Returning Officer's Rulings

Ruling MT01/07 : Websites

In response to the question “Is a link to a Facebook group valid as an external webpage?” I have interpreted the rules as follows:

a)    As has been in the case in previous elections all forms of electronic communication, including email or facebook messaging are banned.
b)    Candidates or slates will, however, be entitled to a link from the OUSU webpage to a single page of their own construction as long as it conforms to the following :
i.    It must be created on oxford university webspace, or may take the form of a “facebook group”
ii.    In either case the site may not be used to communicate with members/ visitors in any way apart from via the information on the page. Candidates should pay particular attention to point (a) above.
iii.    No site may mention any candidate apart from the candidate themselves or other members of their slate.
iv.    All facebook sites must disable the wall function
v.    Candidates must provide the relevant link by Monday of 5th week. The link cannot be changed thereafter, and neither can any content on that webpage.
vi.    Any facebook group must have the RO or a DRO as a member.
vii.    Only candidates may create a facebook group, and only the candidate and RO/DRO may be an administrator
viii.    All such facebook groups must contain the candidates JMB entry.
ix.    All such groups must be “private”, ie. they must not show up on member’s profiles.

Ruling MT01/07B : Websites                 (30 October 2007 2:15PM)

In light of technical issues strike section ix above.

Ruling MT01/07C: Websites                (2 November 2007 5.45PM)

In response to the question: "What material may be posted on a personal webpage? May any mention of candidacy or policy be made?'

In light of the following Standing Order:

3d4     The RO shall make available a page on the OUSU website for the candidate to upload a copy of their JMB entry after the close of nominations.

I Rule that any material that can be published in a JMB entry may appear on the personal webpage, or facebook group or the candidate/slate as long as they comply with the regulations in ruling MT01/07a

Ruling MT01/07d: Websites                (2 November 2007 6.00PM)

In response to the questions:

By joining the group, is someone an activist/do they have to be to join?

Can candidates/agents join the groups of candidates for other postions? What about if they are on the same slate?

Can the slate have one group for which they are all admins?

Can individuals be in more than one candidates group (which would be cross-slating if they must be activists, therefore limited to ten people?)

Can a group link to another candidate's group on your slate/not on slate?

Do you have to be an activist to invite people to join the group, and if not how could that be monitored?

I Rule that:
1.    Individuals who do nothing but join a candidates group will not be considered activists if all they do is join the group
2.    Agents and Candidates may not, however, join the groups of candidates for other positions unless they are on the same slate. No candidate may join the group of a candidate in the same election as them.
3.    Slates may not have a separate group for the slate. This is in line with SO 3d4 which provides no separate space for slate JMB entries.

Ruling MT02/07a : Activists and endorsements

In response to the question “Can an election agent for one candidate be an activist for another?” I have interpreted the rules as follows:

In line with the following regulations,

2h2      No agents may be shared with any other candidate or slate. Agents shall be entitled to represent the candidate or slate in disciplinary hearings. Candidates/slates shall be held responsible for the conduct of their agents, and for the conduct of people deemed by the RO or either Tribunal to be active on their behalf.
        
2h3.    For the purposes of the Standing Orders and Regulations, “active on a candidate/slate's behalf” means to support in word and deed a candidate or slate in an election in ways such as (but not limited to) canvassing for votes for a candidate/slate, designing and putting up publicity for a candidate/slate and giving strategic advice in relation to a candidate/ slate's campaign or to a candidate/slate's involvement in the disciplinary process,

I rule that election agents for one candidate/slate may not be activists for another.

Ruling MT02/07b : Activists and endorsements

In response to the question “The election rules would allow for example, someone putting the name of a non-activist on his manifesto as someone who has said they would vote for him but has not endorsed him. This person will not become an activist during the campaign period for whatever reason. Is it okay if these people happen to be JCR Presidents?”

I rule that putting the name of a non-activist on his manifesto as someone who has said they would vote for him will be bound by the same rules as if an endorsement had occurred.

Ruling MT02/07c: Activists and endorsements

In response to the following query:

C2h3 says the following:

"For the purposes of the Standing Orders and Regulations, “active on a candidate/slate's behalf” means to support in word and deed a candidate or slate in an election in ways such as (but not limited to) canvassing for votes for a candidate/slate, designing and putting up publicity for a candidate/slate
and giving strategic advice in relation to a candidate/ slate's campaign or to a candidate/slate's involvement in the disciplinary process."

Does this statement mean that a JCR President who endorses a candidate becomes "active on a candidate's behalf"?

If so, then given C3a3iv:

"Consistent campaigning on behalf of more than one candidate/slate by those active on their behalf. This may include but is not limited to, more than ten people active on behalf of the same two candidates.",

if 12 JCR Presidents endorse two candidates, can both candidates write "the
choice by 12 JCR Presidents" on their manifestos? Or is C2h3 referring to
campaign agents?

In line with my earlier Ruling MTO2/07b I believe that the rules indicate that any activity on the part of anyone, including saying that they will vote for a candidate in a public forum must be seen as a form of activism on their behalf. As such, if more then 10 individuals, whatever their positions, were to all indicate support for two different candidates then that could be construed as evidence of an unofficial slate, which are explicitly banned under C3a3.

Ruling MT03/07 : Previously purchased items

In response to the question referencing the election regulations that asked: “If you happen to own items already that you may wish to use in the election, would they be factored into the election budget or be priced at zero? For example, if a candidate owned a photo If they were, surely they wouldn't be costed at market value and depreciation would need to be factored in”, I rule that:

Such items will be costed at market rates if used in an election, even if they were previously owned by the candidate. Any items that are used for the purpose of campaigning will need to be captured by the expenditure limits.

Ruling MT04/07 : Media coverage

In response to a question “the standing orders seem to be unsure about whether a candidate can put comment pieces into the student newspapers once the election is under way. Do we need your permission, or is perfectly fine providing the issue is not relating to the election itself?”

C3a5. “No candidate or agent may participate in any radio or television transmission or any other media forum, which has any connection with an election or referendum, nor which functions to raise the profile of the candidate/slate between the opening of nominations and close of poll, without the specific, advance written consent of the RO. The RO shall grant consent under this clause only where s/he is satisfied that the transmission or forum in question shall give reasonably equal opportunity for participation to all candidates/slates in the election in question, or where they are satisfied that the participation of the candidate is necessary for the fulfilment of another office they hold”

In light of this I am interpreting “any media forum” as including the student press, whether print or radio. This would include any story, interview or article where a candidate is in any way asked for comment. If one candidate for a position is asked for comment then all candidates must be, subject to written permission from me. This applies to any article written by a candidate, as well as any comments made on any issue, even one not pertaining to the election that may help to raise the profile of the candidate. I believe that the words “between the opening of nominations….” clearly indicate that prospective candidates are included. When candidates are clearly commenting solely in relation to another office that they hold, such as a JCR President commenting on a story about their college then I will allow for permission to be granted in retrospect after the interview has taken place. In these cases candidates must still make every comment to attempt to get written permission beforehand.

Ruling MT 05/07: Complaint about contents of a personal website (6 November at 11.55)

On 6 November at 11.30 the following complaint was received:

Olivia Bailey's Facebook group description currently reads:

"As OUSU President my first priority will be representing your views, a commitment that I take very seriously. In this election I am being open and honest about my political affiliations. All the candidates in this election have their own political views, nobody is completely independent."

The final comment is misleading as my candidate is not backed or endorsed by any student political society and is not running on a slate. Therefore my candidate is completely and unarguably, independent. This line suggests that my candidate is lying, which again clearly untrue. This line may have cost us votes from people who will have read the group description whether or not they are members.
 
I wish to have the final sentence in the text above struck off completely and I want a public apology for my candidate added to Olivia Bailey's group description.

In line with

SO 3a4    No candidate or agent shall express any opinion about any other candidate unless s/he is either:
i.    Another member of the said candidate's or agent's slate, or
ii.    In direct competition with the said agent's candidate and/or members of his/her slate.

SO 3b7    No election material may refer by name to other candidates standing in any election, other than members of the slate (if any) upon whose behalf the election material is produced.

SO 3d7    The RO shall amend any material in any JMB entry or candidate website which
i.    Is defamatory, unlawful false or misleading.

iv.    Refers to any other candidate or slate by name.

I make the following Ruling:

There are two issues here. The first is whether Ms Bailey’s comments breach SO3a4, SO 3b7 and SO 3d7 iv which relates to referring to other candidates. The second is whether the comments on Ms Bailey’s website may be seen to breach SO3d7 i.

With regards the first issue, while both SO 3d7iv and SO 3b7 refer to explicitly naming other candidates, SO3a4 does not. In my opinion the statement on Ms Bailey’s page is clearly directed at another candidate as the statement “nobody is completely independent” is a direct reference to another campaign. As such I rule that Ms Bailey is in breach of SO 3a4.

With regards the second issue, Mr Iwu clearly does have his own political views, he lists his affiliations as being a member of the Labour Club, and I’m sure we all have political views. I don’t think that this is in and of itself defamatory.

I thus rule that Ms Bailey has until 4pm today to remove the line “All the candidates….completely independent” from her website. I also fine her slate 20 “stamps” (barcodes).

Ruling MT 06/07: Complaint about email communication between Lewis Iwu’s campaign and others(7 November at 16.00)

On 6 November at 15.56 the following complaint was sent to the RO email address:


Note:
1) SO 3b12 "Neither email nor the internet, nor any other form of electronic communication may be used for any purpose in connection with a candidates campaign."
2) The attached email sent to Stephen Longden by Jason Sarfo-Anin, Lewis Iwu's campaign agent.
3) The attached facebook message sent to Lynne Wells
4) The admission in the facebook message that an email in connection with the campaign has been sent to Kenny Young (This email will be forwarded when we receive a copy of it.)
5) That neither Kenny Young, Stephen Longden, or Lynne Wells are registered activists for Lewis Iwu's campaign.
 
We contend:
1) that the attached email and facebook are in violation of SO 3b12.
2) that Lewis Iwu's campaign should be penalised immediately for this breach of the Standing Orders.


Attachment 1: Email

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jason Sarfo-Annin <jason.sarfo-annin@st-hughs.ox.ac.uk >
Date: Nov 5, 2007 10:18 AM
Subject: Olivia Bailey and Labour Students
To: {} Email address deleted

Hey Steve,

We've met before, about this time last year when we were both helpin out Martin McCluskey with his OUSU campaign - I was a college with Lynne the year beforehand. My candidate Lewis Iwu, is running for the President of the Student Union against the University Labour Club candidate, Olivia Bailey (and now unfortunately against last minute runner and a loon candidate).

We're enjoying great support from students at the moment, even from a lot of members of the Oxford University Labour club. However due to political reasons most of them are sitting on their hands and don't want to be seen helping us - which is fair enough.

However a few have mentioned that fact that Olivia worked for Labour Students, and was forced to resign her position. I know that you know the story. I wanted to get the exact details first hand, I was hoping that you'd be able to give me the details.

Naturally, this is all off the record and if we do decide to use this info it will never be traced back to you.

Best wishes,
Jason


Attachment 2: Facebook Message
---------------
Hey Lynne,

It's OUSU Election time in Oxford once again. I'm working for Lewis as Steph pretty much knew back in March. (There are four candidates this year for President.) They are allowing Facebook this year so feel free to have a read of his stuff and tell me what you think: http://oxford.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6009008126

As it's Liv running, a lot of people in OULC are sitting on their hands which is nice. However we need a little help to get us some info. I have been told by various people that Liv was forced to resign her position in Labour Students. We'd like to know the exact detail and circumstances regarding this - in case I need to use the info.

I've already emailed Kenny Young - the chair of Labour Students, I've also emailed Stephen Longden, as I know he knows a fair bit about it. However, people are sitting on their hands and are not willing to feed me something substantial.

I'd like to ask you, if you could you put some pressure on Stephen Longden or even Kenny Young if you know him. Because of the nature of these elections, it's very easy to leak stuff without people knowing the source. So anonymity is guaranteed if that's an issue.

Otherwise I hope you are well,
Jason

 
Lewis Iwu for OUSU President
I am running as independent candidate, looking to bridge the gap between common rooms, societies, students and OUSU. It's time to support a candidate


In line with

SO3b12.     Neither email nor the internet, nor any other form of electronic communication may be used for any purpose in connection with any candidate's campaign, and no email or web site may make reference to any actual or potential candidature, except that this clause shall not apply to email communication with the RO or any disciplinary official in connection with the disciplinary process, nor to on-line editions of any newspaper, nor to the official candidate pages on the OUSU website, nor to email communication between candidates/slates and their activists.

SO3b16    Prior to the close of nominations, candidates/slates may send mailings to people to ascertain whether those persons wish to be active on their behalf, provided that:
i.    The candidate/slate had good reason to believe that the recipient would wish to be active on their behalf.
ii.    Such mailings are not sent systematically wholly or partly on the basis of lists compiled other than solely for the purposes of a campaign in the election(s) or referenda in question.
iii.    Such mailings are solely a request to be active on their behalf.
iv. Such mailings may contain the name of the candidate/slate (and, if appropriate the names of the other slate members), and a statement of which election they wish to contest or for which referendum option they wish to campaign; but may not contain any further statements or requests relating to the election(s) or referenda in question.

I make the following Ruling:

Mr Iwu’s campaign has clearly breached SO3b16iii. This is a serious violation of the Standing Orders. Moreover, the nature of the emails makes clear that Mr Iwu’s campaign is actively seeking information in order to defame another candidate. I am thus fining Mr Iwu 100 stamps (barcodes) and £10.

Ruling MT 08/07: Complaint about Email communication

On 12 November at 18.54 the following complaint was recieved at the RO email address:

From: Ellaine Gelman <ellaine.gelman@greyfriars.ox.ac.uk>
To: ouwrfc@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Elections on THUR
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:25:15 +0000


Hey Guys,

The Oxford University Student Union (OUSU) elections are this THURSDAY, and they are quite a big deal. Every student should really vote in these elections as this year is especially contentious.

A good friend of mine, Tom Lowe, is running for President and he has some great ideas about how to reform OUSU. He is really on board to help sports clubs and societies. Please check join his facebook group and check out his
manifesto at: http://oxford.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5752455761

See you tomorrow!

Best,
Ellaine

--
Ellaine Gelman
Atalanta's President
Sports Federation Publicity
OUWRFC Fixtures Secretary

In line with

SO C.3b12,     Neither email nor the internet, nor any other form of electronic communication may be used for any purpose in connection with any candidate’s campaign, and no email or website my make reference to any actual or potential candidature, except that this clause shall not apply to email communication with the RO or any disciplinary official in connection with the disciplinary process, nor to on-line editions of any newspaper, nor to the official candidate pages on the OUSU website, nor to email communication between candidates/slates and their activists.

And a Ruling by Pete Wright, last years RO with regards to a similar issue:

Whilst advertising hustings is not in itself an offence, in this instance it is clearly linked with Frank Hardee’s campaign and is a violation of Standing Order C.3b)12 which regulates use of the internet and is distinctively unfair to other candidates. Furthermore, it is a violation of Standing Order C.3b)1.ii that restricts campaign mailings to only registered activists of candidates.

Frank Hardee is therefore fined 25 barcodes, which must be handed in before the close of poll at 8:30pm on Thursday 16th November.

I make the following Ruling:

This is clearly a violation of the ban on email communication. Elaine Gelman is one of Mr Lowe’s agents, and the email is clearly related to the campaign. This was not the case in the case of Mr Hardee last year and as such I feel that the fine should be higher. I thus fine Mr Lowe 25 barcodes and £5 of his deposit.

Ruling MT 07/ 07 : Ballot Box Allocation                 10 November 2007 at 06h00

In line with S04c5 I am publishing the list of Colleges / Permanent Private Halls for whom we cannot provide ballot boxes, as well as where students from those Colleges should go to vote.

College                    Polling Location

All Souls                     Hertford
Blackfriars                     Somerville
Campion Hall                 Christ Church
Green                         St Antonys
Harris Manchester                 Mansfield
Kellogg                     St Antonys
Linacre                     Mansfield
St Benets                    St Johns
St Cross                    St Johns
St Stephens                     St Hildas
Templeton                     St Antonys
Trinity                     Balliol
Wolfson                     St Antonys
Wycliffe                     St Annes

Ruling MT 09/07: Complaint regarding contents of a poster (14 November at 22.09)

On  the 14th November 14.53 the following complaint was reiceved:

Complaint regarding posters produced by Iwu Campaign

Note:
1.    That the latest posters distributed by Lewis Iwu include the following phrase: “I am the only candidate that has given feasible and credible ideas with regards to issues such as the “No Platform” policy, central student venue and top-up-fees.”
2.    SO C.3.b: “no candidate / slate may disseminate in any form any unlawful, false or misleading material in the conduct of any campaign.”

We contend that:
1.    Olivia Bailey has put forward feasible and credible ideas with regard to the said issues.
2.    hence the statement made by Lewis Iwu is both false and misleading.
3.    hence the posters containing the said statement should be removed immediately.

In line with:

SO3b)15 No candidate or slate may disseminate in any form any unlawful, false or misleading material in the conduct of any campaign

I make the following ruling:

I believe that Mr Iwu has not breached SOC.3.b. The rule refers to false and misleading information. Mr Iwu has not contended that Ms Bailey does not have ideas on these issues, but simply that they are not credible or feasible. That only Mr Iwu’s ideas are credible and feasible is an opinion, which he is entitled to hold whether or not he can justify it. It is up to the voters to decide whether they agree that only his plans are credible and feasible.

Ruling MT 10/07: Complaint regarding the contents of a poster (14 November at 22.09)

The following complaint was received on the 13th November at 03:05
     
Find attached an image of a poster (image can be viewed in OUSU) which is arguably pretty misleading. "94% of students asked" is not backed up with a disclaimer stating the number of students asked. There is no info about the other choices available for those students to choose from, and finally, there quote suggests that that statement was made by someone. 94% of students asked can't have said the exact same thing.

In line with:

SO3b)15 No candidate or slate may disseminate in any form any unlawful, false or misleading material in the conduct of any campaign

I make the following ruling:

In my opinion the way this survey is presented is misleading, as there is no information about the sample of voters asked, or what the questions put to them were. However I do not deem it misleading to claim that 94% students said exactly this. They could have been simply agreeing to a proposition put to them. Therefore I rule that Mr Lowe is in breach of SO3b)15 and fine him £5. Mr Lowe should also take down these posters and bring them to the OUSU buildings by midday 15th November.