Dear members, below is the GSA's letter to the York University Ombudsperson speaking against his review of the YFS March election. For context, after the GSA's letter is President Shoukri's March 19th statement explaining his assignment of the review to the ombudsperson (http://www.yorku.ca/ylife/archive.asp?article=2848).
****************
Dear Mr. McCamus
On behalf of the executive of York University Graduate Students' Association (YUGSA), by the order of the representative Council of the YUGSA, and speaking for approximately six thousand (6000) full and part-time graduate students at York University represented by the Graduate Students' Association, I am writing to express our complete, and unmitigated, opposition to the York Administration's decision to interfere with the autonomous democratic elections of the York Federation of Students (YFS).
Not only does the attempt of the York Administration to intercede in the YFS election represent an attack on the principle of autonomy necessary for any healthy labour or student union, the manner in which this 'review' has been undertaken reflects poorly on the Administration, and by extension the broader York community. This interference also runs directly counter to principles affirmed by York's Senate Policies, and best practices across the province and country.
In addition to representing a dangerous attack on the YFS's democratic autonomy, there are five specific concerns we wish to raise with regards to this administrative interference:
1. Impetus for the 'review'
It has been suggested that this 'review' is being undertaken as a result of 'concerns' raised from within the York community, however, the number and precise context of these concerns remains unclear. Concerns about the democratic process of the YFS elections should have been brought to the duly appointed Chief Returning Officer, and Deputy Returning Officer, not the York Administration. Furthermore, in a community of over 60 000 students, the number of complaints received becomes an important question. Democracy is based on the will of the majority, not complete consensus. Dissent and challenge are necessary and healthy components of any democratic organization - the key is that they must be dealt with in an open and transparent manner, in accordance with each's democratically enacted constitution and governing policies. The identity, or at least position, of any complainant is also a matter of considerable importance. While some level of anonymity should be supported, the relationship of any complainant to the electoral process also needs to be made explicitly. Transparency demands that the community know from where key 'concerns' have been raised - for example, whether or not complaints originated solely with community members directly involved with, and unsuccessful in, the recent electoral process.
2. Democratic integrity
Besides the principle of autonomy, the GSA strongly supports the principle of democratic integrity in the YFS elections. The York Administration, not democratically appointed by students, has no business involving itself in the democratic processes of the YFS. Not only is the York University Ombudsman office not subject to democratic accountability, operating explicitly under the authority of the Office of the President, it is far from an impartial third party. Should the members of the YFS vote to reject a CRO's report, any legitimate review of the process or procedures needs to be driven by the members of the YFS, or a third party democratically decided upon by that membership.
3. Democratic Process
The YFS hold elections on an annual basis, and do so in accordance to elections policies democratically enacted by its membership. Not only do these policies serve as a solid framework for YFS elections, they are broadly in line with similar policies at numerous sister unions across the country, and even looked to as 'best practices.' Indeed, the Graduate Student's Association itself modelled its own election policies on existing YFS policies - finding it necessary to make only minor, context specific adjustments to comprehensive and well crafted guidelines. Far from serving democracy, York's interference with YFS election policies undermines democratically established procedures, fails the basic tests of both transparency and accountability, and attacks a set of policies which reflect the highest democratic principles and process.
4. Rational for Involvement
York has suggested that it has some 'stake' or 'responsibility' to interfere with the autonomous electoral procedures of the YFS due to its role in collecting student union levies. The GSA completely rejects this rational. The collection of democratically decided student levies by the university is purely administrative. That is to say that they are collected because the university has the appropriate infrastructure to easily do so, and should not be implied to produce some sort of amorphous 'duty' to involve itself in a union's inner workings. Though Presidential Regulation Number Four (4), a regulation which represents part B of the York University Secretariat Policies, Procedures and Regulations concerning Student Governments, is cited in the rational for this interference, little reference is made to section A of that same set of policies. Section A1 of the York University Secretariat Policies, Procedures and Regulations clearly states that York University believes in independent Student Governments. Your office's 'review' of YFS elections clearly violates this affirmation of student union autonomy. Furthermore, section A7 of the same policy clearly states that: "The internal structure of each central government will be determined by students, in accordance with constitutional procedures."This includes selection of a CRO and DRO by Student Governments to run an election, and one would hope implies a respect for the decisions they make. Again, your office's 'review' into the details of the York Federation of Students elections is a violation of York University policy. The Office of the President, under whose purview the York University Ombudsman office falls, has no place in student government.
5. Perceived Political Agenda
York's decision to interfere in the democratic elections of the YFS may be construed as a politically motivated attack on the undergraduate student union at York. In other university contexts, Freedom of Information Requests have uncovered evidence linking University staff as well as provincial and federal politicians to efforts to influence the outcome of student elections. These Universities have suffered greatly in a public relations context; the political agendas of a few individuals reflecting adversely on the institution as a whole. By attempting to interfere in the YFS election, contrary both to YFS and York Senate policies, the York Administration's ostensibly noble intentions may well be misconstrued by outside observers as politically motivated.
The GSA asserts that the York University Administration has no role in autonomous democratic processes of any union, student or labour, on its campus, and strongly encourage York's Administration to withdraw its plan to interfere with the YFS electoral process.
Phil Steiner(sen)
President and Chair
Graduate Student's Association
York University, Toronto, On
Canada
***********************
President & Vice-Chancellor Mamdouh Shoukri on Friday issued the following terms of reference for a review by the University ombudsperson of the recent York Federation of Students election:
Terms of Reference for YFS Election Review
The University administration has received a significant number of complaints from York students regarding the conduct of the recent York Federation of Students (YFS) elections. These complaints centre on the fact that a significant number of the 21 candidates from the “New York” slate of candidates were disqualified for various infractions, including distributing copies of the Excalibur newspaper without prior approval of the chief returning officer (CRO). Complaints were also raised regarding allegations of conflict of interest, the appointment and independence of the chief returning officer, alleged breaches of security, deviations from defined election protocol, irregularities at polling stations, and the process for the assignment of demerit points by the CRO.
Presidential Regulation 4 (Regulation 4) delegates to student governments and organizations the primary responsibility for the organization and conduct of elections. However, Regulation 4 notes that the president retains residual responsibility to ensure the democratic, orderly and responsible conduct of elections. The president and the administration also stand in a fiduciary relationship to York students by virtue of the significant fees that are collected by the University from all York students for the purposes of funding student government.
Transparency, fairness and integrity in the election process, as well as the possibility of orderly and democratic change, must be ensured for the benefit of all of our students. The election process must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair. Otherwise the confidence of the community in the legitimacy of the process and the outcome may be undermined.
There is an internal appeal mechanism within YFS for the consideration of appeals which has apparently resulted in overturning the suspensions imposed by the CRO. Nevertheless the complaints that we have received raise broader issues regarding the manner in which elections are organized and managed. I believe that it is in the best interest of all students as well as the community generally that these matters be reviewed by an independent and impartial individual. I have therefore asked the University ombuds, former Osgoode dean John McCamus, to review the experience with the 2010 YFS elections and, in light of that experience, report on whether there are changes in the election procedures, processes or practices that should be implemented in future elections in order to ensure transparency, fairness and the avoidance of conflicts.
Members of the community wishing to make written submissions to Professor McCamus regarding the matters identified above may do so via e-mail at ombuds@yorku.ca.
I am asking Professor McCamus to submit his report, which will be made public, by no later than July 30, 2010.
Mamdouh Shoukri
President & Vice-Chancellor
March 19, 2010
