Opinion
Feature
Arts
A look at the best ways to rig an election 11
Everything you need to know about body modification 12
Top five places to get green beer on St. Patricks Day 17
gateway March 11th, 2015
Issue No. 28
Volume 105
THE
T H E O F F IC IA L STUDE NT NE WS PA P E R AT TH E UNIVE R S IT Y OF A LBERTA
what is the die board? See page 7 for more information
election
results Your 2015-16 Students’ Union executives were elected Friday. navneet khinda president
shakiba azimi vp academic
dylan hanwell vp external
vivian kwan vp student life
azhar khan
bog representative
the landing referendum passed
single beverage plebiscite passed
disqualification dilemma
DIE Board delays ruling over Sleiman vote tampering case until Wednesday Alex Migdal
news staff @alexem Results for the Students’ Union’s VicePresident (Operations and Finance) race remain sealed after allegations of vote tampering triggered the disqualification of a candidate and cast doubt over the integrity of the election. Samer Sleiman was disqualified just hours before election results were announced on Friday. His ouster culminated in a volatile two-hour appeal hearing Monday with the SU’s judicial board, whose chair at one point demanded civility from both parties. Associate Chief Tribune Sam Alzaman said Tuesday afternoon that the Discipline, Interpretation and Enforcement (DIE) Board had set a “firm deadline” of 9 a.m. Wednesday for a written decision. Although he noted the ruling could be issued earlier, it was not available as of press time. Alzaman said he and two tribunes met between noon and 4 p.m. Tuesday. “We had to confirm the evidence before us and determine how to interpret any findings based upon that evidence,” he wrote in a statement. “There are still contentious issues and we are affording those issues the time and respect they deserve.” The appeal hearing pitted Jessica Nguyen, the SU’s Chief Returning Officer, against Sleiman, who Nguyen booted Friday after ruling that Sleiman had voted on behalf of a student without their consent. “This practice is corrupt,” Nguyen told the
board. “It’s the worst thing you can do in an election — to tamper with the results.” But Sleiman’s three-member defence council maintained they had nothing to hide. “Mr. Sleiman was upfront with each and every student,” representative Mustafa Farooq said. “We have absolutely no qualms about what Mr. Sleiman did because we don’t think it contravened anything.” The complainant, first-year student Anna Gwozdz, said Sleiman approached her in CAB on March 4 and offered to show her how to vote on a cell phone. Gwozdz agreed and entered her CCID, password and student identification number. At that point, a friend interrupted Gwozdz before Sleiman thanked her and walked away. She said she never saw her ballot and only realized that her vote had been cast after she tried to vote the next morning. She immediately emailed Nguyen to complain. “The biggest issue is that my consent was not given for the actual vote that was submitted under my name,” Gwozdz said. Further investigation by the CRO revealed that Gwozdz had voted for Sleiman, although she had meant to vote for opposing candidate Cody Bondarchuk. Student Hassana Hakwik, who Sleiman’s team brought as a witness, said Sleiman had also approached her in HUB with his platform and offered to help her vote. After Sleiman explained the voting process on his phone, Hakwik said she gave her “full consent” for him to submit a vote on her behalf, noting it was the first time they had spoken.
But Nguyen argued that one consenting voter did not apply to all students approached by Sleiman. The board questioned whether casting a vote on behalf of a student could be considered fraudulent. “This is a practice that has historically been going on,” said Sangram Hansra, one of Sleiman’s representatives. Hansra, who successfully ran last year for Board of Governors Representative, said he had also approached students during his campaign with a laptop or cell phone to show them how to vote. “There is nothing wrong with this,” he said. Sleiman’s council also questioned the 32 votes that the CRO’s investigation found to have been cast from the same IP address of a Telus phone. Jay Ward of Whitematter, a technology company that oversees the SU’s online voting system, said his data could “absolutely not” point to a specific student. “But I have a pattern that says this IP address did these sketchy things,” Ward said. In their closing statement, Sleiman’s council slammed Nguyen for “arbitrarily” following bylaws and failing to prove that Sleiman had falsified Gwozdz’s vote. A visibly emotional Nguyen said the violation against Gwozdz was enough to call the election into question. “At the end of the day, my ruling is legitimate and should be upheld. And Mr. Sleiman should be disqualified,” she said. This is a breaking news story. Follow our updates at gtwy.ca