Executive Elections 2014 Summary of Key Issues

Transcription

1 Executive Elections 2014 Summary of Key Issues This is a summary of the main complaints and issues that the Deputy Returning Officers (DRO) and Independent Returning Officer (IRO) investigated during the Executive Elections. The IRO reviewed and approved all of the decisions made, throughout this process the IRO paid particular attention to the complaints that were submitted. PRE CAMPAIGINGIN A small number of candidates were reported to pre-campaigning by placing messages on Facebook, on each occasion the candidate/s were asked to remove the posting. The DRO s ruled that all of the incidents where of a minor nature and decided that no further action was needed to be taken. LATE NOMINATION A nomination was received at 12.04pm, 4 minutes after the deadline; the DRO s initially decided that the nomination wouldn t be accepted. The potential candidate then responded saying that the nomination page had said the close of nominations was actually at 3.00pm. Upon investigation it was noted that the nomination page said that nominations close at 3 noon. It was noted that all other publicity made clear that the deadline was at noon but after consultation with the IRO it was felt that there was potential for confusion from the statement and therefore it was ruled that the nomination should be accepted. It was agreed that each of the candidates running for this position should be ed to explain the situation and an updated candidate list forwarded to all candidates. WITHDRAWALS The withdrawal of 3 candidates from the election was noted. RIPPLE ARTICLE Several candidates reported that the Ripple had broken their neutrality by writing an article that included comments from a selection of candidates. Candidates reported that they had submitted their comments and that they hadn t been included. The DRO s ed the Ripple and it was noted that candidates had in-effect not been set a deadline to respond by and that the article was written based on the respondents received within 30 minutes of the request been sent. Agreed that candidates had been placed as a disadvantage, the Ripple then adapted the article to include all the comments that had been received, included a list of all candidates and wrote an apology, it was agreed that no further action was taken. The DRO s felt it was important to stress that it clearly wasn t the Ripple s intention to break their neutrality and that one of the actions as a result of this is that the Ripple are going to work with the Union to develop concrete guidelines on what media groups can and can t do during an elections. LUST A candidate reported that they had signed up to an interview slot but hadn t received a confirmation and had therefore failed to attend the appointment. It was also the candidates birthday that day,

2 the DRO s talked to LUST director explaining what had happened, the LUST project group then discussed the issue and decided that in the interest of fairness and maintenance of their neutrality that the candidate wouldn t be offered another slot. The DRO s felt that this was an issue for LUST to decide on and therefore no further action was taken. BANNERS Due to high winds several of the banners attached to the Students Union building had come loose and could have the potential to either blow away or become damaged. It was agreed to get in touch with relevant candidates to inform them of this. POTENTIAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST A CANDIDATE A candidate reported that a member of a student group had posted a message on Facebook saying that they had used a potentially offensive slogan as part of their election campaign last year and that this had been investigated and minuted last year. They were as a result encouraging members of the group to actively ensure that the candidate didn t get elected. The DRO supplied the candidate with a copy of the key issues from last year that was presented to Union Council, this did not include mention of any such incident and the candidate would be free to use this in their discussions with the group. However the DRO s ruled that no further action needs to be taken. Later on the candidate reported that there had been a smear campaign against them focussing on the alleged use of the election slogan and a photograph where they had blacked up as part of a production. This was on occasions used in conjunction with the first incident to encourage students not to vote for the candidate. A thorough investigation was undertaken including the review of a substantial amount of evidence that was submitted by the candidate and their supporters. The issue was then referred to the Independent Returning Officer and the University Observer, after much consideration they both agreed that no direct action should be taken on this issue. QUESTION FROM CANDIDATE SUPPORTER In response to a question from a candidates supporter a link was forwarded for the food disclaimer form and informed that candidates shouldn t campaign in dining halls and that we would recommend that they check first with Halls of Residence Staff/Residential Advisors with regard to other campaigning at Halls. ERASMUS STUDENTS In response to a question the DRO responded saying that Erasmus students are permitted to vote in the election. POTENTIAL ARTICLE IN THE TAB A candidate reported that the TAB was saying that they had received a submission from them, the candidate hadn t made any such submission and was concerned with regard to the affect a potential

3 article may have. The candidate was advised to contact the TAB to try to find out who had submitted the article; the candidate received a response saying that it wasn t possible to release the source. It was noted that the TAB was an external publication and therefore no further action could be taken. PARTY A candidate asked whether they could in agreement with the manager of a nightclub hold a themed election party as part of their usual student night. It was noted that the manager could potentially also offer drinks promotions that would fit in with the candidature publicity. The candidate/s would also be likely to be using a stamp which would need to be costed. The DRO s responded to the question saying that this was fine and that as long as they weren t paying for the event then it wouldn t need to be costed. CAPTAINS MEETING A complaint was received saying that a candidate as part of a Club Captains meeting had given a short statement saying the election was happening, that they were running and asking club Captains to support them in the election. The Deputy Returning Officers ruled that the candidate hadn t technically broken any rules but that an to all Student Group Presidents and Club Captains should be sent round informing them of the election, the candidates standing and asking them to encourage their members to engage with the election. GAZEBO University Estates had submitted a complaint saying that a Gazebo had been erected on University property without prior permission being received and requested that it be removed from campus. The Deputy Returning Officer and the Central Service Manager met with the candidates who agreed to remove the Gazebo and table from University grounds. It was ruled that no further action was required in this case, although the Gazebo and table would have to be properly costed. BANNERS A number of banners were reported as been removed and replaced by other candidate banners. The DRO s contacted security but in each case it was not possible to identify the individual who took the banners down. It was ruled that there was insufficient evidence to take any further action. REMOVAL OF POSTERS/FLYERS There were a number of reports of candidates flyers/posters going missing/ been removed. The relevant candidates were interviewed, but there was in-sufficient evidence to take any further action. S Two complaints were received stating that they had received s from a candidate, at least one of which was to their personal account. They expressed concern regarding this and the process through which the candidate may have gained the address. The incident was investigated and the

4 candidate was reminded of the need to be careful not to contravene data protection regulations in the sending of s. The IRO ruled that at this stage no further action was required. INCIDENT AT BIG SHABANG An incident had been reported that candidate A had a drink thrown over them and hit over the head with a placard by candidate B. Candidate A reported this to security guard who after a discussion escorted Candidate B away from the premises. Candidate B then re-entered the event and then was once again escorted away from the premises, there were further incidents but these were to be investigated as part of the Union s disciplinary procedures. It was noted that there was evidence from Duty Managers and Security staff to corroborate the information given by the candidate and it was ruled that this did breach the election regulation as it broke the law. The IRO ruled that a final warning be given to this candidate that any further breeches of election regulation would result in disqualification from the election. Candidate B said that Candidate A had made a statement that had broken data protection to a security guards Candidate A denied this, and there was no evidence from the reports from duty managers and security staff that this had been said, therefore no further action was taken. Candidate A reported that they had said something regarding the above incident to the candidate; this was reported to the IRO. The IRO ruled that Candidate A should be warned to be careful about future conduct in the election. ENVIRONMENTAL LIST An had been sent to 700 students using the Universities volunteer environmental team list, the detailed the team leaders views on which candidates were the best from an environmental point of view. It was noted that whilst the stated that it was their personal opinion, it also had been signed using their official title within the team. It was noted that a number of candidates hadn t been mentioned within the and that it could be seen as a University department supporting certain candidates. Agreed to the environmental team to request that an to be forwarded on from those candidates not mentioned in the report detailing their green credentials, if requested by the candidates. This action was carried out with one candidate who requested it having their sent out, the IRO ruled that no further action was required. CLOSING OF UNION BUILDING As part of the marketing campaigning for the election the building was to be closed until a certain number of votes had been received. This had received an adverse reaction from many students saying that it was in-effect forcing them to vote. A number of candidates also expressed concern that they felt that could have a negative impact on their campaign. The IRO ruled that details regarding the candidates had been available to students in the lead up to the opening of voting and that this publicity hadn t had a material impact on the election and therefore no further action was required.

5 BALLOT PAPER/ QUESTION TIME/WEBSITE ORDER The order in which the candidates appear for each of these was drawn at random in the presence of all the Deputy Returning Officers. ELECTION MATERIAL IN O2 A candidate reported that they had been stopped from bringing their election material into the O2 despite other candidates been permitted to do so. The situation was investigated and it was noted that official position on election material is:- Candidates can bring promotional boards into our events provided that it will not cause a health and safety hazard. The judgement on this is left to the door staff with the Duty Manager having the final say. The Deputy Returning Officers agreed that no further action was required in this case. FALSE CLAIMS IN MANIFESTO AND FLYERS A complaint was received stating that a candidate had made false claims within their publicity material, evidence was submitted to show that the action had actually been completed within any influence from the candidate. The DRO s ruled that no action was required in this case but that the candidate was free to use this information within their campaign. HALLS OF RESIDENCE Complaints were received from Residential Services regarding the campaigning being undertaken by some candidates during the election, this included not taking notice of instructions been given by relevant accommodation staff members, excessive leafleting and campaigning outside dining halls. Complaint was also received from a student saying that they had been disturbed in their room in evening time and that this should be their own personal time. All candidates were reminded of the need to show respect towards the student community and members of staff within the Halls of Residences. There would be in addition a meeting set up with Residential Services after the election to discuss future advice and guidance to be given to candidates with regard to campaigning in these areas. COURSE REP FACEBOOK PAGE A candidate had posted a message on the course rep Facebook page, this message had been removed by the administrator within minutes of been posted as permission hadn t been sought and they would not be happy for all candidates to send out a similar message. The DRO ruled that no further action was required.

6 COSTING OF A TEDDY BEAR A candidate requested that a teddy bear be costed that they had received from a friend who ran in a previous election. The DRO and IRO conducted an investigation into the cost that another candidate would be required to pay for a similar item and agreed that a cost of 8 should be allocated for the bear. EXPENSES The IRO and DRO s went through all the candidates expenditure. On a number of occasions items were identified that should have been included in the expenses, it was noted in each of these cases the relevant cost would not have pushed the candidate over the 120 spending limit. In response to a query from a candidate it was noted that postage or shipping should be included within costings. It was noted that a number of candidates had used affiliations to gain cheap rates for activities such as printing. The IRO noted that there were no rules on this but felt that this could be an area for further consideration in future elections. PUBLCITY MATERIAL IN HALLS OF RESIDENCE Photographs were received showing a candidates publicity in the hall of residence dining room, this consisted of 2 flyers on a poster board and a bunch of flyers behind the serving stations. The IRO considered the complaint and noted that if it had been received sooner we would have issued a warning and asked the candidate to remove the said material. However due to the timing of the complaint been made 15 minutes before the end of the voting period, that the dining room would currently be locked, it was ruled that no further action would be required. CAMPAIGNING IN THE SQUARE It was reported that a candidate and/or their supporters had pushed into a conversation that the complainant was having with a student. It was noted that this would have likely had a negative impact on the students perception of the candidate, however no election rules had been breached therefore it was ruled that no further action was required. CAMPAIGNING IN 1923 Two staff members within 1923 reported that a candidate had approached an international student and asked if they would try and get other students to vote using a laptop. They expressed concern regarding whether the students been engaged in this activity fully understood what they were doing. It was noted that an election regulation hadn t been broken and that no complaints from voters had been received. In addition it wasn t possible for the staff to identify whether the students were in any way voting against their will, therefore it was decided by the IRO that no further action was required.