That awkward moment when BUSU flubs its referendum bylaw
A referendum that happens in February must be initiated by council by December, says BUSU’s referenda bylaw. However, the SJC and OPIRG referendums were both initiated on Jan 17. The deadline for submitting campaign packages was Jan 26 — just nine days later.
The referendum for Student Justice Centre would increase the current $0.91/credit fee to $4.88/credit, with many changes to the previously-approved Memorandum of Understanding.
The BUSU division would be managing a budget of $380k/year.
—
Side note: This also means that if Brock Radio successfully gathers enough signatures, it cannot go to referendum in March, because the bylaw states it would have need to have been approved at the January meeting.
SJC & OPIRG Campaign Teams
- Vice president student services (VPSS) Maddy Wassink is running the SJC-yes campaign in her capacity as a full-time executive of BUSU.
- President Faisal Hejazi is running the OPIRG-defund campaign in his capacity as a full time executive.
- OPIRG is defending itself and fully aware of the referendum.
- There is not a “no” campaign against the proposed SJC fee increase.
—
“…Shall be made known…”
“The opportunity to participate in a referendum campaign with the availability of reimbursement for funds spent pursuant to this by-law for both sides of a referendum shall be made known through The Brock Press for at least two (2) regular issues before the commencement of campaigning”, the bylaw also stipulates.
At least two regular issues before the commencement of campaigning. That could not have happened in the nine days between BUSAC’s rubber stamp on Jan 17 and the Jan 26 deadline for students to submit campaign to the Chief Returning Officer.
—
So, BUSU says…
I contacted BUSU with questions pertaining to this information and received the following response from Director, Government Operations, Kayleigh Rossetto:
“BUSAC approved the initiation of the SJC referendum at the November 15th meeting by sending it to our Referendum Committee. Our marketing team puts together the advertisements for the Brock Press and I believe two ads were submitted for our election period. We have also included the referendum questions on our social media with information on how to join a side or where to go for additional information.”
—
Did BUSAC approve initiation of SJC referendum on Nov 15?
No. This motion does not initiate a referendum.
- It does specify February but all that means is: for the committee to fulfill its mandate to “draft a question and memorandum of understanding for the February election Period”, it its work would need to be completed for the Nov 29 meeting (there were no meetings in December) in order to meet the criteria outlined by 401 5:12.b
- If the Nov 15 motion was in effect to initiate a referendum then the Jan 17 motion would not be necessary.
- If there was no motion on Jan 17, there would be no question to put on the social media or send to the Brock Press.
At the November 15 meeting, councilor Verrier asked, “What is this referring to?” (At the Jan 17 meeting he was among the only two BUSAC members who voted no)
—
“We have also included the referendum questions on our social media”
Social media posts appeared on Instagram Jan 24, and Twitter Jan 25, but apparently not on Facebook. Again, the deadline to register as a referendum campaign was Jan 26.
“Completed packages due tomorrow”
Slide 2: BUSU marketing posted two different referendum questions on the same post; the $1.50 fee — that BUSU does not want, and whose No campaign is already organizing — is on the first slide. The $4.88 fee — that BUSU does want, and ended up not having a No campaign — is on the second slide.
“…with information on how to join a side or where to go for additional information” : There are no links to additional information such as the documents from the BUSAC meeting.
This was just two days before the deadline, and already seven days after the BUSAC meeting.
—
Bylaw 5.11 doesn’t match 5.9 & 5.12
In the bylaw, “Campaign Period” is defined as “the period of time during which campaign activities are permitted.”
Though it’s unclear, this presumably does not include Preparation week.
Subsection 5.11 states “No campaign period shall begin sooner than two weeks after the approval of the Referendum Question.” By itself this would seem to be permission: Between Jan 17, when the question was approved, and Feb 5, when campaigning begins, is 19 days; more than two weeks.
This is however, less than two weeks prior to the deadline for submitting applications, which passed on Jan 26 — just two days after BUSU’s first post about it.
If this is a point of confusion, Subsection 5.11 will need to be amended. How can only two weeks be regarded as a minimum time, when Bylaw 5.12 is also clear that a referendum held in February shall be approved by December — not January?
Deja BUSU : Bylaw bypass
On Feb 5, 2013, BUSAC approved a motion to bypass to bylaw 675 subsection 16, which was the referendum bylaw of the day. What bylaw did the motion bypass? The one that said that a referendum in March must be approved in January. How bout dat.
BIRT BUSAC Approves the Brock Student Life Fee as presented and send it to referendum during BUSAC elections in March
BIFRT BUSAC waives the Section (16 c.) of Bylaw 675 for this referendum
The BUSU executives at the time were rushed to put the Student Life Fee to referendum after a heavy petition, but they had just recently put the bylaws in and then VP University Affairs Steven Nicholls warned, “if we do this we may continue going forward breaking bylaws”
The unanswered question: Is BUSU required to follow its bylaws?
From Sandor Ligetfalvy:
Hi Kayleigh,
Thank you for the response and for the additional information.
I have had to take some time to research and verify. This information will be reported to the public in my capacity as a journalist.
In order to further grasp the issue, I have these questions:
Regarding the submission of ads to the Brock Press: On what date specifically was this submitted? By email? If you could simply have the email forwarded to me that would clear this up.
To be clear when was the last day of submission of campaign packages?
If this is prep week, then packages were due last week, on the 26th?Social media :
Instagram : Jan 24 .: https://www.instagram.com/p/BeV8XgRl2Rr/?taken-by=brockbusu — — Was this social media post the first publication of the Question?
Twitter : Jan 25 : https://twitter.com/BrockBUSU/status/956648007356829700
Facebook : None?
In verifying the information you provided, I looked at the agenda and minutes. The following motion passed unanimously : http://www.brockbusu.ca/wp-content/uploads/SJC-Referendum.pdf-- “BIRT BUSAC tasks the Referendum Petition and Polls oversight Committee (RPPOC) to meet with relevant stakeholders of the Student Justice Centre (SJC) Referendum to draft a question and memorandum of understanding for the February election Period.”
Clearly, this motion does not initiate a referendum. If the Nov 15 motion was in effect to initiate a referendum, then the Jan 17 motion would not be necessary.
A referendum is not ‘initiated’ by sending it to committee — such as on Nov 15; it is initiated by being initiated, such as on Jan 17.
Without the Jan 17 motion, there would be no referendum; no ads in the social media or on the Brock Press, etc.
Thus , 401:5:12c was clearly not followed.Which returns me to the question of the previous email : Is BUSU required to follow its bylaws?
Furthermore, what about the OPIRG referendum regarding compliance with 401 5:12c ?
Put simply, at a January meeting these motion should have said March, but they did not.
Moreover, the same will apply for Brock Radio : If it were to be eligible for a March referendum, according to the bylaw, it would it would need to have been initiated at the last meeting, yes?
Is Bylaw 401:5:12 not in effect?
Editorial note: The above email did not receive a reply as of end of business hours on Friday, Feb 2 and therefore, having given BUSU the opportunity to respond, I have made the decision to proceed with publishing the story.
