The final battle Senior cricket analyst Hamza Tariq breaks down the World Cup final between New Zealand and Australia >> Pg. 7
thegazette Playing with Nerf guns since 1906
FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2015
WESTERN UNIVERSITY • CANADA’S ONLY DAILY STUDENT NEWSPAPER • FOUNDED 1906
TODAY high -2 low -7
TOMORROW high -2 low -9 VOLUME 108, ISSUE 94
>> ANALYSIS > TEAM SOPHIE VS. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE APPEAL
Final decision looms for Team Litchfield Amy O’Kruk NEWS EDITOR @AmyAtGazette
The last chapter of the 2015 University Students’ Council elections saga may be coming to a close this weekend when the USC appeals board decides whether or not Team Litchfield won the elections fair and square — or whether, almost a month and a half later, Team Sophie deserves the presidency after all. At a public meeting set for this Sunday, the appeals board will resolve claims submitted by Team Sophie that the judgements made by the USC elections committee on Team Litchfield’s conduct during the election period were “inconsistent and unjust.” Should the appeals board agree with Sophie, Team Litchfield runs the risk of disqualification, and the presidency and vice-presidencies could be handed over to Team Sophie. Team Sophie is challenging the elections committee’s decisions on three fronts. Her slate contends that Team Litchfield’s post-campaigning violations, placement of campaign materials in off-campus residences and using alcohol in their campaigning were severe enough to warrant more demerit points than awarded to the slate. As it stands now, the elections committee gave Team Litchfield 30 demerit points, one shy of automatic disqualification. On Sunday, the appeals board may render their judgement orally immediately following arguments and evidence from both Team Sophie and Team Litchfield. The board could also choose to reserve judgement and release their decision in a “reasonable amount of time.” So what are the possibilities for their decision? Under USC By-law 2 (the elections policy) and By-law 6 (the appeals board policy), many different outcomes are possible. For one, nothing could change. Upon review, the appeals board
Taylor Lasota • GAZETTE
FACING OFF ONE FINAL TIME. USC president-elect Jack Litchfield, left, and his opponent, Sophie Helpard, right, and their respective slates meet one final time on Sunday when the appeals board will hear an appeal of the elections committee decision to hand Team Litchfield 30 demerit points, one short of automatic disqualification.
could find the elections committee’s assessment of Team Litchfield’s violations was fair and accurate. Similarly, they could decide the infringements were not as severe as they appeared to the elections committee, resulting in a reduction in the slate’s demerit point total. There are other variations of this, with the appeals committee determining some were as severe; some weren’t, but again culminating in a demerit points total under a sum of 30 points, the threshold of disqualification. Other possibilities spell trouble
for Team Litchfield. If the appeals board finds the elections committee under-assessed the slate’s infractions, the allocation of even a fraction of one demerit point more would result in Team Litchfield’s disqualification, whereby there are two potential courses of action. The first is the likeliest scenario. As outlined under By-law 2, section 11.12(7) the document states, “If a winning candidate in any election is disqualified, the candidate who received the greatest amount of votes and who has not been disqualified shall be deemed the
winner.” Team Sophie would therefore be declared the future executive slate of the USC. The second course of action would invoke USC By-law 6. Under section 2.02, it declares “The appeals board follows the principles of natural justice, including fairness and good conscience.” This is a line that could be interpreted as giving the appeals board the authority to throw out the entire 2015 spring election and consequently require a re-election. It’s a highly unlikely scenario but still possible. Finally, the appeals board has
one last alternative. They could, as described in By-Law 6, section 12.05, decide the adjudication is too complicated and send the matter into arbitration. In this case, an independent arbitrator would need to be hired to consult with the appeals board, and then they have 15 days to ultimately conclude the dispute. So, while the decision could be dragged out a little longer, it’s fair to say Team Sophie, Team Litchfield and the USC are anticipating electoral closure this Sunday at 1 p.m. in the UCC Council Chambers.
Jennifer Feldman • GAZETTE