Letter of the Week: The CFS referendum was as fair as I could make it
J.J. McCullough, Chief Commissioner of SFSS elections
It’s no great secret that the ‘CFS question,’ that is, the question of whether or not SFU should leave the Canadian Federation of Students, is one of the most polarising issues in contemporary SFU student politics. While I have no desire to wade into this messy debate, I must take issue with some of the things mentioned in Arthur Goningberg’s letter in the October 9 issue [“SFSS poll results misleading”].
Since February of 2007 I have been the Chief Electoral Commissioner of the Simon Fraser Student Society. I thus possess a fair bit of insight as to what exactly did or did not happen during last spring’s election, especially in regards to the referendum that saw SFU voters approve a largely symbolic motion to leave the Canadian Federation of Students.
I know that the polarising nature of the CFS question has a tendency to make partisans — on both sides — formulate elaborate conspiracy theories whenever things don’t go exactly their way. I also know that the referendum I presided over was a fair and honest one, so I’m a bit concerned that rumors are starting to spread claiming otherwise.
I personally do not care whether or not the SFSS separates from the CFS, for I have very little emotional attachment to either organisation. I do have a strong affinity for the democratic process, however, and during the election I was very eager to ensure that ‘both sides’ of the CFS debate were fairly represented on campus. I’m thus a bit offended when Arthur Goningberg suggests that there was some manner of conspiracy afoot during the election, and that someone was trying to suppress ‘no to separation’ voices to guarantee a one-sided victory for the ‘yes to separation’ side.
On the contrary, throughout the many weeks of the election cycle I actually went out of my way to wrangle up someone, anyone, to lead a ‘no’ campaign to defend the CFS publicly. Among others, I pursued prominent students with known CFS sympathies such as former student forum representative Tommy Thompson and former SFSS director Lori MacDonald, but none were interested in the job. I similarly went to great lengths to find someone to speak in favor of the CFS at the election commission’s public debate on the referendum.
No one can accuse me of not trying to ensure fair representation for both sides. As far as I can tell, there was no ‘no’ campaign organised in favor of the CFS because the CFS itself, and its partisan supporters, made a conscious decision to boycott the entire process. I presume the intent was to undermine the legitimacy of the vote, which was admittedly somewhat dubious to begin with, considering the SFSS Board itself declared the referendum to be “non-binding.”
There was never a ‘ban’ keeping the CFS off campus during the election, either. There were, however, strict election rules in place — as there always are — that demanded campaign materials and expenses conform to certain regulations and guidelines. The CFS could not simply storm our campus and hand out expensive flyers any more than TransLink could storm our campus during a U-Pass referendum. SFSS election rules only allow students to campaign, and they are not allowed to spend more than $300 doing so. No students were interested in defending the CFS, and I think the results of the vote reflect this fact.
It is not my intent to be critical of the CFS. They are a competent organisation, and I know they have their own strategy for dealing with a crusading SFSS board that largely hates them. Whatever side you sympathise with, however, let’s not rewrite history.