A flawed process
March 18, 2026 3:11 PM
Last Sunday, the incoming students’ union president and vice president, Olwyn Foley and Nate Minichiello, presented their selections for next year’s executive team to council. The policies of the union dictate that each year, the newly selected executive vice presidents must be approved by majority of council. The process, known as ratification, is intended to ensure those selected to be part of the new executive leadership team are right for the job. Such is the theory, anyway.
The problem is that theory doesn’t necessarily translate into reality. While the intentions of the policy are sound, the resulting decisions are not following democratic principles.
This means that, while council is elected to represent the interests of their constituents now, they should not be influencing policies of next year’s student union – which they are, by holding the final say with regards to who can be a part of it.
Further, the fact that current members of the students’ union executive are permitted in council, in-camera in fact (meaning behind closed doors) while ratification of next year’s executive is going on, is unacceptable. If councilors having a say in the matter is faulty, executive members speaking out against candidates selected to work their jobs next year is simply unethical.
If the students chose two people to serve as their president and vice president, they are demonstrating the trust they invest in that pair to lead the organization in the best direction. A part of that job is selecting a team of vice presidents to head up the numerous departments, not electing those two on the condition that the outgoing leadership will have a significant role in selecting next year’s team.
This process is akin to George Bush and Dick Cheney sitting in on Congress and dictating which members of Obama’s Whitehouse were actually “good enough” to do the job. Anyone else see the discrepancy here?
While perhaps in-camera, I don’t think it was difficult to discern the gist of what was said during last Sunday night’s ratification meeting. Those who vocally spoke out in opposition to ratification of certain candidates overstepped their bounds. It feels the same as when Stephen Harper, just days after winning a minority election, announced the cancellation of public funding to opposition parties. Simply put, it was an abuse of power that is not only permitted, but also in fact built into student government as official policy. It is perhaps not intended as that by councilors, so it doesn’t necessarily reflect malicious intent, but it is the way things are.
I think it’s a shame that Ben Burns was not ratified as VP Communications. This is not slight against the individual who comes into the position in his place, but it is to express discontent with a process that took a job away from a more than qualified and committed candidate. The fact that he was not ratified based on his activities criticizing the union, is backwards. Have I simply forgotten how supportive democrats were of republicans when Bush was in office, or vice versa during health care reform?
No. Everybody outside of power criticizes those in power – that, my friends, is part and parcel of the political game. The fact is, individuals outside of government who critique their actions do it because they want to see their representative body do what is best, and not make decisions that are ill thought out and potentially a waste of public money. The absurdity of this process is that those responsible for the decisions that Burns protested were the same ones who sat behind closed doors and influenced councilors to refuse his hiring.
Conflict of interest anyone?
I hope students think about the numerous holes in their official governing policies. This year has highlighted enough areas that are screaming out for repair, and I sincerely hope a comprehensive review and overhaul are done.
