The Judicial Board (J-Board) of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) is preparing to hear the case of Bangs v. Calver and Cheng, regarding the potential invalidation of the 2012 Winter Referendum for the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS).
The petition was filed by Chris Bangs, an U3 economics, urban systems, and political science student who was the chair of the ‘No’ committee for two questions in the Winter Referendum Period. In his petition, Bangs wrote that Jade Calver, then-AUS President, and Victor Cheng, then-Chief Returning Officer of Elections AUS, violated the AUS by-laws during this period, and thereby compromising the results.
According to Bangs, these violations included the failure to properly submit the referenda questions to AUS Council, as too many abstentions at the General Assembly obstructed the vote count; the failure to put notification of date, time, and place of polling in an approved student publication, as this information was only released in the listserv; and the reduction of the campaign period, which ended four days before voting began.
According to Bangs, these alleged violations would justify the J-Board invalidating the results of all six referendum questions. However, Bangs only requested the invalidation of the two questions for which he was chair of the ‘No’ committees—“Online Ratification for the decisions of the AUS General Assembly” and “Amending the Constitution.”
In their response to Bangs’ submission, Calver and Cheng cited Bangs’ challenge of only two referenda questions as “a blatant reflection of [Bangs’] bias in submitting this case,” which they said is also reflected in the incidents he chose to highlight in his report.
“The supposed ‘systematic violations of the by-laws’ are unwarranted and in no way affected the validity of the 2012 AUS Winter Referendum,” Calver and Cheng wrote. “The Respondents believe that the motives of the Petitioner are not those of democracy, but rather are fuelled by the Petitioner’s position on the questions.”
According to Bangs, his request for the invalidation of only two questions was influenced by the AUS by-laws, which allow a referendum question to go forward despite violations as long as campaign committees agree that it can move forward. The remaining four questions did not have campaign committees, and therefore could move on without objection. However, as the chair of the ‘No’ committee, Bangs did not believe that the two questions he was involved with should move forward unchallenged.
Although Bangs suggested that the alleged by-law violations could have affected the results, many of last semester’s referendum questions passed with a wide margin of student support. For the question regarding online ratification, 71.7 per cent of students voted ‘yes,’ while only 20.9 per cent voted ‘no.’ Bangs, however, told the Tribune that the numbers aren’t as important as the fact that the referendum period did not follow a fair electoral process.
“This case is not just about the individual questions at hand, but about a larger belief in the need for accountable student unions,” he said. “AUS members deserve a fair election, regardless of the outcomes.”
Calver and Cheng, however, pointed towards their actions during the election period as proof that concerted efforts were made to respect the AUS by-laws, and said that Bangs was unwilling to find times to meet with them to discuss his concerns.
“[We] are of the opinion that all other measures for mediation were not respected by [Bangs],” they wrote. “Furthermore, [he] was set on resorting to the use of the Judicial Board from early in the process.”
Beni Fisch, a member of the ‘Yes’ committee for the question of online ratification of the General Assembly, agreed that the outcome of the referendum was not affected by Calver and Cheng’s actions. Fisch said he was in contact with both Calver and Cheng throughout the referendum period.
“All [the Respondents’] actions were fair, unbiased, and in no way compromised the integrity of the referendum or its results,” Fisch said.
Because the J-Board has accepted Fisch’s application for intervener status, he will be present at the hearing as a third-party whose intervention is necessary for a complete solution to the case.
Regardless of the effect on the specific questions of last year’s referenda period, Bangs said the alleged violations of the by-laws are symptomatic of other problems within the AUS.
“Every year that I have been at McGill, there has been at least one major scandal involving the AUS,” Bangs said. “We need to stand up for the integrity of this organization, and encouraging fair, responsible elections is just one step forward.”
Calver declined to comment on the upcoming J-Board case.
