Julie sent an email out to her volunteers after Tristan failed his billingualism test, telling them that she didn't need as many volunteers anymore because she was running unopposed. She then went on to tell her volunteers whose campaigns to volunteer for instead, and why. Read the email here.
So. Not only did she tell these people who to support, but she wrote some very harsh things about the other candidates:
Regarding Maureen: "apparently studies in economics. Woop-tee-doo. Elle me fait peur parce que ses motivations sont vraiment pas les bonnes, elle aime pas"
Regarding RPG: "un poète philosophe, grand parleur, très petit faiseur. En comparaison avec lui, le slogan de Seamus devrait être “gets shit done”"
Regarding Michèle: "ne voit pas de discrimination ou d’impression nul part, un peu comme moi en 6ème année dans cours d’école. Genre."
Completely uncalled for.
Julie has since sent an email apologizing to those mentioned in the email:
C'est avec sincérité que j'aimerais exprimer mes excuses aux gens affectés par mon courriel privé qui a été publié mercredi en soirée, sur La Rotonde. Ce que j'y ai écris très rapidement était inapprorié et je ne l'ai pas écris avec l'intention de le rendre public. C'était inacceptable d'abaisser ces candidats. Je tiens à m'excuser personnellement à chacun d'entre eux dans les prochains jours.
Je suis responsable de mes actions et je comprends que mes propos négatifs n'étaient absolument pas nécessaires et dégradents. Les gens concernés ont fait et accomplis des projets et des initiatives en tant que leaders étudiants, j'ai plutôt mentionné quelques bêtises à mes bénévoles.
The things that are coming out regarding the so-called "slate" are really breaking my heart. Unbelievable.
En été, ça continue de bouger chez les Gee-Gees!
3 weeks ago
17 comments:
too little. too late.
So she sends out an e-mail apologizing for sending out the sladerous e-mail. So she is admitting that she sent the first e-mail and it is legitimate, thus she is guilty of "campaigning" for other candidates, no?
so it seems, so it seems.
SAC appeal is next friday. We will see what happens!
Is this SAC thing gonna be public? If not we should get it webcasted. I have my popcorn ready!
This is not something that would have been said to every tommy nobody under normal circumstances. Have you ever managed volunteers? Did you trust those volunteers and expect them to share your values if they were volunteering *for you*? After seeing this e-mail released to the public, do you think you will ever trust volunteers again? I certainly won't.
This is a clash of ideologies, don't be blinded by "rules for the sake of rules."
And don't project your hateful perceptions onto Julie. The fact that she has enough empathy to see that her words might have hurt the candidates and enough courage to apologize should be enough for you. She did not mention you, so you are not in a position to say that her apology isn't enough. The only people who matter here are the people who were personally involved.
Actually, most of your bloggers here at BOAvoice have managed volunteers.
And yes, while managing volunteers, I have trusted them and expected them to share my values. Those values being respect, and following the rules set out in the SFUO's constitution.
This isn't about "rules for the sake of rules". It's about having RESPECT for other candidates and the people you work with.
I am glad that Julie has apologized for her actions. However, I still think that it is completely unacceptable that she said those things in the first place. After having been involved with the SFUO and SAFA for a number of years, I expected more of Julie.
And anonymous, thank you for your views. I am only sharing my opinion on what is going on.
Anonymous posters make me happy :)
It has nothing to do with "trusting" your volunteers! It's not like the volunteers are releasing campaign strategies or campaign secrets here.
If the SFUO wants to act like a Union and act like grown-ups they need to realize the responsibility of that. In a grown-up political word, ALL your e-mails that relate to your public persona are PUBLIC.
But there's more of my commentary on my blog. :)
SAC Hearing!!
Friday, March 6th @ 4:30pm
FTX 232
Um, no..thats not campaigning...that's giving your personal opinion about other candidates. So fine, she did that, but she certainly didn't campaign.
If your values include obeying the constitution then clearly you don't understand what I mean by "rules for the sake of rules." The constitution is not perfect and does not necessarily reflect "the will of the students" since it has not been put to a referendum since its inception--what good is a constitution meant to guide members of a union when those members are disconnected from the rule-making process? We shouldn't allow our own judgement of what is right and wrong to be supplanted by a set of poorly worded by-laws. What was the intention of the by-law against slates? What is the "spirit" of the law (as opposed to the letter of the law)? We're just personalities on the internet and we don't have a say in the final outcome, but we can at least use our heads instead of just saying "they broke the rules!" We need to know what the rules mean, why they're in place, what they were meant to prevent, how they apply, etc. A rule is never just a rule.
Now, respect I understand. But were the accused parties alone in being disrespectful? I don't believe so. R-PG's posters were quite disrespectful to unions and to students with environmental consciences. Tristan made some disrespectful and untrue statements about Julie's achievements. "Witnesses" in this case are providing not facts but interpretations of facts as "evidence." The apellants are making public the identities of witnesses who clearly stated that they did not wish to be involved in this case. How do you define disrespect?
Please understand that I am not trying to be an ass. My tone might come across wrong because of the nature of online communication, but I really am not trying to be mean. Like you, I'm just sharing my thoughts on what is going on. We are sharing and creating knowledge, and I think that's a useful pursuit.
Anonymous, I would encourage you to attend a BOA if you are interested in the decision-making process. There is one on Sunday, at 1pm, and this is where decisions regarding the constitution are made. Meetings are open to the public. One of the reasons we started this blog was to make the meetings a bit more accessible to students.
Also, if you want a say in the final outcome, and would like to examine the spirit of the clause regarding slates, why not apply to be a member of the SAC? Then you can get a first-hand perspective and participate in the process.
Luc Roy:
So telling people to vote for certain candidates isn't campaigning for them?
I would say it is.
Ken Joly:
Sure, it's campaigning, but only if you're unable to see shades of gray in a matter like this one.
There's is a BIG difference between her telling volunteers (who we can assume she's good friends with a great majority of) that she prefers one candidate over another, and her going out and, say, doing class presentations for Seamus or Jean.
Fine, she wasn't as polite as she could have been with her e-mail, but that wasn't campaigning, that was telling people on her team that she trusted what she thought about the other races. There's an obvious distinction to be made there, and it's unfortunate if you can't make it.
Actually, the thing about the email is that it specifically says... you may not know these people, but they would make a great exec! (it's in the beginning). Also, the people she sent it to were not all her friends, and one happened to be working at La Rotonde. This emails was leaked TWICE! Clearly this wasn't meet with great regard by her "friends/volunteers".
And on "rules-for-the-sake-of-rules" Julie et al. have been at the exec or BOA for 1-3 years (3 in the case of Wolfe who served on the BOA for PSSA as VP External)... they had time to change the rules if that's what the sincerely believed in. But they didn't. Why? Because they wanted the advantage that only bending the rules can give you. That's why. And if not... then why did 3 people who have been upholding the constitution for 1-3yrs break such a plain and obvious passage of it? The only rule on elections? WHY?
Luc:
I see the shades of grey, but they do not apply to the matter at hand. If I were to send an e-mail to my friends saying, "Hey, vote for Me!" Would I not be campaigning for myself?
What if the e-mail said, "Hey, Vote for Seamus!" Would that not be campaigning for Seamus?
That is how she violated Sec 4.7.1 in the SFUO Constitution.
There is no difference in how she campaigns.
Except that she didn't say "vote for these people!"
She said "hey, I like some candidates more than I like others. I don't need volunteers anymore, but here's the skinny on who might need your help."
They weren't official volunteers of hers at the time, the campaigning period hadn't yet started and she wasn't "sharing resources" since it was the resources' choice to switch candidates. No pressure, no voter manipulation, no problem.
1. volunteers are resources, whether they signed up yet or not, especially if they ended up signing in the end
2. support this person or volunteer for this person is just as good as vote for this person
3. she asked these people to support a candidate of her choice without first being informed of these people's platforms, just based on her opinion, her very icky opinion, ew!
4. seamus and rox are understandable because she spent a year on the exec with them, but to single out michele??? i thought they were friends, close friends. i know that does not mean that julie owes her vote to michele, but to push her volunteers to support eve without seeing platforms and informing themselves first AND to say those things about her friend is difficult to swallow. she didnt even address social and uni, the other 'new' (as in non-returning) candidates, yet she backstabs her friend.
Someone posted on La Rotonde and I fear I share that sentiment:
Anonyme
“À propos de Michèle Lamarche : « [Elle] ne voit pas de discrimination ou d’oppression nul part, un peu comme moi en 6ème année dans la cour d’école. Genre. »”
C’est ça être l’amie de Julie Séguin? Vraiment bouleversant et triste…
Post a Comment