Allegations & Appeals

An Allegation is an accusation made that a candidate or referendum campaign committee has done something wrong during the Election period, and is the main mechanism in place to ensure the adherence of procedure and subsequently, the fairness of the election. Allegations remain assertions until they can be proved. Allegation forms exist to streamline the volume of allegations that come in and to help prevent duplicate reports of the same incident. The subject of the allegation can be a candidate, a team, or a referendum campaign committee.

Appeals are requests from the alleged to change to the Elections and Referenda Officer’s (ERO) official decision. The Elections and Referenda Committee (ERAC) hears all appeals and should include any new information that has come forward.

ERAC may do any of the following:

  1. Uphold the original decision
  2. Alter the penalty of the original decision, within the limits of this procedure
  3. Refer the ERO to review a decision in light of new information or with consideration to a specific section of this procedure
  4. Overturn the decision

If you’re unsure whether or not a violation has occurred, you’re encouraged to report it to the ERO and who will then figure out if it is a violation of procedure or not.

Feds Executive Races

Title:  Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date: 1/24/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: An allegation against Team Gold was made by an anonymous source, claiming that Team Gold engaged with entering into contractual arrangements with groups on/offcampus (specifically Greek Council) that will inevitably affect Feds during their term in office and major violation of the procedures and bylaws of the Corporation. Upon contacting Graeham Southon, a member of Greek Council, it was found that Team Gold wanted to ensure that Greek Council would have "less restrictions" with on-campus events (ex. recruiting).  According to Graeham Southon and Quinn Smith, there were no agreements made between Greek Council and Team Gold. According to Smith, Team Gold only claimed to revisit the current restrictions but made absolutely no promises to change current by-laws/procedures. In light of this information, the ERO assigns 0 demerit points.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date: 1/26/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: An allegation of a conflict of interest was claimed against Team Gold and their association (specifically with Joshua Mbandi) with the Turnkey desk. As per Turnkey rules, Team Ignite was not allowed to hang more than 4 posters in the SLC. However, Team Gold was allowed to hang "15 posters" in the SLC. The alleger believes this is because Mbandi has connections with the Turnkey desk due to his employment. Upon contacting the Turnkey desk, it was found that a miscommunication between Team Ignite and new staff members lead to this outcome. Posters in SLC specifically for the FEDS election is hung at the candidate's discretion. The ERO deemed this allegation as frivolous and as a result, no demerit points were assigned.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date: 1/27/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger:
Anonymous ​​​​​​
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: An allegation of violating the number of posters allowed to be hung in SLC was made against Team Gold. The alleger claims that Team Gold has over 15 posters hung in SLC in areas such as the Silent Study, Group Study, and by the stairs of the Tim Hortons. Upon contacting the Turnkey desk, it was found that a miscommunication between Team Ignite and new staff members lead to this outcome. Posters in SLC specifically for the FEDS election is hung at the candidate's discretion. The ERO deemed this allegation as frivolous and as a result, no demerit points were assigned.
  
  

Title:  Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date: 1/27/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: An allegation of plagiarism against Team Gold, specifically against their use of their campaign website and platform points was made. The alleger claims that this material was directly copied from Team Ignite's website, especially since Team Ignite's website was published on January 21st compared to Team Gold's, which was updated on January 27th.  The alleger specifically references Team Ignite's stance on sustainable campus initiatives and how Team Gold's recent update hits upon all the same points. According to SCI (specifically Maggie Chan, a coordinator at SCI), they have been liaising with Team Gold about sustainability initiatives since before January 14th. Chan claims that all platform points were not the result of plagiarism, but rather feedback from on-going discussions with SCI. In regard to the similarities between sustainability initiatives, the ERO assigns no demerit points.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date: 1/27/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: An allegation of plagiarism against Team Gold, specifically against their use of their campaign website and platform points was made. The alleger claims that this material was directly copied from Team Ignite's website, especially since Team Ignite's website was published on January 21st compared to Team Gold's, which was updated on January 27th.  According to SCI (specifically Maggie Chan, a coordinator at SCI), they have been liaising with Team Gold about sustainability initiatives since before January 14th. Chan claims that all platform points were not the result of plagiarism, but rather feedback from on-going discussions with SCI. In regard to the similarities between sustainability initiatives, the ERO assigns no demerit points.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs. Simran Parmar
Date: 1/27/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Simran Parmar

Summary: The complainant believes that Parmar misinformed potential voters about the use of the Bombshelter Pub in the past. According to the alleger, Parmer claimed that the Bomber was never rented out to sports teams. The alleger corrected Parmer about this, and upon recalling the incident to Parmer later, Parmer claims that the alleger did not let him finish his sentence. This allegation was deemed as frivolous, as there was a lack of evidence.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date:  1/27/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: An allegation of plagiarism against Team Gold, specifically against their use of their campaign website and platform points was made. The alleger claims that this material was directly copied from Team Ignite's website, especially since Team Ignite's website was published on January 21st compared to Team Gold's, which was updated on January 27th.  According to SCI (specifically Maggie Chan, a coordinator at SCI), they have been liaising with Team Gold about sustainability initiatives since before January 14th. Chan claims that all platform points were not the result of plagiarism, but rather feedback from on-going discussions with SCI. In regard to the similarities between sustainability initiatives, the ERO assigns no demerit points.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs Team Gold
Date: 1/27/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: The alleger believes that Team Gold has plagiarized Team Ignite's platform points on their new website update and points reference to Mbandi and Fitzpatrick's platform points. Additionally, the alleger believes that Team Gold's promise to create a committee akin to the Commitee of Presidents (which already exists) misleads voters but is unsure whether or not Team Gold is unknowledgeable about the existence of such a committee. According to Amanda Fitzpatrick of Team Gold, the intent of the policy was to promote workable service delivery that is accessible to the satellite campuses via a unique consultation group of regular students rather than representatives. Because these ideas are distinct, Team Gold does not mislead voters to any capacity therefore the ERO assigns 0 demerit points and recommends Team Gold to indicate these distinctions on their website. Lastly, the alleger believes that Team Gold is misleading voters by insinuating a "greater connection" towards the Legal Services referendum. In regards to this claim, Joshua Mbandi of Team Gold simply told a student during the Let's Taco-bout It event that the issue was already brought forth to student council and that Seneca Velling, a student councillor, voted in favor. The ERO does not believe that this indicates greater connection to the Legal Services referendum, therefore the ERO assigns 0 demerit points.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date: 1/31/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: The complainant believes that Mbandi unfairly used his paid position at the Feds-operated Turnkey desk to "gain advantage in elections", which essentially violates Article 6.12.2 of the procedures and policies. In an Instragram story, it shows Joshua Mbandi announcing that he is running for VP Operations and Finance for Team Gold while on the job. The ERO believes that this violates Article 6.12.2, as Mbandi may be influencing voters by presenting himself as a candidate while working as a Feds staff member. According to Article 6.12.1, "all holding positions within the Federation are expected to continue their duties during elections and referenda". By campaigning on the job, Mbandi clearly violates this. Upon speaking to Team Gold, particularly Simran Parmar, he mentions that this video was an attempt to "record something light-hearted and fun" and had no intention to break the procedures and policies, therefore the ERO assigns 3 demerit points for minor violations.
  
  

Title: Anonymous vs. Team Gold
Date: 1/31/2019
Category: Executive Elections
Alleger: Anonymous
Alleged: Team Gold

Summary: The complainant believes that Team Gold claimed to have an endorsement from the Environmental Council in an Instagram comment posted on their official campaign page. Many anonymous accusations came forward that the Environmental Council did not endorse Team Gold and believed this constituted as misleading potential voters. Once notified, Team Gold submitted evidence that Vincent Baik was the only member on Environment Council to endorse Team Gold, rather than the entirety of the Environment Council. The ERO assigns 3 demerit points for misleading potential voters.
  
  

Feds Students' Council Races

There are no allegations or appeals at this time.

UWaterloo Student Senator Races

There are no allegations or appeals at this time.

Referendum Campaign Committees

There are no allegations or appeals at this time.