Who is the ROC? It consists of two members representing the UVSS and two members representing the CFS. James Coccola and Rajpreet Sall are the UVSS representatives while CFS staffers Lucy Watson and Brent Farrington are representing the CFS. With a two versus two format, it is easy for the committee to become deadlocked in decision making.
One important aspect of the committee format is that everything that is posted officially by either side of the referendum must have its exact wording approved by the ROC. If any fault can be found with a statement, it will be rejected by the committee. Even seemingly simple and straightforward claims have been rejected by the ROC for a variety of reasons.
One commenter in the 'No' side event suggested "I think posting WHY we should vote No actually on this event would be a good idea." The 'No' side has every intention of doing this once enough claims and phrases have been approved by the ROC. Roughly 75% of phrases and sentences submitted for approval have been rejected thus far.
Enjoy a sampling of rejected phrases and claims (several of these rulings refer to a referendum protocol which can be downloaded here):
Note: All caps represents the response from the ROC
*Note: I have been strongly encouraged to remove the list of phrases rejected or put on hold by the Referendum Oversight Committee out of fears this could jeopardize the validity of the referendum. Unfortunately you will have to take my word for it that the ROC has rejected or put on hold a number of seemingly straightforward claims based on technicalities.*
As most reasonable people can see, the use of a Referendum Oversight Committee with this structure is an absurd way to run a referendum. This system, required under CFS bylaws, makes it extremely difficult for campaigns to spread information and ensure students are informed about the issues.
While it is important to ensure that both sides are spreading factual information, the ROC system takes this to an extreme. It rejects claims based on technicalities and semantics or asks for documentation before a claim can be made. After two days of campaigning only a dozen relatively uninformative phrases have been approved. This is not conducive to having students make an informed decision come polling time.
If the alternative is a single individual wielding all of the power (eg. a single Chief Electoral Officer), then I think I'm more comfortable with four people coming to consensus.
ReplyDeleteThe UVSS system for elections is not a single individual with all the power. There is an independent Arbitration Panel that decisions can be appealed to.
ReplyDeleteThe ROC is not four people coming to a consensus. It's four people reaching deadlocks because both sides have an interest and are not impartial.
Just look at some of the seemingly straightforward claims that have been rejected or put on hold.
It's funny to see this finally happen 16 months after the original petition effort started The organizers knew of the problems of the deadlock-prone Referendum Oversight Committee (ROC) structure, and expected this aspect of the process to be where the 'No' side would ultimately get jerked around and f*cked over.
ReplyDeleteBut no one expected to be blocked by the CFS *before* the Referendum Oversight Committee (ROC) even could form (by using counterpetitions). That was a new trick by the CFS.
But now that we have an actual Referendum Oversight Committee going, UVic students finally get to see first hand how the CFS normally f*cks up membership referendums. The CFS appointed Brent Farrington and Lucy Watson to the UVSS Referendum Oversight Committee. Watson has served on nearly every ROC committte in existence and was the only CFS staffer present in court in Victoria when the UVSS fought its case with the CFS (she hasn't been a student for 20+ years). To think that she is making her rulings with Brent in the interest of running a fair and neutral referendum with the UVSS is ridiculous.
The only school to survive a committee with Watson on it was the UVic Grads. They had a constitutional professor sit across with her on the committee, and unlike the UVSS, used no materials during their campaign.
Titus Gregory nailed it on the head:
"the referendum processes provided in CFS bylaws violate all rational norms for the
fair administration of referenda, through a biased Referendum Oversight Committee that
perpetuates the systematic suppression of freedom of speech on campus during the
months preceding an affiliation or disaffiliation referendum"
http://www.studentunion.ca/solidarity-paper.pdf
You need to convince the CFS appointees to let you make criticisms of the CFS? Ya I'd say that's pretty absurd.
ReplyDeleteIf you can find a graduate student who was around when the UVic Grads voted to leave, ask them how the ROC was administered. I'm sure that you'll get a kick out of it.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 11:04- what about having a CEO to break deadlocks between the ROC then? At least it would ensure that these issues are handled in a fair and impartial manner, instead of letting people with vested interests decide what the opposite referendum side can and cannot say.
ReplyDeleteSeems fair to me.
If there was actually a deadlock everything would stop. Don't make an issue out of something that has the capacity to work.
ReplyDeleteThe worst part of this is NOT during defederation referendums where the committee deadlocks. The worst is during FEDERATION referendums where both the student union and the CFS are pro-CFS. In Quebec at Dawson College, students against joining the CFS had all of their material removed and rejected by the completely pro-CFS ROC. Apparently some of the ROC members were even campaigning in favour of joining while serving on the ROC.
ReplyDeleteThe whole system the CFS has created here is designed to create the perception of fairness while stacking the deck in their favour every time. These bloody ridiculous and arguably illegal rules favour the CFS in two ways: it nearly guarantees that referendums to join will succeed, while nearly guaranteeing that referendums to leave will be deadlocked, or even worse, conducted in a manner where the No side has no chance of getting a fair referendum (such as if the No side does not command a majority of their student union who appoints ROC representatives).
The CFS knows that it can use pretty much any bloody unreasonable legal tactic available if the student union is not willing to fight the CFS on it. For example, students at Carleton were denied their referendum via a counter-petition like UVic students, but their board is pro-CFS and so students there have no shot at ever getting a fair chance to leave unless they elect critical voices to their student union. How many students have the time to mobilize an election machine to retake a majority of a pro-CFS student union like Carleton? Not many...
And that's not even getting into the very serious issues of ballot stuffing and election disqualifications that are going on at pro-CFS dynasties like Ryerson, U of T, Carleton and York. You should ask some of the campaigners from these schools on campus about it. It's why many of them still hold elected positions at these schools.