October 11 2013 University of Kings College

To the Chair of the Kings Student Union, As members of the Kings Student Union, you are given the right to vote, to express your opinions and to take a stand when you feel something is unjust within our community. Our names are Carli Gardner and Tiphaera Ziner Cohen. We are both first-year students with a passion for our fellow Blue Devils. Earlier this year, we both chose to express this love for the school by choosing to run in the fall elections for the Kings Student Union as First Year Rep and Arts Rep, respectively. It was this commitment and passion for serving Kings that led us to write this letter. On October 8th, two hours before the speeches were set to begin, we were contacted for the first time by Oliver Burrows, Chief Returning Officer, regarding the procedure of the upcoming election. This was the only contact we had received regarding the election process over the course of our campaigns. No procedural matters were ever discussed and while the rules were outlined in the Nomination Package, we first years were not given any guidance as to how this process works. We believe that the lack of communication between the Election Committee and candidates has resulted in our disqualifications, and while we acknowledge that the KSU is not entirely in the wrong, we feel as though we have been slighted by the Union that is supposed to represent us. While we may be first-years, we feel as though our drive and passion to represent and better this community has been stifled. We believe that belonging to the Kings Student Union means that a just democratic process is entitled to us. This means that in running for a position, an understanding of the process should be discussed and clarified prior to the start of elections. Not only was this not the case, but even in attempts to do so, little effort was put in to ensuring that the candidates were fully aware of what this means. This past year, the KSU Procedural Handbook was amended, which means that much of the guidelines that this election adhered to had never been explained to first-years before, simply because we were not here for its establishment. Under section 3 of the amended Procedural Handbook, article 35 states open and obvious campaigning must cease by midnight the night before the first day of elections. This is extended to include online material as well as posters. While both of us made sure we were aware of the locations of said posters, there was an inevitable confusion over the whereabouts of these posters following the election speeches. While we do not deny that a few posters may not have been

October 11 2013 University of Kings College

disposed of properly, the effort put into campaigning ended up causing our disqualification. It is not only unfortunate that our desire to better our community was what caused our downfall, but the ambiguity in this rule further prevented us from ensuring proper adherence to this section at all. Section 35 states that the existence of live websites and social media must be taken down. As candidates, we both ensured that our Facebook pages were offline before midnight. However, we did not assume that the presence of posts regarding the election within our classs Facebook group would be considered a breach of this, an assumption that was never clarified or clearly outlined in article 35 of the procedural handbook. Another critical part of section three is article 40, which states: If a candidate breaks any of the above rules (articles 33 through 37), the Elections Committee will hold an immediate vote on whether to disqualify him or her. Not only were the members of the Election Committee not made clear to us, but also their decision to meet following our disqualification was kept quiet and again prevented us from voicing our concerns. This essentially ratified a disqualification that was neither explained to us nor formally voted upon before balloting began. In addition to the Election Committees breach of the procedural handbook in simply removing our names prior to voting, we were not formally informed of our disqualification. Rather, we heard by word of mouth. This situation is evidence in itself to support the claim that the Committees lack of communication with its candidates, especially us first-years, was ultimately what caused our disqualifications. It is this direct violation of Article 40 that have led us to file this appeal. Under article 67 of the Procedural Handbook, should any candidate(s) feel that the Elections Committee violated elections regulations outlined in the Procedural Handbook, the candidate(s) may make an appeal. In simply disregarding our right to not only know of our disqualification directly, but also of unilaterally deciding to disqualify us without voting on it prior to our removal from the ballot, we feel as though it is only just that we respond in this manner. In addition to the inability of the Election Committee to formally inform us about our disqualifications, the Elections Committee failed to abide by article 68, should a candidate be disqualified from an election during [] the Elections Committee shall reschedule. Not only was this not the case, but by allowing the election to continue without informing the voters prevented them from making fair decisions on how to vote. While we recognize our downfall as candidates, our reason for choosing to write this is to point out the unjust way in which this situation was dealt with. The purpose of the KSU is to inform and

October 11 2013 University of Kings College

involve the members of this community, and disqualifying candidates based on vague terms that were not vocalized extensively simply goes against this. While the Elections Committee attempted to ratify their actions by voting after the fact, it does not take away from the manner in which the situation was dealt with overall. We believe that the manner in which this was dealt with simply silenced our voices and went against the democratic ideals that the KSU, and the Elections Committee suggest they are founded on. The reason for writing this letter is not only to address the obvious miscommunication that occurred throughout the election process but for the KSU election process to be ratified. In essence, we hope that our disqualifications will make future KSU elections more accessible and straightforward for future first year students who like us, have a passion for contributing to the Kings community. With respect, Carli Gardner and Tiphaera Ziner Cohen