The Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) elections office has ruled a disqualification of the Change slate on Jan. 29, after receiving complaints regarding a possible impersonation of a professor to gain votes.
Chief electoral officer (CEO) Matt Swain posted a notice of the ruling Friday, Jan. 29, which reports an incident that occurred in an ECOR 1606 lab with the Change slate’s assistant manager Ahmad Gitteh, allegedly on Thursday, Jan. 28.
According to the notice, Gitteh entered the lab and was asked if he was the professor by a teaching assistant (TA) who was present. The TA likely has not seen the professor, the notice said, as the session was going to be taught by a new contract instructor. The official complaint came from the professor, according to Swain.
The notice added “Gitteh proceeded to promote the Change slate to students and encouraged them to vote on the spot at their lab computers,” and cited there are eyewitnesses of the incident.
Carleton communications engineering student Anthony Caliciuri said he approached the Elections Office Feb. 1 with reports of a similar incident from Wednesday, Jan. 27.
“We were getting ready to start the electrical lab when Ahmad Gitteh from the Change campaign came into the lab,” Caliciuri said. “He came up to me first and he started to give me his pitch for me to vote for the Change slate.”
Caliciuri said Gitteh was in the room for approximately 20 minutes. He added he did not vote in the election, and was not affiliated with any slates.
Abdullah Jaber, Change slate presidential candidate, was also present during the incident, according to the notice.
Jaber has said neither he nor Gitteh took part in the incident, and all campaigning by the slate was done “cleanly.”
“All I did was run for an election,” Jaber said. “All we did was campaign legally.”
He denied doing any class visits the day in question.
In addition, Jaber said he did not receive a warning before the offence was posted—as is ruled necessary by the Electoral Code—and found out about the notice through second-hand sources.
“I did not receive anything, and I find that ridiculous,” Jaber said. “We played things by the rules. Where are the rules? Especially coming from the elections office.”
Change’s campaign manager Adam Carroll also said nobody on the slate received any warning of the ruling or of the allegations before the ruling was published. According to Section 15.2d of the Electoral Code, an official warning must be issued for each violation within 24 hours after the complaint.
“Ahmad Gitteh, Abdullah Jaber, and I were not given written notice of the allegations as required in the Electoral Code,” Carroll said, citing Section 15.4 of the Electoral Code that states “The CEO shall inform the accused candidate or committee chair of the allegation in writing.”
Ashley Courchene, vice-president (student services) elect and member of the Change slate, also said he was not aware of the incident, nor the ruling, before the notice was posted.
Swain said he contacted Carroll via email to arrange a meeting and deliver the warning, but did not hear back in time for the violation notice to be posted within the required period. He said he consulted with the ombudsman, who is the chair of the Electoral Board, as an official notice is required to be posted within 24 hours of a complaint.
“Being unable to get a response from the campaign manager, I spoke to the ombudsman. I asked him what I should do there, and he said it wasn’t a big deal,” Swain said. “He said posting would be okay, so I did so.”
Jim Kennelly, university ombudsman and chair of the Electoral Board, said despite Swain failing to get in contact with Carroll, it was important to get the notice about the possible electoral violation out before the 24-hour window was up.
“Just getting a hold of the campaign manager, I think, would be a good attempt,” Kennelly said. “The big thing was getting the announcement out in 24 hours.”
Kennelly added the appeals committee will decide whether Swain broke the Electoral Code.
The Change slate had three rulings made against them by the elections office. First was “Interfering with the operation of seminars, laboratories, offices, other normal functions of the University addressing a class without prior permission of the instructor.”
The second ruling is a violation of the CUSA Elections 2016 Voting Day Policy, which states class talks cannot be made on voting days.
The third ruling was made regarding Gitteh’s impersonation of a professor. Swain said this offence falls under the Carleton human rights code.
Carroll said his team believes the ruling is improper and undemocratic.
“Our team will be appealing these violations, and generally working towards seeing a fairer and open CUSA election process,” Carroll said. “We are confident that our reasoned appeals will win out.”
Swain said the Change slate is not officially disqualified until all avenues of the appeal process are exhausted. The slate can appeal to the Electoral Board, Swain added, and the decision can then be appealed to the constitutional board.
On Feb. 1, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) published a story on the disqualification, in which Courchene alleges the ruling was made in compliance with Swain’s fraternity ties to the Your Carleton slate. Swain declined to comment on these allegations.
These ties were made public through the elections office earlier in the election season to disclose a possible conflict of interest.
Courchene said the article in APTN was meant to outline the possible conflict of interest that exists between the CEO and candidates of the Your Carleton slate.
“I will continue to call out injustices when I see it, and this is what I was hoping the APTN article would showcase,” Courchene said.
He added his slate will move forward in the process of appealing the ruling in hopes that it will be overturned.
“We just hope those on the election board and ombudsman take a fair and honest appraisal to our appeal,” Courchene said.
