Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Re: Submission on U-Pass Referendum Allegations of Irregularities during 2010 SFUO Elections
Dear Member of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO)/ Cher(ère) membre de la
Fédération étudiante de l'Université d'Ottawa (FÉUO):
(English follows)
NOTE SUR LE FRANÇAIS: Si vous avez soumis votre demande en français, veuillez s'il vous plaît
m'envoyer un courriel pour recevoir une réponse en français. La décision officielle devrait devenir
disponible dans les deux langues officielles, lorsque la FÉUO procède à la traduction. Si vous recevez ce
courriel, nous avons constaté la réception de votre soumission en anglais.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS: The Student Arbitration Committee (SAC) of the SFUO has evaluated your
submission. Please read the full text of this response for an understanding of our position relative to
your submission. I will first assume that you have read and familiarized yourself with your submission in
its entirety, because the SAC renders its response based specifically on what you submitted. That
submission is included below, after my typed signature.
IMPORTANT: Please take a look at point "5." below as to the general validity of the Referendum
question, as determined by the SAC in a separate decision, rendered today, and submitted to the
President of the SFUO for forwarding to the Board of Administration (BOA). For further details and
information, please contact the President of the SFUO, Seamus Wolfe, at president@sfuo.ca (cc'd on
this email).
Since this is not a decision of the SFUO like other decisions, but rather a response, the following is
especially for clarification and motivation of our response. That is why our response is not in the form of
a formal decision that would normally be rendered in a case involving a hearing.
The SAC accepts that it has jurisdiction and accepts to study the submission from a member of the
SFUO, in line with its obligations, limitations and powers under the SFUO Constitution.
The SAC accepts that grounds for contesting an election are limited under the SFUO Constitution, and
the grounds of irregularity invoked in the submission are valid grounds for contestation.
3. IRREGULARITIES ALLEGATIONS
There are two claims of irregularity under this point. The first is that information provided on the U-Pass
was insufficient. The second was that the issue (or referendum question on the U-Pass) lacked clarity.
There is one claim of irregularity under this point. It is that the requirement under the SFUO
Constitution for minimal voter turnout to pass a referendum question is too low.
4. "DECISION" OF THE SAC - as understood in the full context of the present communication.
The SAC holds that it must throw out the claims under the submission and deny further evaluation of
the submission, for the following reasons:
a) No irregularity is proven. None of the allegations of irregularity pertain to what could be considered
an irregularity under the SFUO Constitution and other subordinated regulatory or policy frameworks.
Nor does the submission suggest otherwise. This pertains to issues related to clarity of a referendum
question, including insufficiency of information.
b) The SAC does not have the mandate to determine the merit of a policy, but rather the
constitutionality of a policy under the SFUO Constitution. That is left to political bodies, such as the
Board of Administration. To determine a question of whether a minimal voter turnout threshold falls
ultra vires the SAC (outside of its jurisdiction) under this particular submission, especially since that issue
is a hypothetical one with no relation to the actual voter turnout in the 2010 SFUO elections in question.
In a decision rendered on a separate question by the SAC, the SAC determined under its mandate that
the Referendum question on the U-Pass was unconstitutional and therefore invalid, because the
question failed to meet the SFUO Constitution's requirement of a clear, concise, and precise question in
English and French.
This decision has been submitted to the BOA, which can decide to hear appeals of the SAC decision and
has the power to overturn a decision of the SAC in line with established procedures under the SFUO
Constitution. We include this information in response to your request as further clarification, since it is
public knowledge.
Sincerely,
____
As a concerned member of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, I wish to contest the U-
pass referendum on the grounds of irregularity pursuant to section 4.11.2 SFUO Constitution which
reads “an election may be contested only on the grounds of fraud or irregularity,” in conformity with
section 4.17.4.1 which stipulates that “The Referendum Convenor, or the chief electoral officer shall,
where applicable, follow procedures established in sections 4.4, 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13.” I am submitting
this contestation within two business days of the results being published in both student newspapers, La
Rotonde and The Fulcrum, (February 12, 2010) in accordance with Section 4.11.1 of the SFUO
Constitution: “Any member of the Federation may contest an election. To do so, she must make a
request to Student Arbitration Committee and notify the Chief Electoral Officer within two (2) business
days after the results have been published in the Federation’s Newspapers.”
1. Insufficient information was provided to SFUO members with respect to limitations of the proposed
U-Pass. SFUO members report it unclear if the pass is valid on the STO Transit System, green express
routes, or rural express routes. SFUO members also report it being unclear if the pass would be available
to students registered for classes during the spring and summer terms. The stipulations of the U-pass
should have more been more effectively and thoroughly disseminated throughout the SFUO
constituency.
2. The financial commitment required by each student, if this referendum were to succeed, is such that
the 5% voter turnout as required in section 4.17.4.1.1 is not a legitimizing level of participation. It is
unreasonable to require a voter turnout of only 5% for a referendum question that would mandate each
SFUO member to pay approximately $1160 for the U-Pass over four years as a student at the University
of Ottawa. This exposes a fundamental constitutional flaw regarding voter turn out requirements for
referendums with such significant financial impact on SFUO member.
--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. In addition, you should
not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this
communication.