Is there anybody out there?

Sorry for the lack of posts over the past couple of days; a weekend frought with essays and parties has brought What EUSA They to a brief standstill. We'll get back on track soon.

In the meantime, we sent Adam Ramsay this email four days ago. We're still awaiting his reply.

Dear Adam,

You have asked EUSA members to allow you to be their president. Associated with the office of president are a number of responsibilities, in particular the responsibility to be honest and accountable to EUSA members, the same members who you have asked to vote for you. So far, following your disqualification from the 2008 elections, you have failed to give any kind of satisfactory account of your actions / the actions of your campaign staff.

A Number of allegations have been publicly made against you. EUSA members have a right to know the truth about these allegations and your campaign. There is no compulsion in EUSA rules for you to maintain silence. Your appeal will not be impeded should you speak publicly about what happened.

You surely must accept that if you did indeed cheat then there would be a significant number of EUSA members who are unhappy about this. If you cheated, you cannot make the assumption that those who originally voted for you would still want you to be president.. Being a EUSA sabbatical is not simply about bending the rules so that you can get into power; it’s about having the support of the association members and office bearers, e.g. a mandate to govern. We cannot understand why you refuse to publicly fight to clear your name by giving your own account of what happened, and responding to the specific allegations made against you.

As you know, What EUSA They (http://whateusathey.blogspot.com) provide a public forum for students that is not subject to censorship in the same way the EUSA website is. Please find below a series of outstanding questions about your conduct in this election. We implore you to answer them.

1. Why have you not been forthcoming with details as to the nature of your current disqualification?
2. Did you cheat in the 2008 EUSA Presidential Election?
3. Have you ever cheated in any previous election?
4. Do you accept that members of your campaign team act on your behalf and you must take responsibility for their actions, just as you take benefits from the publicity they help you gain?
5. Did you or members of your campaign team break the rules governing permitted campaign hours at Pollock Halls of Residence during the 2008 election?
6. Did you receive a letter from Graham Boyack at any point during the 2008 election which related to you or your team campaigning at Pollock?
7. Was there a meeting for 2008 election candidates outlining campaigning rules which you failed to attend?
8. Do you think it is acceptable to break EUSA rules?
9. In your words, your opponents “kicked up a fuss” about your breach of rules – what would you have preferred them to do?
10. Did you or members of your campaign staff remove campaign posters which had been put up by the other 2008 presidential candidates?
11. If you are to be elected as president will you be able to work with Graham Boyack?
12. Do you believe that you have a close relationship with Mark Ballard, University Rector?
13. Should Mark Ballard be involved in deciding your appeal?
14. In your own words please explain why you think that you’re appeal against disqualification will be successful?

We would be grateful if you could reply to this communiqué as soon as possible.

Good luck with your appeal,

What EUSA They!

Deepthroat speaks again

As the election saga continues our man in EUSA has brought some new information to our attention.

First of all: http://www.freewebs.com/adamramsay/
This is Adam Ramsay’s old website for an NUS Campaign. In case he takes it down (and we think he will) we’ve provided you with a screenshot. Basically this shows Adam publicising his ties with University Rector, and EUSA election appeal committee member, Mark Ballard.



Secondly: During the 2007 Presidential Election there were allegations that Ramsay had been cheating, or at least making inappropriate use of his relationship with Ballard. Once a cheat, always a cheat….eh? ;)

The incident was as follows:

When Adam was running for president last year he made a youtube video, part of which was filmed in a committee room in the Scottish Parliament. There were also concerns on and off campus about the role Mark Ballard was taking in Ramsay’s campaign.

The first problem this posed was that Adam had been given an access pass to the Scottish Parliament building which was sponsored by Mark Ballard, who was at the time an MSP. Mr Ballard did not give such passes to the other presidential candidates. It seems fair to say, looking at all the evidence, that Ballard and Ramsay enjoy a close relationship. As a result of this relationship did Adam achieve an advantage in the 2007 election?

In the views of some these created a situation where Ramsay was receiving help from Ballard. The question to be answered was whether Ballard was giving this assistance in his capacity as a Green MSP or in his capacity as University Rector? Either seems an abuse of power.

An arguably dubious situation arises when looking at the first possibility, that Ballard was acting in his capacity as an MSP. There are rules governing MSPs’ use of the Holyrood parliament building. These rules prohibit the use of the building for party-political campaign purposes. Ballard denied knowledge that Adam intended to film in the committee room, and claims he gave no authorisation for such filming. No further action was ever taken about this issue.

That leaves the possibility that Ballard was supporting Adam in his capacity as Rector. This presented the equally serious problem that by advocating Ramsay, Ballard was disassociating himself with all the students who supported other candidates. Clearly, if indeed Ballard was supporting Ramsay, it was a monumentally negative step for him to take to alienate some members of the student body in such a blatant way.

For the full story read http://ww3.holyrood.com/nav/news/stories/story.asp?story=elec1187

For someone who comes from the countryside you’d have thought Adam Ramsay would have learnt that mud sticks. With so much evidence mounting up it’s increasingly hard not to dislike the guy.
We’ve emailed Adam asking for a full explanation of his actions. More on this tomorrow.

Daily Mail follows in our wake

In case there’s any confusion, we are of course trying to be facetious when we say: take a look at what the Daily Mail took time away from slating gypsies to report.

ELECTION UPSET AS DISQUALIFIED STUDENT CANDIDATE FIGHTS BACK
The student boy at a Scots university is at the centre of a voting scandal following its presidential election.
Results from the ballot for the prestigious paid sabbatical post are now up in the air after the front-runner was disqualified following an accusation of cheating.
Edinburgh University Students Association (EUSA) rules do not allow candidates to canvas in Pollock Halls, the main student residence at the university, out of designated hours.
Candidate Adam Ramsay, 22, was disqualified hours before the March 5th and 6th polls closed after his campaign team members were said to have broken these rules.
He is now appealing this decision. As a message on the Edinburgh University Students Association (EUSA) website makes clear. It says: “The Presidential result for the Students’ Association elections has been put on hols as one of the candidates appeals the decision of their last-minute disqualification for allegedly breaking election rules. Candidates and students will be updated as the process progresses.”
The returning officer is said to have noted the “series of rules” governing the election process being broken, sparking an investigation and the disqualification.”
Four Candidates were campaigning for the post including the 2007 runner-up, Mr Ramsay. In late February, early polls indicated he was the front runner.
His rivals were Nick Ward, Harry Cole and 11th-hour entrant Gabriel Arafa. The outcome of the appeal process is due to be determined in the next couple of weeks, which will naturally affect the result of the vote.
Mr Ramsay, a fourth Year philosophy and politics students said: “On Wednesday, two of my campaigners were found in Pollock outside the hours you are allowed to campaign there. I had told them not to, but they went anyway. My opponents kicked up a big fuss, and the returning officer decided to disqualify me. The other candidates knew that they could not beat me in the popular vote. I am in the process of appealing this decision. However, I am confident that I won the popular vote, and will win the appeal, so all looks positive”
Incumbent EUSA President Josh MacAlister said: “We have processes and procedure for these situations which are being followed.”

Maureen Culley, PAGE 4, The Daily Mail, Wednesday 12th March 2008


Once we got passed the initial wow factor of EUSA being in the national press we weren’t really sure what to make of the article. How relevant is it, if it even is relevant, that the article appears in a right wing paper. A link to the Cole camp maybe. Or perhaps Ward or Arafa are trying to double bluff.

In any event it still fails to provide any further insight into Adam’s appeal, or an official statement from EUSA about the facts or progress of the case.

As soon as we know more, you’ll know more.

What price democracy?

Sorry for the overload of post today but we think this is important. We have it from a trustworthy source that Adam's appeal has caused EUSA to seek legal advice and this has already cost £750. Is there not a more gentlemanly (read cheaper) way of settling all this? Or is this a necessary cost? If it ensures that the president is fairly elected and has credibility perhaps it is money well spent.

As soon as we know more, you'll know more.

Everybody keep quiet and nobody gets hurt!

The EUSA website hasn’t been updated for several days as to the progress of Adam Ramsay’s appeal. Luckily one of our readers has sent us an email that they received from Graham Boyack, EUSA’s returning officer. In the short email Graham explains that “It is hoped that the appeal will be heard this week”. Looks like we’ve got a lot more waiting to do…

When we know more, you’ll know more.

Stop me if this sounds oddly familiar...

One of our sources, and yes we are being wilfully obtuse, has sent us leaked documents from the Oxford Union Society’s Election Tribunal.

A few months ago the office of President of the Oxford Union was contested by two candidates. Candidate X ran a slate (* see below), in contravention of the Union’s rules, and also hosted a prohibited public meeting for campaign purposes; he then went on to win the popular vote. His opponent called for his disqualification on account of the electoral malpractice. Candidate X was disqualified from the election by the returning officer and banned from ever standing for the position in future! Candidate X appealed, claiming that it was contrary to natural justice to disqualify the winner of the popular vote and that the punishment was too severe. The appeal was refused.

We think it is clear that by taking this stance the Oxford Union were making the point that the most important outcome of a presidential election is that the organisation involved retains its integrity by demonstrating that its rules are fair and are made to be followed. No one candidate is above the law.

Will EUSA follow the Oxford Union’s example? As soon as we know, you’ll know.


(* we weren’t sure what “running a slate” is – we now understand it to be campaigning in conjunction with candidates for other positions; basically forming your own ‘political party’ for the purpose of the election)

Neutral Grey Is Not A Boring Colour

Since we're being attacked for partisanship (though for who no one seems to know) we thought we'd repeat our stance.

We're not for anyone. We're not against anyone. We just enjoy politics and think students should have more interaction with their representatives.

Unfortunately at the moment our representatives are engaged in some frought wrangling and we're getting flak for reporting it. We don't like cheaters. Nor would we like false accusations of cheating. So let's see what the appeal process reveals, but enjoy discussing it in the meantime.

At the very least we feel that the rules on EUSA elections are going to need tightening up to stop this sort of debacle happening next year.