Q&A with Erik Halliwell

 

 

 

The Charlatan’s Katherine Boone talked to Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) president-elect Erik Halliwell about the controversial election this year, his goals for next year and advice for future election participants.

 

 

 

Erik Halliwell: I felt as though I wanted to continue my work here at CUSA. This year I’ve been able to actually do the majority of the things I planned on doing and promised for under my [vice-president (internal)] rule, and so I actually just wanted to continue to do the work of the organization I believe in — everything from lowering tuition fees to tackling controversial and important issues such as racism. It’s an organization I believe in and so I wanted to give it another try.

 

 

EH: I would like to continue what I actually promised, which is the academic appeal centre, working on possibly getting computers in Roosters, as well as the portfolios of those who didn’t get in with me.

 

Carlos Chacón had some really good ideas about water in all of our service centres and businesses for free because of issues of access to water; continue to do the work with the service centres that Shewit [Kalaty] would have been able to continue; as well as all of the new things we wanted to do, such as the re-orientation party Alex Sirois [ vice-president-elect (student life) is working on for those who aren’t frosh, but want to have a party for first year. And doing a lot of stuff with clubs — increasing club funding.

 

 

EH: The idea would be that it would be someone who specializes in academic appeals, something along the lines of a part-time job. It would be a student who could specifically help other students with their appeals. It would be someone who would advocate for them directly. Currently the system is that Jim Kennelly, our ombudsperson, doesn’t really take a side. He’s great and he is definitely helpful to students — I am not downplaying him. He is a helpful resource, but we thought it would be helpful to have an academic appeal centre for students as well.

 

 

EH: As in what I plan on doing differently? I mean I have a totally different mandate, different sort of promises . . . .

 

 

EH: I think CUSA does suffer from outreach issues. I think some students don’t know all the services we provide and don’t know they can come to us for help, or they don’t know how we can help. But I think there was a lot of push from us this year to try to get, for example, LCD screens in the atrium —advertising not only the things we provide, but what we are putting on, in terms of events or different services, that kind of thing. That’s something I would like to continue to push for because that’s just one aspect in which we definitely have in terms of outreach.

 

But in terms of reputation, yeah, I mean, certainly mistakes were made. Obviously no one’s perfect. . . . Every year, almost it seems there’s some sort of controversy. But the thing is that same thing with Carleton University in and of itself. I think what happened this year was a bit bigger than we’ve ever seen in terms of controversy, but I think that in terms of turning that around, I mean all we can continue to do is the good work that we do do — the things you don’t actually hear about. I mean we don’t advertise all the good things that we do, you only hear about the bad things. If people want to see me refurbish our image, I could try to advertise all the great things that we do and maybe that’s something that we should maybe look in to. But I also think there is a place also to be humble as well about what you do and the services we provide for students, because I think one controversy should not overshadow all the good things you do on a daily basis.

 

 

EH: I feel that it differs in terms of the promises that I and my team were looking to provide. In that respect, it’s a different mandate. However, I think fundamentally things will be different this year than last year for sure. We have a mixed slate. We’re going to find common ground with one another and work together, which will make it quite a bit different and I think that’s where Brittany [Smyth] and my presidency will be fundamentally different and I think that’s where I will be doing things differently. Because it will be obviously a situation where the individuals who got in who were not on my team have a mandate to students as well. It’s going to be me helping them to fulfill their mandate and them helping me fulfill my mandate, and working together. And I think that’s where things are going to be different.

 

 

EH: I think it’s going to be fine. I think there’s enough common ground to find with individuals who were on opposing sides. When you really look at it, there weren’t a lot of fundamental differences between the two . . . I mean, there were differences, but I think that, for example Nick Bergamini [vice-president-elect (student issues] ran on a campaign to lower tuition fees, and I think that’s something that . . . his way of doing it might have been different from my way of doing it, but that I don’t think will be too much of a hindrance in terms of us working together. I personally would like to find a good working relationship with both people and I don’t think it will be a problem at all.

 

I can’t foresee that many troubles. Again, it’s one of those things that we’ve never worked together before so I can’t speculate how it will all shake down, but I’m optimistic that we can pull together.

 

I think again too, he [Nick Bergamini] felt as though the Drop Fees campaign wasn’t maybe the way he would have done it, but he will have the opportunity to run a campaign the way he wants to run it. And obviously we will have to discuss how we will do that, in what ways, and obviously things will be different, but I think it’s not something that we can’t work together on. I don’t think there’s such a fundamental difference that it’ll turn into fighting in the office or something. I don’t think that’s going to be an issue. I can’t work in an environment like that and I don’t think they want to work in an environment like that.

 

 

EH: Yes. I do think it’s fair. For example, my name was put up in the Muslim prayer room. I had no idea who did that. To this day I have no idea who put my name up in the Muslim prayer room, but I got an offense for it. I think leadership includes taking responsibility for not only your actions but the actions of those who may or may not have done something on your behalf, because the consequences are still the same. And when you can’t prove whether someone did do something or didn’t do something, that’s obviously troubling, but the burden’s on those who it benefits because ultimately you’ve got to take responsibility as a leader to send the message that that’s unacceptable. Whether this individual told them to do it or whether they didn’t, you can’t prove that that conversation did or did not happen, but the outcome is still the same. If it’s advocating for one party or the other, then there has to be consequences to it because every time you cheat you have an advantage over the opponent that didn’t do it . . . So I do think it’s fair.

 

 

EH: For the record, this is one of the . . . first times since I’ve been at Carleton that I’ve heard of this kind of thing happening. Generally elections aren’t Facebook messages en masse being sent out from various groups, ads on Facebook — that has never actually been an issue in any other election. So I think one, we do need to look at the electoral code again. I would love to talk to students and people who are involved on both sides about reviewing the electoral code and in fact there is a committee for that. In fact we did meet this year, where we made it actually easier for candidates to run, specifically the [vice-president (student services)] and the [vice-president (internal)] position. We made changes in order for it to become easier for students to actually run for executive positions.

 

But in terms of advice I would say, yeah, set the tone from the beginning that breaking the rules is not only unacceptable, but you’re not helping that person. . . . You might even do a small amount of volunteer work. As a volunteer you could get really excited about something — “Man I really want this guy to win,” so I’m going to go as close to the polling location as I can and call out their team name. That doesn’t help the person running, because when a clerk sees that or hears that, they’re going to say, “Hey you can’t do that. That’s unacceptable,” right? So I would say to anyone who’s looking to run again. . . . really set the tone from the beginning, that you’re not helping me by getting overzealous.

 

 

EH: Absolutely. You can hand out hand bills, you can talk to your friends, certain sanctioned groups in which the [chief electoral officer (CEO)] is a member of you can send out messages in. You can help them in countless ways. You can walk people to the polls. There’s all kind of ways for people to help out candidates in a perfectly legitimate matter. Each side has their set of volunteers and each side should have their set of volunteers because it’s a tough election if you don’t. There’s countless ways people can help.

 

It’s one of those things too, where in every election there’s an all-candidates meeting held by the CEO and anyone can go, candidate or not. If they’re looking to be a volunteer they go because you find out the rules. It’s a requirement, that you sign on, especially when you’re running, that you A: know the rules, and B: accept the ruling of the CEO. So I do think it would be a good idea for volunteers to go to those meetings so that they know and that they understand the system. I don’t believe that you can cry foul about something unless you’ve actually read the rules and see where that comes from.

 

 

EH: Ultimately, I think it’s good in that it shows that you have to follow the rules — that you can’t break the rules and win. I think that’s the message — is that it’s like democracy is more than just getting the votes. It’s also following the rules to get those votes. You absolutely have to follow the rules. If you didn’t, you would have chaos — because if it was a free-for-all, it would be completely unfair to any individual who wanted to run. So I think that that’s key — especially in student elections where individuals who have more money than another person have a completely unfair advantage. I think that the ruling is fair and justified, absolutely.

 

 

EH: Gotten better posters? [Laughs]. I think we would have maybe gotten better posters.

 

I think that’s a very hard question. There are so many things I could point to. There are so many little things . . . but you don’t think about that until after. I would have tried to make an effort to get more sleep. I didn’t get a lot of sleep that election . . . I think I would have been a more effective campaigner if I got more sleep.

 

 

EH: If they want to get a job in terms of being a [deputy returning officer (DRO)] or a CEO, know the constitution like the back of your hand and know the electoral code like the back of your hand. . . . If you just want to get involved generally, obviously talk to those who you think most represent your issues and most represent what you agree with and approach them and say, “Hey, how can I help,” because it’s always something you need. If they want to be a poll clerk I mean that’s something we always hire for as well . . . Depending on what they’re doing A: follow the rules, B: have fun and absolutely seek out those who you think best represent you. . . . Engage yourself. . . . Getting engaged is absolutely important. In fact that’s really the only way that you can understand how CUSA is relevant to your life. If you ignore CUSA throughout your entire university years, that’s totally fine . . . but I don’t think you can really understand this organization until you engage with it—

 

TC: And get some sleep—

 

EH: And get some sleep.