Dear Owen,
Thank you for your reply – as we have previously discussed, it has taken us a little longer than intended
to provide the full response that your complaint requires. My apologies for this delay. On behalf of the
Referendum Committee, I will respond to each of your grounds for complaint in turn.
1) The Referendum Committee’s decision to change the text of the question
The Referendum Committee would like to reiterate its original position on this matter. We believe that it
is best practice to not put a leading question before the electorate. We stand by our judgement that the
original question was leading, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the statement that Veolia Is complicit
with violations of international law. We also stand by our judgement that we are not a competent body
to assess the factual accuracy of this statement – though we would like to make clear that it is the first
element of our judgement that took primacy in the forming of our view. We similarly note again that the
email you received from Rahul Mansigani could not be a guarantee that the question would be put to
the electorate in the way it was originally framed, as Rahul was not a member of the Referendum
Committee which would have to make such a ruling, as such a Committee had not yet been formed.
You are correct when you state that “the D&D team’s decision was made in abstraction from the
particular question at hand”. That is their role: to interpret the constitution, and therefore to adjudicate
on what powers the Referendum Committee possesses.
Please find the relevant minute of the Referendum Committee’s meeting to make this decision (subject
to D&D’s approval that it had such a power) – I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to you
for you not having received it earlier. As you can see, the minute reflects the arguments I have
communicated to you so far.
2.) The Referendum Committee’s decision not to correct factual errors in the ‘No’ campaign’s flysheet
I can confirm, insofar as I am aware, that there is not a precedent in the Referendum Committee
intervening to correct factual inaccuracies in previous referenda. This is based on the minutes of
previous Referendum Committees and on inquiries made of Rahul Mansigani (the last CUSU Officer to
run a referendum in Lent 2011).
The Referendum Committee stand by their original judgement on this issue and consider that it is the
role of campaigners to correct perceived falsehoods in the course of the campaign, and do not consider
themselves to be a competent body to make such judgements. However, we will recommend as good
practice for future referendums that the Committee seek flysheets much earlier than their publication
date, so that these issues might be addressed at an informal level.
3.) The lack of physical ballot boxes in colleges
As previously outlined, we did not believe it possible or constitutionally necessary to hold physical ballot
boxes. Moreover, there was a distinct (and understandable) lack of willingness from Common Rooms to
run ballot boxes on behalf of the Referendum Committee, and it would have been unfair to make that
provision available in some Colleges but not others. We share your frustration in this regard, but the
Referendum Committee took the decision to prioritise students having equal opportunity to access the
ballot over a patchy system of College ballot boxes.
4.) The irregularities with the online voting system
We fully share your concerns on this matter, and fully apologise for the technical difficulties we
experienced with the CUSU voting server on Friday 21st October. We experience similar issues every year
with our electoral roll – this is due to not receiving up to date electoral rolls from Student Records or the
Computing Service each year which fully capture the list of eligible voters. It is something we continue to
work on – however, until the University knows how many students it has and who they are, it is
extraordinarily difficult for us to maintain a fully comprehensive electoral roll.
5.) The lack of substantive information about the referendum in the CUSU bulletins
You are correct that the CUSU Bulletin did not contain extensive information about the issues involved.
However, it did include a link where all such information could be found, which we regarded as
sufficient to inform the electorate. However, we will take this comment on board for future
referendums.
We do not share your conclusion that these issues severely curtailed turnout such that quoracy could
not be achieved. We note that the referendum was at least 1,200 votes off quoracy.
The outstanding rulings of the Referendum Committee (including this one) will be placed on the CUSU
Referendum page tomorrow.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks on behalf of the Referendum Committee for
your participation in the ‘Yes’ campaign, and the courteous way in which you have brought issues and
complaints to our attention.
Please do not hesitate to get in contact again if you have any further concerns you would like to raise,
Best wishes,
Morgan Wild
On behalf of the CUSU Referendum Committee