First off: We, the gallery, got SHUSHED - stop looking at us, FARIS. yeesh.
Fancie: blah blah hating on e-voting. (psst, it s too late. The board AND the SAC have ruled it constitutional - effing relax!) He is concerned about willy-nilly vote giveaways. He really really wants to make students e-vote ON campus
Dick: what about co-op students and people out of the country?
Speaking rights are given to Chris Saunders (I think it was Lisa who hooked him up with some floor, but I am not sure - it was two days ago!). He wants to distribute info to the Board (*distributes info to the board):
- current system: only uses two numbers - not good enough as an identifier
- physical ID prevents people voting for someone else (thereby giving people more votes than the alloted one)
- the internet is RISKY! Effing WILD WILD WEST OUT THERE! Final Frontier! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Johnathan is slammed by gender parity! sucka! get some ovaries if you want to speak!
does the board want to go in camera?
- Cam: if we do, can i give away my seat? no.
- Rob: it is detrimental to go in camera, especially for the students here; it should be public why the BOA makes the decision
- Someone (sorry, it seems I didn t note who): media FRENZY should allow for in camera (bloggers are flattered!)
- Faris, Cam, Ryan: no in camera
(gallery thinks that you shouldn t be on BOA if you can t debate something as relevant and wide-reaching as the elections in public without feeling ‘self-conscious’)
- Laura: all for going in camera - thinks they could just flip back and forth ... something something (didn t really make sense and was definitely NOT a practical solution...)
- Sam: going in camera when it is not about HR or the constitution sets a dangerous precedent
- Cheevers: supports the motion
VOTE: straight to a vote = shot DOWN! Fail. not going in camera, suckas.
(bloggers are trying to get ONLINE! EFF!)
Back to debate...
- Johnathan: ID cards don t ensure accountability
- Rob: I look like a lot people - lots of people could steal my ID (ridiculous observation, but skewers the point pretty well)! Additionally, to make sure the person is not entering someone else’s information, you would need someone to look over your shoulder anyway! POINT: ppl can (and will) fraud any system. The board should respect the ppl hired to do this job. Also, he argues that people who are that impressionable will already just vote the way their friends tell them anyway, and it is the voter’s CHOICE to give away their vote. ULTIMATE POINT: get it off the table, and let it stand since it already passed at the BOA and the SAC!
- Amy: IDing voters is not simple - references the veil issue. She thinks we are overdoing it and being too cautious. She makes the point that voters can swap at a NATIONAL level
- Cheevers: against e-voting for confusing, garbled reasons - not sure he knows what he is talking about... summary of (probable) internal monologue: what is the LEFT WING DOING?!? I want to do THAT!
- Mel: low voter turnout is why we brought in e-voting! We need to move into the 21st century! AGAIN: BOA and SAC already voted that it is constitutional! and in the best interests of our students! let s move ON!
- Ryan: troubled by the fact that candidates IN the elections are being allowed a say in this motion. He is also worried about over-turning the BOA’s OWN decision. He thinks they are abusing the system by bringing this up again when it needs less of a vote presence from the board (*correction: Federico says it is the same amount of voting presence). Ryan also makes the point that we would be taking away the WHOLE POINT of online voting - convenience!
- Lisa: worried about the fact that the BOA is divided, thinks they should just respect the board’s previous decision and stand together behind it
CHEEVERS ATTACKS with a point of order! Down, boy. Let her speak
- Seamus: he will be voting for this motion, because he wants access to more research and information before the board decides this. (blogger’s note: maybe he should have thought of this the last time they voted and decided ... instead of being entirely consumed with CFS, the board and exec could have hired Sylvia ON TIME and had this on the table IN TIME)
- Med Rep: feels like there isn t enough info - gets this across with a snarky ‘i m not friends with the right people, so I don t know anything’ ... (or something along those lines). She says she has been trying to get info, but cannot get it. She also thinks that getting students more involved in the SFUO is how to get voter turnout up (why do so many people just REFUSE to believe in apathy? Let’s take it to the next level and only let involved students vote! We will be so old school like when you had to own land to have a say!) ... She does make the good point that there is a huge difference in social attitudes between online and in-person fraud.
- Ted: says that he has lots of info and research and iterates that it is up to each board member to find it and become informed. He announces that he will abstain from the vote b/c it is a ‘devastating conflict of interest’ since he is a candidate in said election.
Chair update! Federico = lost in the rhetoric! has no idea what motion people have spoken on: ‘look guys, my job is hard!’ *shrug
** WHOA! New Motion! Amy wants to limit the meeting to ending at 4:30pm (this is allowed because they were supposed to deal with her motion earlier, but forgot...)
Debate -
- Rob: SUPERBOWL!
- Amy: People won t be able to consider the issues, because they will be distracted by wanting to go start working on campaigns
- Faris: That is what their campaign managers are for
- Lisa: I m the dedicatedest! I will stay until the END! (yeesh - you win, already!)
- Ted: Have it be over at 4:00pm to respect the elections
- Rob: football!
- Megan: wants Rob to take this seriously
- Cheevers: spazzes to Federico about Rob’s speaking rights. He tattles real good.
vote: motion fails - meeting will end when it s over
debate extended on Fancie’s anti-e-voting motion (*collective groan...)
- Michael: if it s good enough for his municipality to have SNAIL mail voting, it should be good enough for the SFUO to do online voting. The BOA would not be showing enough faith in the voters if they got rid of e-voting - nutshell: against motion
- Dick: will speak against the motion ... IF HE CAN; his voice is AWFUL - sandpaper throat! Someone got too invested in the cheer-off portion of GDT! He thinks that it would be irresponsible to take away the option now that it has been offered to the students.
(blogger’s note: we in the gallery are shocked at the resemblance of fancie and cheevers to pinky and the brain... what do YOU think, gentle readers?)
- Faris: not sure how to vote? wondering if it is overreaching to go against the SAC and their own decision? will it hurt our elections to take it away now? BOA showed poor judgment in not doing better research, but it IS decided, and the campaigns start TODAY!
- Sam: The real question is whether or not the BOA made a good decision? we don t have any new information, except opinions - and it is easy to find people for and against. So, why are we revisiting this? we decided!
- Kyle: voting against the motion
(Seamus is eating a banana! he meanders carelessly to the garbage as Antonio speaks to the issue, and doesn t seem to be upset that there isn t a composting option! just saying... Presidents compost.)
- Antonio: It would do a disservice to students to reverse the decision. The students would feel that we do not trust them, greatly affecting the relationship between students and SFUO.
- Joel: we already do SO MUCH voting stuff online - hacking is already an issue - what s the difference? He is not sure there was enough research done to bring the motion forward, and thinks it is up to the students to be excited about voting and protect their votes
- Med School: she doesn t feel it s an issue of trust. She says that students deserve a fair, safe system and it is the BOA’s responsibility to ensure that things work out that way
- Fancie: ‘Listen.’ (SO RUDE!) He is worried that someone will appeal the election. He is totally into photo ID - it s soooo much sexier that way...
(ps ‘irregardless’ is NOT A WORD, Fancie!)
Go to a vote? Yes!
secret ballot? objections? According to Federico: There is nothing specific in the constitution
- must be agreed upon by board. So are we voting by secret ballot? Yes, the motion carries.
- They take a few minutes to prep ballots...
Rob wants a roll call since we re two hours in, also notes that we did not recognize that we are on aboriginal land
3:14pm (why the only time stamp, you ask? no idea!) - Federico is distributing the ballots and explaining how to vote (which boils down to ‘write what you would say’)
Not so secret update!!!
- Amy: ‘I wrote nay’
- Dick presents gallery with phone pic of his No! ballot - noted: a heart as the dot in the exclamation point!
(maybe they should all get out their IDs so that nobody votes twice - I mean, HOW DO YOU KNOW?!?)
(another gallery idea! Allan Rock should rush in with a video camera!!)
vote: Motion FAIL! Fancie’s wackiness defeated by a reasonable majority! or a close enough version of it! (19-7-3)
The present members of the Fulcrum peace out about now. e-voting is constitutional = newsworthy enough!
Roll Call. yawn.
(part of the gallery accidentally looks up porn - yet, two of our faithful bloggers still have NO INTERWEBZ!)
