the Other Press : April 18, 1989 The Election In Perspective To the Students of Douglas Col- lege: It warms my heart to be able to preface Scott Nelson’s letter in this issue of the Other Press. I am glad to see that students are so involved and concerned with the goings on in the Student Society. To me Scott Nelson is a paragon of the democratic fdeal; that is if one ap- plies the idea of politics strictly in the Machiavellian. Before you read Mr. Nelson’s letter it is imperative that you clarify in your minds the intent of the letter itself. Scott has had a more than vested interest in the Stu- dent Society for slightly over two years. If you review his past in terms of performance it could be viewed as some what dubious. It in- cludes several impeachments from office and several incidents that could have resulted in felony con- victions. To approach Scott’s points one at a time is the simplest manner to address the current election problems: 1) Overspending: What Scott does not mention is that it is not against the rules in this case. Aias found a place where he could do his own work. Scott’s arguement is based on the market value of the material. Any of the candidates could have come down to the Other Press and received typesetting at a hugely discounted rate if they did their own work. The rules of the Society are strictly vague in this in- stance and Scott is playing on this. 2) Conflict of Interest: Well this _ is an easy one to address. The Stu- dent Society erred in two ways. First, it hired its CRO from the stu- dent body. Second, when the problem was found they did not do anything about it. They could have held a vote of confidence by secret ballot; this would not jeopardize the members of the representative committee if they felt nervous about possible retribution from the CRO. 3) Misplacement of Posters: This is laughable because the posters in question were found by one of Scott’s best friends. It is not that I am trying to impune the reputation of the individual but I find the poster shuffling quite funny. 4) Violation of Previous Authorization: It sounds nice and ominous but Scott does not clarify what he means by this point. If it is what I think it is he is referring to, Ma Hia Hia, Burma Become a UNICEF Volunteer I'S A CHANCE ee a ra Canada Unicef 1-800-268-6364 Actress and Unicet Volunteer five pamphlets that were handed out without the Student Society stamp. I think they passed a law that makes that a capital crime, look out Aias. Well to clarify things somewhat would put me in a situation where I could be charged with defamatory liable. So to make a short story Scott Takes Dear Other Press: I once said, "Democracy is never unjust". But] think that I was wrong. No, I know I was wrong. Aias Perez, the presidential can- didate for this year’s student society election, had four election irregularities charged against him by petitioning students of Douglas College, one of which was the Deputy Chief Returning Officer. The election irregularities were as follows: overspending, conflict of interest, misplacement of posters, violation of previous authorization. Overspending was up and down like a yo-yo! Thé alloted amount is a maximum of $25.00 for cam- paign expenses. The reason for this budget is so that all candidates will have equal opportunities for adver- tising. Out of the six companies we contacted, the lowest quote for Aias Perez’s pamphlets to be typeset and printed was eight times over the spending limit. It is clear- ly stated under Bylaw VI-5, Con- duct of Nominees - b - that, "Nominees campaign expenses shall not exceed the limit estab- lished by the Representative Com- mittee”. It also should be noted here that this isn’t the first time Mr. Perez has ran in an election at CRO Still Upset It seems that I must now public- ly justify the decisions I have had to make in this election. I have worked very hard at remaining im- partial and objective in this cam- paign, which is my third election as ’ Chief Returning Officer(CRO). If anyone doesn’t know what a CRO’s duties are in relation to student society elections, I will give a brief description. The CRO is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the election. His or her job entails en- suring that the process of the elec- tion is done according to the rules and that the candidates’ conduct is fair. This election is the most dif- ficult and messy one I have over- seen as CRO. My integrity, which has never been questioned before, is suddenly being called. Scott Nelson, the treasurer of the DCSS, is accusing me of showing favouratism to one of the presiden- tial candidates. All I can do in my defence is refer to my past record, clarify my decision and suggest reasons why this campaign is so controversial. First of all, Aias Perez is not my best friend. I know Mr. Perez and yes, do call him a friend. It must beremembered that the repre- sentative Election in the fall of 1988 also involved friends. I per- sonally knew Uncle Cantilope and- Keith Olstrom. Never was I accused of showing lies. In fact, I was forced to dis- qualify Marcel Chalmers who I know. It was a difficult and un- pleasant part of my duty. Each of the charges that have been brought forth in this election which I have ruled on have been debated and agreed upon by the whole representative committee. I requested that the repre- sentative committee also give me a voteof confidence or non-con- fidence in regards to the manner in which I have carried out my duties. I recieved a strong endosement and took that to mean that they agreed with my decisions which I think is a fair analysis of the vote. I will not partake in disqualify- ing candidates on circumstantial evidence. All of the difficulties are rooted in the vague and loose language of the rules stated in the Society’s Constitution. I have put forth 5 recommendations to strengthen the procedures which will hopefully secure the high quality of future elections. If one is to discuss conflict of in- terest, one has to look at Scott Nel- son himself. He is treasurer as well as the campaign manager for one of the presidential candidates. He also attempted to tape record a private conversation that Warren Nyack (student society president) and myself were having as we dis- cussed some of the allegations. I feel sorry for the candidates as all of them have conducted them- selves admirably, attempting to stay above the propaganda. All of the candidates who I have spoken with, regret what has transpired and hope that the election continues in a more rational manner. I personally hope that the stu- dent body takes the theatre that has occurred with a grain of salt. This in no way should reflect on the quality of the candidates. If anyone wishes to obtain copies of my report that I submitted to the Represntative Committee, please feel free to drop by the Stu- dent Society Office for a copy. Thank You Jeff McKeil shorter there are probably things going on in the election involving a certain campaign manager and his desire to have his candidate win. Well if this election goes through I forsee darkness and oblivion. I have been intimately in- volved with the Student Society for three years now and I think that I Douglas College; he ran before in ’88, also as presidential candidate. For this reason, I find it extremely hard to believe that Mr. Perez didn’t have knowledge of the budget expenses. This now brings me to another of the irregularities charged against Aias Perez - violation of previous authorization. This simply means that before anything is handed out (namely campaign literature), it MUST be stamped by the DCSS business office. Written right in the CRO ELECTION DIREC- _ TIVES it states, "All campaign material must be stamped by the DCSS business office". It is also stated directly in the student elec- tion procedures that failure to fol- low these procedures will result in DISQUALIFICATION!! I think I should now make the note that the elected CRO (Jeff McKeil) hap- pens to be Mr. Perez’s best friend. (Hmmmmm....... what a coin- cidence...). These are Mr. McKeil’s feelings on the situation, and I quote, "Mr. Perez was at fault for handing out campaign literature before obtaining the DCSS busi- ness office stamp. Does such an in- fraction warrant dismissal? I think not". Now, you don’t have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out am qualified to comment on the events that take place therein. Yours in consternation, David Mills P.S. I am not in a conflict of in- terest because I don’t really support either candidate. Aim why the CRO is having difficulties fulfilling his job description!! Mr. Perez claims he’s his own Campaign Manager, but I think we should ask Langara Student’s Society; after all, itis Langara who producted the material for some of the candidates, and of course, some were charged, and some were not. The CRO had requested that a vote of confidence be taken on him- self. Well, when three of the can- didates and their campaign helpers sit on senate, it’s not difficult to determine the outcome of the vote. The first basic rule of a Chief Returning Officer is to remain un- biased and to not allow themselves to be put into a position of potential conflict. I find it very difficult to understand how Mr. McKeil can claim to remain unbiased when the other side of the party is his best friend. The CRO accuses myself of being in a conflict of interest situa- tion because I am the treasurer and I support Shirley Pearson for presi- dent. I wonder, Mr. McKeil, if you | would have accused President Reagan of being in a conflict of in- terest situation for publicly sup- porting President Bush. Sincerely, Scott Nelson —— DCSS “CANT FIND A AVOB?