Launch Slideshow
Page 1
Students\' Union

Barski taking SU election to review board

Petition alleges anomalies in online voting system

Publication YearIssue Date 

The Students' Union Review Board will hear a petition regarding the SU General Election, filed by failed presidential candidate Phil Barski.

On the afternoon of Wed., Mar. 3, the review board, the judicial body that oversees the SU, released a notice announcing a public hearing will be held Thu., Mar. 18, 2004. The petition, posted on the window of the SU offices, was filed by Barski on behalf of himself and 14 other members of Barski's Cabinet.

The petition alleges three things: that on Tue., Feb 10, the first day of voting, the online voting system "experienced great difficulty" and experienced downtime; that these periods of downtime reoccurred over the course of the election; and that voters' ballots were closed, candidates were pre-selected and there were "other anomalies throughout the online system."

The original petition claims these errors were the result of flaws in the voting system provided by Sorex Software Inc.

The announcement comes just one week after Sorex Software issued a letter in response to allegations surrounding the validity of the online voting.

In the letter, Sorex Software Director Marc Wrubleksi assured SU Chief Returning Officer Shuvaloy Majumdar that the "integrity of the data is intact." Wrubleksi admitted there were problems for some voters accessing the system, but blamed these on an unusually large ballot size. He added that students who experienced problems were able to resubmit their votes, and that all successfully collected ballots were collected in full and uncompromised.

When asked about the review board case, Wrubleksi declined comment until he was able to look over the official complaint.

The petition claims irregularities affected "the overall val- idity of the 2004 SU election" and the errors "compromised the election result." Furthermore, the petition asks for "an independent audit conducted by an independent source," to remedy alleged by-law infractions.

Barski could not be reached for comment, however, Hardeep Sangha, who worked on the Barski's Cabinet campaign, told the Gauntlet: "fuck you, read the Calgary Herald."

SU President Jayna Gilchrist said it would "not be appropriate to comment" immediately following the announcement.

Neither Majumdar nor Review Board Chair Arlene Blake could be reached for comment before deadline.




Barski signed it as "President of the Dinos Athletic Advisory Council", even though he's submitting this as the head of "Barski's Cabinet"... Weird.

Is it petty of me to point this out? Wait, I don't care.

Page 7: As the Online Voting system was not online one Tuesday, February 10th, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. the voting was unable to start and voters where unable to being voting at the stated time. This affects the overall validity of the 2004 SU election. This inability to vote persisted to vote and only a handful of voters where able to vote through the date.

Page 11: At this time for the above reasons we feel an external audit is necessary for the listed reasons.

If only his cabinet had included a position for 'proofreader'. "Where" and "were" - don't underestimate the power of an H.

There is other little problems with it too. For instance, it references the election procedure section 2. If you look at the election procedure, this section is completely irrelevant to the application. What was meant by the application was to reference the online election procedure section 2.

I wonder if errors like that are grounds to throw the whole thing in the trash?

"The Trash is where Gavin will be living after May 1st."


but really...i'm interested to see how Barski's case will turn out.

One of Barski's claims does have merit. Jayna was in a conflict of interest during the election. As a member of that committee I never once heard that she had officially resigned. During the election, and as early as the conclusion of the all-candidates meeting, I saw her putting up posters for candidates running in the election.

I would assume that when someone resigns from a committee its members would be informed. This did not happen. I recall that she sent out a general email on the list serve stating that she was no longer on the EPC when people started questioning the situation. However, there was no official notice given and I have emails addressed to the EPC with her as a recipient, which would indicate that she was still a member.

But did this have any great effect on the election? Who knows. I would agree that this election suffered from various errors that could have easily been prevented - had there been any kind of organization or preparedness. Then again, this is a trademark of all SU elections. And it's no longer quirky - it's absurd and just plain stupid.

If I could Barski, i'd let you take my place and rock what's left of this broken-down SU houseboat. Too bad you guys didn't get more folks in, i'm so disenchanted and exhausted now (courtesy of this year's exec, thanks guys and gals!) that I wouldn't mind seeing the place shook up a bit.

Ah well, better luck next time right? :)

If members from Barski's Cabinet want to take it to Review Board, they have succeeded in doing what they can. I'm not sure it's the most sound document, and I'm not sure if it's going to turn out the way he wants it to, but it's his right to do so, and I'm glad he did it.

Beth if you're so disenchanted why don't you just resign then? If you're gonna bitch about things, then is it necessary to have you around the table? (how's that for stirring things up a bit?)

Check the scans marked page 9 and page 10. It seems as if Mr. Barski doesn't always spell his name the same way. Is it one L or two L's?

It's so riddled with errors that I don't think that application would have passed the effective writing requirement.

OH MY GOD, the grammar is bad. Let's all just shoot our selves.

Wow, an election is seriously flawed and now everyone is all of a sudden an English teacher. Who cares, Barski's Cabinet only had a small amount of time to submit this report, oh yah, and they also go to school. Leave them alone!

"A small amount of time"? It took me less than five minutes to not only read the document, but also to pick out multiple errors. If they truly care about this petition, then why not show a shred of professionalism by taking a few minutes to read it over for mistakes?

i havent seen anything about it in the Herald yet. that gamble sure didn't pan out for them, did it?