Questions continue to circulate about this year’s University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) election, even after the UTSU’s board of directors approved the results. On Monday, April 14 the final report of the Student Societies Summit was sent to Provost Cheryl Regehr citing years of concerns about the way in which UTSU elections have been conducted. The report, which summarizes eight months of discussion by elected full-time undergraduate student society leaders, calls for an independent CRO and an elections appeals body overseen by an expert, such as a retired judge.

The report, while dry, is wide-ranging and explicitly critical of the UTSU throughout — pointing to historical problems that also featured in this years election. For example, an allegedly partial CRO, and an appeals body that some say is too close to the executive slate which includes incumbents. While the report proposes a series of policy changes, under current U of T policy the provost only has one recourse if she believes a student society is not behaving democratically — to withhold funding until the issue is resolved. Both the UTSU and the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU) withdrew from the summit.

“It is because the UTSU collects mandatory fees that it is not only accountable to the students, but also to the administration,” said Mary Stefanidis, president of the Innis College Student Society and a participant in the summit. Stefanidis stressed that she believes in the autonomy of student governments, but that when student societies behave undemocratically — as she feels the UTSU has — the administration should step in. “It is when groups do not act in a way which promotes fairness and democracy then I believe it calls for the administration to intervene for the betterment of the students,” Stefanidis added.

Although the UTSU’s board ratified the results of the election, some students remain concerned that the way the elections were conducted violated the UTSU’s own bylaws, and allegedly systematically penalized one slate while helping the other. Vipulan Vigneswaran, campaign manager for Team Unite, which won one of five executive positions, wrote to provost Cheryl Regeher on April 6 requesting that she intervene. Vigneswaran’s concerns include the fairness, legitimacy, and legality of the elections.

One area that Vigneswaran alleges is unfair is the way in which the VP external election was conducted. Luis Moreno, the only independent candidate, dropped out of the VP external race endorsing Team Unite five days before the election. However, his name appeared on the ballot. Requests to have his name crossed out or new ballots printed were refused. Instead, the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) claimed to put up signs indicating Moreno was no longer a candidate. Numerous media reports, as well as eyewitness accounts by Varsity reports, showed that the signs were not up at several polling stations. The race for VP external was extremely close, with Grayce Slobodian from Team Voice edging out Nicky Bhatty from Team Unite by 38 votes. All votes for Moreno, of which several scrutineers claim there were at least 300, were declared as spoiled ballots and not counted.

“It is clear that a series of errors by the CRO, from including Moreno on the ballot to failing to post his withdrawal notice as promised, significantly impacted the outcome of the race for VP, External,” wrote Vigneswaran. His letter also detailed a number of other concerns, such as the decision to add an extra polling station at UTM, which Vigeswaran claims Team Voice knew about but Team Unite was not aware of. Current UTSU president Munib Sajjad has repeatedly said neither side was informed.

After a meeting with UTSU speaker and grievance officer Ashkon Hashemi to discuss his grievance on Friday, April 18, Vigneswaran has declined to provide any further comment. He urged The Varsity to respect the confidentiality of the grievance process.

Following an earlier complaint by Team Unite candidate Pierre Harfouche, who is now vice president, university affairs elect, vice-provost Matus requested that the UTSU seal and preserve the ballot boxes, which would normally be destroyed after the ratification of the election, so that an internal grievance process may take place.

Sajjad was contacted eight times for this article, and publication was delayed on two occasions to provide him with more time to comment.

He has not answered any questions, including whether the ballots have been destroyed.“I have not received an undertaking that the ballot boxes have been sealed and preserved,” said Matus on Friday April 11.

U of T’s Policy for Compulsory Non-Academic Incidental Fees mandates that levy-funded student societies, including the UTSU, “operate in an open, accessible and democratic fashion and following the terms of its constitution.” In an e-mail to The Varsity, Matus said that the university administration has no wish to intervene, but may do so if the UTSU does not meet the standard set by the policy.

Vigneswaran filed a separate complaint on April 4 with Hashemi over the conduct of the Elections and Referenda Committee (ERC) throughout the election.

In response to Vigneswaran’s allegations, Sajjad, who is chair of the ERC, sent back a detailed letter in which he rejected the accusations. The Board of Directors ratified the election results at the board meeting on March 28, where Sajjad agreed that the decision to extend voting hours at UTM on Friday, March 14 was a violation of the bylaws, claiming that this violation was necessary under the circumstances. UTM was closed early on March 12 due to severe weather. However in the letter Sajjad claimed no bylaws were broken.

“We would like the Union to address that its bylaws were broken and either do a recount and discard ballot boxes from polling stations that were in violation of the EPC and Bylaws, or for the Board to appoint interim executives for the summer, so that a by-election for all executive positions can be held in the Fall term,” Vigneswaran said. Sajjad wrote to Vigneswaran that his proposed solutions are not viable, as the ERC does not have the authority to call another election or to discard ballots from an election that has already been ratified.

The only communication from Sajjad to The Varsity was a claim that he could not comment as a new grievance procedure that the UTSU is following precludes publicly discussing the grievance. To The Varsity’s knowledge, this grievance procedure has not been used in the past. Sajjad did not reply to questions regarding his communication with vice-provost Matus, nor did he address why the UTSU is following a new procedure or when or how it was approved.

UTSU speaker Ashkon Hashemi similarly declined to comment in a lengthy response citing a number of best practices for organizations resolving disputes between employees, or union and management. He also did not address when or how the union’s procedures changed.

“The response from the ERC, or specifically the ERC Chair, was an inadequate one. We did not feel that they satisfactorily addressed our issues, let alone if they understand what the problems with the elections were,” Vigneswaran said.

Ben Crase was one of the few UTSU directors who opposed ratification of the election results: “The electoral violations simply reflect the systematic problems that continue to plague the operations of the UTSU. These types of egregious violations persist year after year, and only the University administration can put an end to it.”