Some CSA election candidates concerned about conflict of interest
When the Guelph Student Mobilization Committee (GSMC) asked Connor Doherty, the Central Student Association’s Chief Electoral Officer, to circulate an online questionnaire to the eleven candidates running for CSA Executive positions, Doherty had no idea doing so would stir such controversy.
“I was completely surprised by the backlash,” Doherty said.
The GSMC questionnaire was styled in the form of a report card, and the candidate’s answers to its questions were to be made public and given a letter grade based on their proximity to GSMC’s own “basis of unity.”
The GSMC has partnered with the CSA on past campaigns, but the CSA was not associated with the Report Card outside of communicating it to the candidates. The GSMC is best known for its vocal campaigns against tuition fee increases and budget cuts.
In an email addressed to the candidates, Doherety stressed that completing the Report Card was not mandatory, but he did recommend that nominees fill out the survey “to ensure that your competition does not get an advantage.”
“I think people were upset because it seemed almost as if I was pushing people to do it,” said Doherty. “To clarify what I meant there: If you were not to [answer the Report Card], your opponent would be at an advantage for they would have more material about them circulating, where you do not.”
Still, some candidates were taken aback by the request, not least because some nominees are active in the GSMC. Many thought it best to avoid this survey altogether.
“I decided to not participate as I know GSMC is affiliated with some of the candidates and I was concerned that there might be accusations of slate candidacy or slander regarding the whole affair,” said David Alton, who is running for the Human Resources and Operations Commissioner.
Kimmi Snider, a candidate for Academic and University Affairs Commissioner who is not affiliated with the GSMC, thought that she would be “at a disadvantage” if she filled out the Report Card.
“[Candidates affiliated with the GSMC] did not vote or grade these reports,” said Snider. “However, they have deep connections and longstanding relationships with those who did.”
Doherty says that because candidates who run in the CSA elections are so involved in campus life, the potential for conflicts of interest is unavoidably high. Nonetheless, he says that the elections office requires all candidates to take steps to avoid those conflicts.
The elections office also requested that the Report Card contain a disclaimer explicitly stating that the grading scheme reflects the views of the GSMC, not the CSA or the electoral committee.
Doherty also suspects that the Report Card would have stirred less controversy if other student groups also took the initiative to ask the candidates for their opinions. He says more outside participation in campaigns would be a good thing.
“[The GSMC] was just the only group that came to me,” said Doherty. “If other groups expressed interest, I would have been more than happy to relay that information.”
On Mar. 4, the GSMC released the results of the Report Card along with the candidate’s responses. The six candidates who chose not to respond were given failing grades.