A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The results of the elections were due to be announced at the ISA International Masquerade Ball, which took place on Monday. However, of the eight positions elections were being held for, only the results for External Activities Officer, Secretary and Vice President have been allowed to stand.
The election results for the positions of President, Treasurer, Internal Activities Officer, Welfare Officer and Press and Publicity Officer have been withheld. A total of 11 sets of candidates stood for these five positions.
The positions of President and Treasurer, both of which are Executive Committee positions, will now be decided through a by-election, which is to be held during the second week of autumn term.
For the positions of Internal Activites, Welfare and Press and Publicity Officers, a penalty of reduction of votes will be applied prior to the reading of the results, in the presence of YUSU acting as a third party.
In an email sent out to all association members, the ISA Executive Committee said: "This decision has been reached by the consensus of the current executive members of the ISA committee in the interest of fairness towards all other election candidates and the voting members of the association."
The results will be announced during a general meeting on Friday 26th June, in L/N/006 at 6pm. The ISA encourage all members of the association, and all of the candidates involved on the election, to attend.
First the GSA, now the ISA. How on earth can we be that bad at elections?!
are some of the Isa Exec not candidates...? how can they possibly decide on how sanctions are applied...is there no returning officer....?
'For the positions of Internal Activites, Welfare and Press and Publicity Officers, a penalty of reduction of votes will be applied prior to the reading of the results, in the presence of YUSU acting as a third party.'
Are you kidding me? You can't just remove an arbitrary amount of votes as a penalty. The offence was either so serious that the candidate should be DQd or the result stands.
If they insist on removing votes, they should decide how much as a proportion of the turnout BEFORE the returning officer knows how many votes each candidate received.
#1 - the reason 'we' are so bad at elections is that most groups just stick the returning officer post as a minor point in another officer's job description. This means we have people running elections that may be excellent at welfare, services, representation, etc but don't know what to do when it comes to elections.
Hmmm, Tom has a point; maybe YUSU should look at hiring a staff member to handle that sort of thing. I think NTSU have someone doing a similar job...YUSU should talk to them. B. Gianelli
I completely agree with #4. T. Ziegler
#1: it's not the ISA's fault that some of the candidates broke the rules to such an extent! The reason the results were withheld was to avoid the GSA fiasco. The results that are going to be announced will be the final results.
#2: there is a returning officer (the current ISA president), and he made the decision. After this was made, the ISA secretary (on behalf of the ISA committee) made this announcement to the members.
Tom, read this:
"a penalty of reduction of votes will be applied prior to the reading of the results, in the presence of YUSU acting as a third party."
Before this turns viral, let me make some clarifications.
A number of official complaints were made by students, directed against the campaigning techniques used by some candidates. Some students felt coerced and harassed, so as you can understand the complaints were in fact quite serious. Generally, there has been clear evidence that several candidates broke the rules - in such a way and to such an extent that the results would have undoubtedly been affected.
The returning officer decided to withhold the election results until all those complaints were examined, and until each of those candidates could offer their explanation. He decided that in order to avoid a GSA-like situation, where the results were announced only to be annulled a few days later. In our case, the decisions made and the results that are going to be announced will be final.
The returning officer decided on the above penalties. We can all be sure that this is going to create a lot of controversy, especially among the rule-breakers – but the fact of the matter is that, when students make such complaints, they simply can’t be ignored.
That said, I would lime to make it known that I do not plan to stand again in the by-election. I’ve made that clear from the beginning and I stand by this decision. I think that one can easily understand how disappointed we are with all this. The current committee has worked very hard for this association, and it pains all of us to see its reputation tarnished.
Regardless of whether there is a third party to witness, docking votes after the votes have been counted is bad and sets a dangerous precedent. Who is it gonna be who decides how many votes are docked? The current President? That's a bit off the wall even by ISA standards. It is a good job this wasn't announced at the ball, there'd have been blood on the dancefloor. Still, the campus media enjoys a good political thriller,and it is true that this issue is obviously far from black or white.
I hope this doesn't keep the seemingly invincible George from the presidency, but what ever happens, I would like to offer a note of sympathy to the ISA: right now you're in a jam and there's bound to be butterflies in your tummy, but remember the GSA! You are not alone, there will be bad press, but you can beat it, just don't appear to favour a particular candidate or there will be accusations that your returning officer is nothing but a smooth criminal.
If all else fails, just blame it on the boogie.
On the whole I agree with what Tom has said (#3), though it would be interesting to see what a YUSU returning officer would do if a complaint was received and upheld after results were announced (but before they were finalized) where there was a narrow margin of victory; I think his or her only option would be to hold the election again. A tricky situation indeed at the very end of term.
Mitch, in YUSU land complaints about the conduct of the campaign have to be made before results are announced (could even be before the count starts), to stop this kind of situation. After that point, the only complaints that can be heard are in relation to the conduct of the count.
#7 - yes I did read that. Knowing the people in YUSU that are likely to be involved in sorting this mess out, I doubt they would actively support vote reductions. It is not sound democratic practice at all.
The complaints were made before voting closed - but it was not possible to examine them all in detail before Monday night. This process was bound to take some time, as the complaints were numerous and serious. This is why only the non-controversial positions were announced on Monday.
On your second point, I agree that vote reduction is not an ideal solution. I do think, however, that YUSU was perfectly ok with it. Nevertheless, if this was my call, it'd be either disqualification or by-elections for all those positions.
Hate to break it to you Tom, but Schedule 6.12 only says that complaints "should" be received prior to the count rather than "must" (as I think it says in the GSA's new constitution).
I used RFC2119 as a basis for the meaning of "should" and "must" in this kind of situation. I love picking holes in the English language.
Why didn't ISA say anything about the rules or the STANDARD campaigning techniques should be used right before the campaign started or even before it finsihed? Why didn't ISA make decision right before the results of some positions are announced? If they really want their returning committees back, then please don't bother to have an election and make other new candidates to run for their positions.
By the way, what kind of campaigning techniques do you think that don't make people feel harassed? I even think those invitations of stupid facebook groups made me feel harassed too! Should I complain about it too? I think the whole "complaints" thing is just absurd! Do you have any idea how many international students haven't even heard of ISA and they don't use facebook? If ISA wanna play it safe, then go ahead.
"By the way, what kind of campaigning techniques do you think that don't make people feel harassed?"
I can name several: but I am afraid that going around campus with a laptop and asking people to vote for you on the spot is definitely not one of them.
"I even think those invitations of stupid facebook groups made me feel harassed too! Should I complain about it too?"
You can complain about anything you want to, but the election rules specifically allow the use of a facebook group, so such a complaint wouldn't have led to a penalty.
"Why didn't ISA say anything about the rules or the STANDARD campaigning techniques should be used right before the campaign started or even before it finsihed?"
This is absurd. Every candidate was given a paper with the election rules, and each of those rules was explained right after hustings.
This is so typical - wasn't there a massive cock-up with the ISA (then OSA) elections last year? And, yes, there are ways one can feel harassed. I was sat in the open zone reading a paper when a few people I knew running for a position interrogated me on whether I had voted yet and carried their laptop around to encourage people to vote. Granted, this kind of "hands on" approach publicises the elections, but it's also intimidation... which you'll agree #14 is bad.
"This is so typical - wasn't there a massive cock-up with the ISA (then OSA) elections last year?"
No, there was no problem whatsoever last year. In fact, not only is this not typical, it is completely unheard of for the ISA. You are confusing us with the GSA I think. And, quite frankly, it is hardly our fault that candidates broke the rules. From our part, we have already managed to avoid a GSA-type mess that would have paralysed us for several months.
"I was sat in the open zone reading a paper when a few people I knew running for a position interrogated me on whether I had voted yet and carried their laptop around to encourage people to vote."
Yes, this is one of the things for which we received many complaints about.
Also, anon14 said: "if they really want their returning committees back, then please don't bother to have an election and make other new candidates to run for their positions."
I am sorry, but this accusation is rather nonsensical and needs to be addressed. Out of the four committee members who ran again, three lost anyway and one (myself) has already stated that he will not take part in the by-elections. How could one say that this mess has worked in our favour is beyond me. In reality, many committee members have ended up paying for a mess that they didn't in any way create.
George, I seem to remember an issue in the election when Marco was leaving office. Also, I am pretty sure YUSU are not supporting the decision to remove votes, especially as the RO knew the results before the decision was made.
The bit that really confuses me is why officers who were candidates in the election, were allowed to vote at the ISA Exec meeting? Can you immagine the furore if a YUSU election issue last term had gone to Council (as nearly did happen) and people like Lewis, Rory, me, et. al. had voted? Does the the returning officer not have power to make decisions without the Exec?
If a candidate breaks the rules, disqualify him or her. It really is that simple.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report