|
Referendum DecisionsReferendum Committee Decision 1
The Referendum Committee has reached a decision on an allegation it has received. As per the Referendum Procedures, the Committee is informing you of the decision, prior to releasing the text of the decision to the public. On January 17th, 2008 an allegation was made to the Referendum Committee that the CKMS "No" campaign was in violation of the Federation of Students Referendum policy. The allegation read as follows:
Issue At question here is whether or not 1) the material provided can be considered campaigning, 2) there is an explicit connection between the posting of the material and the official CKMS "No" Campaign, and 3)whether or not the campaigning took place outside the sanctioned time frame, as allowed by the Referendum Procedure. To the first question, the Referendum Committee applied the measure provided in the Referendum Procedure as to what was considered "campaigning". The procedure states that campaign materials are:
Decision Based on the the evidence gathered during it's investigation, the Referendum Committee agrees that the CKMS "No" campaign was in fact campaigning outside the alloted campaign period, and thus is found to be in violation of Council Procedure 7, C, 2, s. The CKMS "No" campaign is hereby fined 15% of it's allotted budget, taking the form of a reduction of $75.00 of their total spending limit. On behalf of the Referendum Committee. Referendum Committee Decision 2
The Referendum Committee has reached a decision on allegations made against the CKMS "No" campaign. As per the Referendum Procedures, the Committee has informed the campaign of the decision, and is now releasing the text of the decision to the public. On January 14th, and 24th, allegations were presented to the Referendum Committee that the CKMS "No" campaign was in violation of the Federation of Students Referendum policy. The allegation read as follows:
While each of these constitutes a separate complaint, the Referendum Committee felt that the close parallel between these allegations necessitated dealing with them as a group. Issues In each allegation, the following infractions have been alleged: 1) that campaigning has taken place outside the campaign period 2) that non-authorized personnel have taken part in campaigning on behalf of the CKMS "No" campaign To satisfy the first charge, the Referendum Committee had to ascertain if a) the items in question (the "vote no" post and the the letters of support) constitute campaigning, and b) if yes to a), did the campaigning take place outside the campaign period. The Referendum Committee reviewed the evidence provided, and would agree that the material in question is indeed campaign material, based on the Referendum Procedure definition of campaigning: CP 7, C, 2, s "All forms of advertising by any campus medium, the distribution and/or posting of any material designed and/or likely to influence voters, speeches and public forums" The Referendum Committee also determined that the campaigning took place outside the prescribed campaigning period, as the infractions took place on January 14th and 24th - 15 and 5 days prior to the beginning of the campaign period. The Referendum Committee then investigated the second charge - that non-authorized personnel took part in campaigning on behalf of the CKMS "No" campaign. The materials in question in both cases were found to have been posted on the CKMS Radio website; in the case of the announcement encouraging students to "vote NO", the CKMS Radio Station Manager was named as the primary point of contact for "more information" on the referendum proceedings. CKMS Radio itself is an independent, student-funded organization, and based on this, the Referendum Committee agreed that non-authorized personnel had campaigned on behalf of the CKMS "No" campaign. Existing Referendum Procedure states that:
Decision Existing Referendum Procedures provide the Referendum Committee with the full latitude to define the role outside organizations may play in a student referendum: CP7, C, 2, i "The Referendum Committee may limit the extent of involvement from outside organizations, and/or may require that their involvement be costed into the expenses of the committee being assisted." In this case, the Referendum Committee has decided that CKMS Radio must not be involved in any capacity, in campaigning on a partisan side of the CKMS fee referendum question. While the Referendum Committee has no power or jurisdiction over what CKMS Radio chooses to broadcast, display or otherwise produce, the Committee can and will attribute a direct financial (based on the Referendum Committee's calculation of Fair Market Value") cost to the CKMS "No" campaign budget for any and all campaign materials produced and distributed by CKMS Radio that discuss or advocate for a particular side in the referendum in question. This includes, but is not limited to: radio ads, printed materials, videos, and web media. On behalf of the Referendum Committee Referendum Committee Decision 3
The Referendum Committee has reached a decision on an allegation made against the CKMS "No" campaign. As per the established procedure, the Referendum Committee has notifying the campaign and is releasing the decision to the public. On January 28^th , the Referendum Committee received the following complaint against the CKMS "No" campaign: 1) The CKMS Station Manager and the No Committee Chair provided The Record with statements as to why people should vote No in a January 25th article (found here: http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/300144) 2) A party connected with the No Side (the Chair) of the referendum is campaigning during the Interim Campaigning Period (A.2.a). 3) This constitutes campaigning by both a non-member of the No Committee and likely by a non Federation of Student member (C.1.b). (CKMS Station Manager) 4) I will note that "ignorance of these policies shall not be a valid excuse" (C.1.c). Issues At issue in this allegation is whether or not 1) a member of the CKMS "No" campaign made statements that can be deemed campaigning, and 2) did so in a period other then the official campaign period. The allegation mentions the CKMS Station Manager, but as the CKMS Station Manager is not involved in or recognized as being a part of the CKMS "No" campaign, reference to this is irrelevant, and was not considered by the Referendum Committee. In responding to the first issue, the Referendum Committee reviewed the statement made by Steve Krysak in the January 25^th edition of The Record. In the article titled "A Sandwich or a Radio Station?" Mr. Krysak made the following comments regarding the referendum on the CKMS fee: "If funding is axed, the entire community -- not just students -- will lose a vibrant, experimental, multi-voiced station, said Steve Krysak, a student who heads the committee supporting the station." "Students who just want to save their money don't know what they're missing," said Krysak, host of a weekly show featuring alternative rock. "We have to get across to them how valuable the station is." In defining what is considered campaigning, the Referendum Committee reviewed the existing Referendum Procedure, which defines the former as follows: C. 2. s. All forms of advertising by any campus medium, the distribution and/or posting of any material designed and/or likely to influence voters, speeches and public forums… Based on this definition, the Referendum Committee finds that the statements made by Mr. Krysak in The Record are forms of campaigning, as his assertion highlighted to potential voters, what he felt to be the inherent benefit of the radio station. Mr. Krysak is one of the co-chairs of the CKMS "No" campaign, he is thus is bound to the rules for campaigning. In responding to the second issue, the statements noted were provided to and published by The Record on January 25^th 2008, 5 days prior to the commencement of campaigning. The Referendum Procedure stipulates that: C. 2. h. There shall be no campaigning during the interim preparation and polling periods. Decision As co-chair of the CKMS "No" campaign, Mr. Krysak is required to follow established Referendum Procedure. In this case, the Referendum Committee finds that Mr. Krysak has violated the Referendum Procedure by campaigning outside the designated campaign period. As a result, the CKMS "No" campaign is hereby fined 15% of it’s spending limit, taking the form of a reduction of it’s spending limit by $75.00. On behalf of the Referendum Committee, Referendum Committee Decision 4
The Referendum Committee has reached a decision on an allegation made against the CKMS “No” campaign. As per Referendum Procedure, the Referendum Committee has notified all parties involved of the decision, and is now making their decision public. On January 30^th , the Referendum Committee received the following complaint against the CKMS “No” campaign: I would like to file a complaint against the 'No' committee in the CKMS Referendum. In the January 30th debate held in the Student Life Centre, members of the No Committee made reference to their lack of space in the Student Life Centre. In particular, a member of the No committee made reference to CKMS using the SLC as "a space for refunds" (heard in audio in answer to the question from the IW regarding CKMS being played in the SLC and the Gyms)... This statement is a lie. During the 2005-2006 year, the CKMS Board of Directors passed a motion making it a priority to secure space in the SLC, but the motion specifically and clearly noted that it not be a place for refunds. Given that it is official CKMS Board policy not to use the SLC for refunds, and given that there have been no overtures to the SLC, the SLC Management Board, or the Federation of Students, to attempt to facilitate said refunds, the sentiment that CKMS would use the SLC space as "a space for refunds" is a complete fabrication. Given that one of the main criticisms regarding CKMS is its inconvenient refund policy (i.e. location of the Bauer Warehouse), the suggestion that the station would use SLC space for refunds is a fallacious attempt to refute a common criticism. This deliberate erroneous characterization is meant to influence voters in a manner to vote for the 'No' side and is deceptive. By my understanding, this is a clear violation of the referendum procedures of the Federation of Students, and thus, the basis for a complaint. Issues At issue in this allegation is whether or not a member of the CKMS “No” campaign misrepresented facts during a discussion of the CKMS fee during the January 30^th Media Forum in the Student Life Centre Great Hall. The Referendum Procedure stipulates that: C. 2. p The content and methods of campaigning shall be above reproach. Committees shall not misrepresent the character or policies of the other committee. All campaigning is subject to the discretion of the Referendum Committee. In order to ascertain whether the party in question made false statements on behalf of the CKMS “No” campaign, the Referendum Committee reviewed the audio transcript of the event. During the CKMS fee debate, co-chair of the CKMS “No” campaign Ira Sherr made the following statement: *"CKMS has been trying for many years to acquire a space in the SLC like a clubs room ... a space for refunds for people that want the refunded fee"* The Referendum Committee asked CKMS Radio to provide information to the Committee regarding whether or not the radio station indeed had been exploring providing a space in the SLC to provide refunds from. CKMS Radio provided the following CKMS Board resolution, passed in 2006: *BIFRT the CKMS space on campus be considered a separate issue than the collection of refundable fees, and that SLC space not be authorized for student refunds unless further instructed by the CKMS Board of Directors. * * * *Submitted by Kevin Royal, CKMS Board Member, Item 9 - New Business a) CKMS SLC Space. * In light of this information, it was clear to the Referendum Committee that the statement made by Mr. Sherr was indeed an affirmation in opposition to the facts. The Referendum Procedure requires that all campaigns must be run above reproach, including the provision that campaigns must not misrepresent facts to benefit their partisan perspectives. Decision The Referendum Committee considered the issue of whether or not Mr. Sherr’s statement was intentional, and after reviewing the evidence, it was clear to members of the Referendum Committee that this statement was made inadvertently, and without malice or ill intent. However, the statement did provided false information to the electorate, which misrepresented a significant issue regarding CKMS and their intention to make fee refunds available in the Student Life Centre. Thus the Referendum Committee finds the CKMS “No” campaign in violation of Referendum Procedures, and hereby fines the CKMS “No” Campaign 15% of its spending limit, taking the form of a reduction of its spending limit by $75.00. On behalf of the Referendum Committee Referendum Committee Decision 5
The Referendum Committee has reached a decision on an allegation made against the CKMS "No" campaign. The all parties associated with the allegation have been informed of the decision, and as such, the Referendum Committee is releasing the decision to the public. On January 29th , the Referendum Committee received the following allegation:
Issues At issue in this allegation are 1) whether or not the information provided in the literature distributed is false, and 2) whether or not it was distributed by members of the CKMS "No" campaign. In addressing the first issue, the Referendum Committee reviewed the evidence it was provided pertaining to the allegation. One piece of literature – titled CKMS FM 100.3 Radio Waterloo: The Best-kept Secret on the UW Campus - indeed noted the following information:
The Referendum Committee then examined data provided by the Federation of Students regarding the fees mentioned in the literature. In fact, students pay different fees depending on their enrollment status. A full-time undergraduate student pays $241.87, as is noted in the literature, while a student registered in the coop program pays $232.13. The Referendum Committee felt that while misleading – as the materials allude to the fact that all students pay $241.87 regardless of their registration status – it does not constituted outright lying, as is alleged. That said, the assertion that the fees are "non-refundable" is, simply put, false. The Referendum Committee noted that both the Dental Plan fee and the Health Plan fee are refundable provided a student has comparable coverage. This is noted on the Federation of Students' website at http://pulse.feds.ca/fee_breakdown. However, in attend to the second issue, the Referendum Committee could not find any evidence that the material in question was produced directly by the CKMS "No" campaign, but rather all data pointed to CKMS Radio as the source of the material. This point was reaffirmed by co-chair of the CKMS "No" campaign, Steve Krysak, who submitted the following statement to the Referendum Committee on January 31st :
Thus, in the opinion of the Referendum Committee the CKMS "No" campaign cannot be held directly responsible for the charges made in the allegation. That said, the Referendum Committee holds that the content of the literature is plainly campaign material under the definition in the Referendum Procedure, as its content provides a rationale for voting "NO" in the upcoming referendum. Decision Given the clear connection between the literature, the CKMS Radio, and the precedent set by the Referendum Committee in Decision 2 http://vote.feds.ca/referendum_decisions, the Referendum Committee holds that the CKMS "No" campaign will have the full cost of the production of the literature added to their campaign budget. The exact cost will determined either by the provision by the CKMS "No" campaign of original receipts indicating what was initially paid for the materials, or absent that, a determination of the Fair Market Value cost of the material, at the discretion of the Referendum Committee. On Behalf of the Referendum Committee Referendum Committee Decision 6
The Referendum Committee has reached a decision on an allegation made against the CKMS "No" campaign. The CKMS "No" campaign has been informed of the decision, and as such, the Referendum Committee is releasing the decision to the public. On January 21st , the Referendum Committee received the following allegation:
Issues At question here is whether or not 1) the CKMS "No" campaign was involved in the events discussed, 2) can these events be considered campaigning, and 3) if the events can in fact be viewed as campaigning, did they take place outside the prescribed campaign period. Responding to the first question, the Referendum Committee noted that the events documented in the allegation did not appear to be planned exclusively by members of the CKMS "No" campaign, but rather were planned by CKMS Radio and other volunteers. However, the evidence provided to the Referendum Committee did show that the event titled "Been Here All Along" had been advertised and promoted by Steve Krysak, co-chair of the CKMS "No" campaign. In a Facebook group Mr. Krysak created called "Been Here (All Along)" at http://uwaterloo.facebook.com/event.php?eid=7474119554 which specifically advertised for this event. The byline in the post announced as "A night for great music from lot’s of local talent and to promote CKMS." Thus the Referendum Committee deemed Mr. Krysak, and by proxy, the CKMS "No" campaign to be involved in the planning via his assistance in promoting the event. Responding to the second question, as to whether the event could be considered campaigning, the Referendum Committee reviewed the aforementioned statement on Mr. Krysak’s Facebook group, which again suggested that the event was designed to "promote CKMS." Further, the Referendum Committee reviewed the press release issued about the event, which suggested that "Been Here (All Along)", will present several CKMS student and community volunteers, spinning music and speaking to students on public education of CKMS’ importance and relevance to the student community." The Referendum Committee also reviewed materials presented at the event itself. In this case, the materials were flyers that were distributed during the show which had statements printed on them designated with the following print: "Referendum! Vote "No" to save CKMS" Existing Referendum procedure defines campaigning as C. 2. s. All forms of advertising by any campus medium, the distribution and/or posting of any material designed and/or likely to influence voters, speeches and public forums…" The Referendum thus deemed the nature of the event and the materials and advertising surrounding it to be campaigning. In responding to the final issue, the event took place on January 23rd and 24th , 6 and 5 days each, prior to the commencement of the campaign period. Existing Referendum procedure stipulates that; C. 2. h There shall be no campaigning during the interim preparation period and polling periods. Decision The Referendum Committee, based on the evidence presented, agrees that the CKMS "No" campaign did campaign outside the campaigning period. The CKMS "No" campaign is hereby fined 15% of it’s campaign budget, taking the form of a reduction in their spending limit of $75.00. On behalf of the Referendum Committee Referendum Committee Decision 7
The Referendum Committee has issued the following decision about the CKMS "No" campaign: On January 31st, the Referendum Committee was made aware of the decision by the CKMS "No" campaign to utilize the services of a lawyer as part of their campaign: the lawyer was used to issue several communiques to the Referendum Committee regarding several different matters. The Referendum Committee advised the CKMS "No" campaign that they were welcome to utilized said service, but that because the service was rendered as a part of the their campaign plan, it must be accounted for in their budget. The Referendum Committee asked for the CKMS "No" campaign to either submit a receipt for the services paid; barring this, the Referendum Committee would utilize a calculation of the Fair Market Value for the service, and would apply it to the CKMS "No" campaign budget. The CKMS "No" campaign responded as follows:
Based on the CKMS "No" campaign's wish to not disclose to the Referendum Committee the exact cost paid for said service, the Referendum Committee then determined the Fair Market Value (FMV) for this service. Referendum Procedures dictate the following with regard to FMV: A. 5. a. Fair Market Value: a. Fair Market Value (F.M.V.) is the lowest price of a product or service, without special concessions or discounts, from a set of at least three prices from merchants in Waterloo Region. Fair Market Value shall include all applicable taxes. In this case, based on the prescriptions above, the FMV for this has been calculated by the Referendum Committee to be $225/hour, with a one hour minimum, meaning that the CKMS "No" campaign would have $225 added to their campaign budget. With this addition to the CKMS "No" campaign budget, and including the previous 60% reduction the CKMS "No" campaign budget from 4 fines, their budget is excess of the allowed $500 (by $25), not including the expenses already incurred. Referendum Procedures stipulate that: C. 2. k. Campaign spending limits are $500.00 per side. This amount may be amended by Students' Council. Spending limits exclude provincial sales taxes and GST. Further, the Referendum Procedures stipulate that: E. 3. b. A committee that exceeds its spending limit shall be disqualified. As you have exceeded your budget, the Referendum Committee has no choice but to disqualify the CKMS "No" campaign from further campaigning on this Referendum question. The implications of this decision are as follows:
On Behalf of the Referendum Committee |
SearchUpcoming events |
