canadian sports gambling
April 5, 2023
SINCE 1914
VOL. 109, NO. 28