Being Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) at Carleton is tough. I knew heading into the process that elections were contentious, but I had no idea the degree to which students were willing to go to win.
When I was hired as CEO last year, I took some time to do my research and met with a number of students and student leaders. The overwhelming response I received was that the system was, to an extent, broken. The rules and procedures governing the elections needed to be updated to account for the changing realities of student elections at Carleton.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of you who are reading this probably haven’t read the electoral code. This represents a fundamental issue in the electoral process: the fact that students—candidates included—don’t necessarily know what’s going on or how the process works. Sure, candidates know where and how they’re allowed to campaign, but what happens (and this happens often) when an incident falls in a grey area not clearly defined by the rules?
This is a serious problem for the elections office because any decision regarding an undefined issue becomes a matter of discretion which could potentially call into question the legitimacy and transparency of the office and the elections themselves. When this issue became evident to the 2013 elections office, I consulted with a lawyer friend in regards to the code.
He stressed the fact that the electoral code was a terribly constructed policy which failed to encompass the full scope of the electoral process. More importantly, he pointed out section 3.4(d) of the code which states that the CEO “shall be empowered to make administrative decisions not defined in the Electoral Code.”
What this effectively does is impart on the elections office an incredible amount of discretion in deciding what actions do or do not constitute electoral offences.
This clause makes the CEO the sole authority on issues such as social media, online campaigning, expenses, conflicts of interest, and a wide variety of other potential electoral issues and offences. Inevitably this means almost any ruling by the elections office will leave a bad taste in the mouths of some students.
So, when the elections office is confronted with allegations of pre-campaigning, conflicts of interest, social media violations etc., any ruling or decision becomes a balancing act between the intentions and language of the code, and the personal discretion of the CEO.
If a CEO wants to rule with an iron fist and declare every action which doesn’t adhere to the strict letter of the code a violation, it’s their choice. Likewise, a CEO could, in theory, choose not to issue any violations at all. It simply isn’t defined in the electoral code.
The code isn’t too hard or too easy on candidates, it simply doesn’t give enough information to students involved in the election and places too much importance on who the CEO is. I would think that an effective electoral code would be one in which the outcomes and rules would be the same regardless of who was managing the elections office.
In my final report to council last year I attempted to make one thing clear above all else: the electoral code needs to be stripped down and rewritten. While I applaud attempts to update the code this year, it should be emphasized that this year’s code is, in practice, identical to its previous forms.
A conscious decision must be made with regards to the elections. Either students agree to a minimalist policy, entrusting discretionary powers to the CEO, or they agree to create a comprehensive document which takes a holistic approach to the elections guidelines.
The current policy fails to provide the CEO with a clear mandate with regards to the extent of their powers, and until such parameters are clearly defined, all future CUSA elections will continue to be characterized by doubt, suspicion, and meritless accusations.
