Editor’s note: An edited version of this opinion piece was published on Jan. 19. The piece was revised per our style-guide. We have since retracted the edited version upon request of the writer. A response to our edits, as well as the original version, can be found below:
Edits response:
I was shocked to see that the wording in my Letter to the Editor was changed in a way that I believe softened my rebuttal to [Salojin’s] opinion article on the recent referendum. Letters are meant to be the readers’ words regarding Charlatan articles—not your staff-edited words.
In your re-worded copy it appears I refer to myself in the third party and then I call myself the Ombudsman. The title Ombudsman has not been used on this campus for over 20 years. In the future, if [The Charlatan] plans changes to a person’s letter please inform the writer before going to print.
Readers can compare the two versions by looking at the original below:
I am writing in response to Alexander Salojin’s opinion piece on the Student Union Building referendum. The short message I would like to pass on is that Alexander is reading the wrong document.
There is a referendum process for the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) and there is a referendum policy for student tuition fees. Tuition fees are handled by the Ancillary Fee Committee. The Graduate Students’ Association, CUSA and the University are the members of that committee.
GSA did not take part in the Student Union Building Referendum so that left CUSA and the University. The rules for a referendum are set by this Ancillary Committee. The vote had nothing to do with the CUSA referendum rules that you focused on in your article.
For example, you commented that you could not find any mention of the requirement to have 15 per cent of the student body vote to make the results legitimate. You seem to suggest that as the person running the referendum I decided on that number. That rule is part of the Ancillary Fee referendum that the students and the University agreed upon. I just followed the policy.
I agree with you that it is an odd situation to have the Ombudsperson overseeing student elections and referendum votes. A number of years ago students had lost confidence in the integrity of student elections. CUSA wanted a person and office they could trust to oversee the elections. I was asked to be that person.
About the same time the students and University had a trust issue over referendum votes. I was asked by both groups to oversee the referendum votes as both parties trusted my office.
It is not an ideal situation for an independent office but it works on this campus and sometimes you just have to do what is best for your University community. If you can think of a more appropriate office please make the suggestion.
I would disagree with your comment that the referendum was unclear or “hazy.” The question was very clear. Give students credit. They understood the question. Forty-one percent of the undergrad student body cast their votes. That is the best turnout in student election or referendum voting ever. The students made it quite clear with their response to the question.
In the future, if you are writing articles please feel free to drop by and ask any questions. My office is across the hall from The Charlatan office.
We may not share the same opinion, but at least you will be working from the correct document.
Jim Kennelly
University Ombudsperson
