The
way Capilano University elects students and faculty to Capilano University’s
Board of Governors (BOG) and Senate may not be as dramatic as the US presidential
election or as comedic as the late 1990s coming-of-age film Election, but thanks to new procedures
that governed this year’s election, the level of drama and controversy
certainly did rise a little higher than normal. Notably, this year’s BOG/Senate
election, which was due to conclude on Apr. 2, has seen a lack of interested candidates
to contest all of the positions.
The
positions that were up for election were for four students to sit on the Senate
and two to sit on the Board of Governors, both of which together constitute the
highest-governing bodies of Capilano University. However, there was only one nomination
for the student position on the BOG, from incumbent Senator Brandon Hofmarks,
and only four nominations for the positions on Senate, from Hofmarks, David
Clarkson, Jared Nash, and Jenna Theny. All of the nominees were acclaimed to
their positions.
The
closing date for nominations was during the middle of reading break, which has
been brought up at Senate as something that potentially had a negative effect
on the turnout of both student and faculty candidates.
Hofmarks
is one student member of the Senate who saw a problem with the closing date.
“Last year it wasn’t during the break, and at that time, we had eight people
nominated for the Board of Governors and six people for Senate, so clearly this
year was a mistake,” says Hofmarks.
Many
of the faculty positions also suffered from a lack of candidates. “It was
expressed by certain faculty members that it might be unreasonable for them to
be able to nominate themselves for a Senate position because of the absence of
pay and the time commitment,” says Kelsey Didlick, a sitting student Senator,
of the increasingly low number of staff senate members.
“Currently,
there are five faculty positions vacant, and the Senate is clearly lacking a
faculty presence and point of view … There are a lot of decisions that need to
be made and I think it’s disappointing that there’s no faculty presence yet,”
she explains.
“I
think we’ve had inconsistent showing,” says Karen McCredie, Registrar of
Capilano University, in reference to the number of candidates every year. “The
variation of impact can range widely, so I wouldn’t want to come up with an
idea [why].”
McCredie
is responsible for administering the election every year. On the subject of how
elections are advertised, she says, “Every senator has a responsibility to
discuss that [advertising] with their constituents. We also put information up
on the TV monitors around campus, and on the Internet. We also send an email to
teachers.”
At
the last Senate meeting, the possibility of holding a by-election for both
faculty and students was discussed, although no decision was made.
The
new procedures that governed this year’s election were brought forward by
McCredie and the committee responsible for setting election policy in an effort
to bring more clarity to the election process.
“The
big difference in the procedure document was a more detailed explanation about
the process. So, there was almost no change to the process, it just outlined it
more clearly, so that if anyone had a question, they could get their own answer
and it would be clear and transparent,” says McCredie. “I included additional
information around the election process, so the timing of the elections, or the
time frame of the elections, as well as some description around campaigning,
when elections results are posted, and how appeals would be managed,” she adds.
The
new policy may also have been informed by the events of last year’s election,
which had to be recalled due to a complaint that were submitted against two
student candidates. The complaint alleged that the two candidates, currently
sitting BOG/Senate representative David Clarkson and unsuccessful Senate
candidate Justin Lew, had broken election rules by campaigning during the
voting period. As a result, the registrar decided that the election results
should be scrapped and held again, which ended up with all of the same
candidates elected except one.
The new procedure provides more detail around how electoral complaints are dealt with. “There’s an appeal committee, chaired by myself, or the Vice-President Academic and Provost. [The complaint] is sent to the committee for review, and decision comes out of the committee,” explains McCredie.
However,
the proposed policy did not pass without some controversy. Didlick and the
other student representatives voiced their concerns to the Senate, following
the package of amendments that were suggested by McCredie. She, along with the
other student senators, were worried that the new amendments would have
negative effects, and spoke up against the supposed disservice to students.
They called for more time to consider the proposed changes.
“The
conflict was that, despite the fact that Senate representatives objected to
what affected them, it seemed as though we were not able to have a significant
enough voice to be listened to and appreciated by the Senate,” says Didlick.
Didlick
also sat on the subcommittee that wrote the procedure; however, she felt that
her concerns were pertinent enough to bring up again when it came for final
approval at the Senate.
The
issue that the student representatives were mainly concerned about was the part
of the new policy that stated who would be eligible to vote and/or run in the
election. According to the rules that were proposed at the January Senate
meeting, students who were either on academic probation or had outstanding
financial holds did not have the eligibility to vote or stand for election. At
that meeting, the policy was approved, except for the portion that Didlick and
the other students expressed concern about, which was sent back for revision.
As of the February Senate meeting
though,
the definition of an eligible voting student is merely a student enrolled in at
least one course at Capilano University.
Despite
the fact that different parties have some disagreements on the issues
surrounding elections, they all agree on the importance of including the
student body in the decision-making process. “I would hate to see a student
seat ever be empty. That kind of community engagement is critical to the success
of the institution,” says McCredie.
//Victoria Fawkes, staff writer
//Victoria Fawkes, staff writer
|
