King's University College Students' Council
AGENDA
Sunday Feb 9th, 2014
6:30 pm
LH 103
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm on Sunday February 9th 2014.
Followed by the singing of O’Canada, prayer and the roll call.
The agenda was adopted with the changes as included in the finalized reported agenda.
The minutes from the last meeting were moved to be approved by council, seconded, and
unanimously approved with no changes.
Speaker Announcements:
The speaker outlined the speaking rights for Council meetings as there were a number of
guests at the meeting.
Presentations to Council:
Executive Reports:
1. President – Jen Carter
2. VP Communications – Kendra Di Bacco

It should be noted that Di Bacco also read a statement from the Elections
Committee outlining the disqualification of Jon Lesarge from the King’s University
College Students’ Council Presidential election. This statement is included at the
end of these minutes in the appendix.
3. VP Events – Elise Ritchie
4. VP Finance – Bilal Javaid
5. VP Student Issues – Jon Lesarge
6.
Executive Reports are available in full on the KUCSC Website.
Questions Arising From Executive Reports:
1. Paget asked why Mary Carol Watters was invited to the appeal and indicated that since
she had experienced issues with Mr Lesarge in other unrelated matters she may not
have been impartial.

Di Bacco indicated that Andrea Jolliffe, the General Manager, had suggested that
another impartial person to the situation should sit in on the appeal. Mary Carol
Watters, the Dean of Students, offered to participate in the meeting if it would
was deemed as appropriate. Mr. Lesarge was asked if that was alright with him
and he said yes it was. Mr Lesarge also brought a friend, Sean Gareau to speak
on his behalf at the appeal.
2. Alexander Sakellis deferred his speaking rights to Sean Gareau. Mr Gareau stated that
since he did not have the document with him could Di Bacco please tell him what the title
of 9.8 of the elections bylaws is.

Di Bacco responded that the heading under 9.8 reads: Pertaining to
Reimbursement.

Gareau said that he did not think it was fair the student body at King’s was not
aware that a lot of the demerit points which were awarded to Lesarge occurred
under this heading. He went on to exert that there is a discrepancy between the
notion or reimbursements and overall budget. Gareau also stated that there was
not a statement made that gave Mr Lesarge's side of the story. Gareau said that
it took 48 hours for a Press Release to go up on the KUCSC website. He also
pointed out that some statements had been removed from the KUCSC Facebook
page.

Carter responded that the statement on the page was amended due to a
grammatical but that it had been reposted.

Di Bacco clarified that the Press Release was made public within less than 12
hours of the Committees decision. Jane Antoniak, the Communications Manager
at King’s University College, assisted in writing the press release.
3. Sacalis asked how the Committee had determined what the fair market value of Mr
Lesarge’s website was. Specifically, he asked how the Committee found out what the
value of Lesarge’s website was

Di Bacco responded that this information is available on the advertizing
company's website and the committee confirmed this information by calling
the company, Campus Creative, and saying that they were Huron College
students who wanted the exact product which Mr Lesarge had and inquired
what the cost would be. By doing this they confirmed that the website, video
and poster were all made by Campus Creative. Di Bacco went on to explain
that the Committee did this in order to obtain the actual amount another
candidate would have to pay in order to receive the same service and since
the owner of the company is a friend of Mr Lesarge they did not think they
would get an objective response if they identified themselves as the Elections
Committee.
4. Lesarge asked if the Committee had asked the Company if they would also provide the
other candidate the same product free of charge. Lesarge stated that the Committee is
supposed to uphold integrity but how can they do that if they do not use integrity in the
means with which they obtain information.

Di Bacco responded that if another candidate had called and inquired about
using the services of Campus Creative then they would have received the exact
same information which the Committee received.
5. Anderson asked if the value of the poster was also in considered in the decision.

Di Bacco responded that since the company logo was not on the poster and
there was no Campus Creative link or advertisement attached to the poster. The
Committee did not consider the fair market value of this item. The focus was on
the website and the video.
6. Soti asked if Lesarge included the cost of his website and video on his budget.

Di Bacco said no it was not. Lesarge further went on to explain that since the work
done by Campus Creative was done by donation he did not feel that he needed to
declare it on his budget.
7. Paget asked how the Elections Committee was formed.

Di Bacco explained that it had been formed by members of the Communications
Committee who did not in any way represent a campaign team and also through
volunteers from Council. All members of the Elections Committee are members of
Council.
8. Sacalis deferred his speaking rights to Gareau. Gareau stated that he had a follow up
comment. The Speaker indicated that this was the Question Period and that comments
could be expressed during the time set aside for questions and comments from the
King’s Community.
9. McColl asked when Di Bacco made her interpretation of fair market value known.

Di Bacco indicated that during the All Candidates Meeting each candidate was
told to read the elections policy where it states that fair market value is at the
discretion of the CRO. She stated at the meeting that if the candidates had any
questions about the bylaws that they should ask her. She did not discuss the
matter again until the Elections Committee Meeting.
10. Di Bacco asked when Fashion Show is.

Ritchie responded that it is March the 14th.
Presentations to Councill
Members Announcements:

Soti announced a design contest for the King's Connection

Vaughan announced that the Regis is having a story writing competition. Dead line
is February 28th.
Questions and Comments from the King’s Community:
1. Gareau asked that a full statement outlining the entire thought process around the
deliberations which went into the disqualification of Lesarge to be put forward. He stated
that since Emily Soti had to ask if Lesarge had mentioned his website or posters in his
budget it demonstrates that students don’t really understand what has taken place. He
felt that this established that students did not understand that this was an issue of
interpretation.

Soti indicated that she asked if Jon had included the value of this website and
video in his budget form because the actual budget document has not been
made public and she wanted to clarify if he had made note of the expenses in his
budget. This had nothing at all do to with how Mr Lesarge had interpreted the
Elections policies.
2. Paget stated that it might be better if Lesarge himself could post his thoughts on the
process. This would insure that Mr Lesarge’s side of the story is heard.
3. Gareau insisted that it would be better if Di Bacco or another unbiased person could post
a full account of the process.
4. The Speaker pointed out that the decision could not be overturned and cannot be
appealed any further.
5. As a point of privilege Gareau indicated that Ritchie had made a face to get him to stop
talking.

Ritchie indicated that she only wanted him to be more polite and apologized for
the misunderstanding.
6. Glenn asked if Geraugh was on Students' Council. (He responded no). Glen went on to
indicate how much she appreciates the outstanding job with Kendra Di Bacco has done
as CRO. The decision has been made and it is time to move on. (the audience clapped)

Soti requested that no further clapping occur
7. Lesarge reviewed in detail the arguments which he made to the Elections Committee.
Lesarge had a different interpretation of article 9.8 of the Elections Policy. He did not
think to ask the CRO about this because he thought he was interpreting it in the correct
way. Since it is common practise to have friends assist with ones campaign Lesarge did
not feel it was inappropriate to ask his friend to assist him with his campaign material. He
indicated that article 9.8 refers to reimbursements and not the donation of time and
money. Lesarge feels that the committee was fraudulent in asking Campus Creative for
a quote stating that they were Huron students. This is not consistent with proper judicial
practice.
Lesarge explained that there is great difficulty in determining fair market value for
websites. He went on to list various features which websites could contain which would
add to their value. He explained that his website had fewer pages than his opponents
and did not have more advanced features which would contribute to a higher market
value. Websites have regularly been used in campaigns and he feels that if labour hours
were considered then their value would exceed the budget allowance. He did not feel
that he needed to declare the value of his website because it was made by a friend. He
understood that the other candidate used Word press which is free but if one takes into
consideration the value of the hours which he used in creating that website then the
value would be high.
Lesarge was disappointed that his was not given the opportunity to defend his position
during the first meeting of the Elections Committee. Lesarge stated that there is
prescedent that when a candidate is being reviewed in such a way that he be involved.
Following his appeal Lesarge was then given the opportunity to state his case to the
Committee. Lesarge wanted it to be noted that he did offer to take down his website and
video in the hope that the vote could still go forward. Mr Lesarge underlined the fact that
it is not fair to punish him when he interpreted the policy differently.
A full copy of Lesarge’s statement is located in the appendix
8. Kahn stated that Di Bacco has explained the process in detail and she does not feel that
any further statements are required. If further clarification is required people are
welcome to contact the CRO or Mr. Lesarge at anytime. She went on to state that The
Elections Committee had to follow the policy as it is and if the policy needs to be
strengthened it can be amended going forward.
9. Di Bacco explained that the Elections Policy is a new one which was voted on last year;
however, every Council Member had the opportunity to read and amend the elections
policy this year if it was inadequate and no one took the opportunity to do so.
10. Geraugh said the he would still like to see a better explanation of the situation on the
KUCSC website so that the average student can better understand what happened.
11. Secalus asked how the Gazette knew during their interview with Mr Lesarge about his
demerit points.
12. Di Bacco responded that one demerit point had been awarded and that is what she
believes the reporter from the Gazette was talking about that when she asked Lesarge
to comment on demerit points.
13. Soti clarified that when she spoke to the Gazette she was discussing the matters
brought forth to the Honourarium Committee about Mr Lesarge not the election.
14. Lesarge indicated that he was blindsided by the question about the demerit points and
he was surprised that the reporter would discuss the demerit point issue when he
thought he had come to discuss the election.
15. Soti stated that her conversation with the Gazette was about the recommendations
made against Mr Lesarge by the Honourarium Committee regarding his performance as
VP Student Issues.
16. Carter inquired how the question asked by the Gazette was phrased.
17. Lesarge said he was asked to comment on demerit points.
18. Carter explained that the reporter was simply looking for information.
19. Lesarge stated that this seemed strange since all the other questions were regarding the
ruling by the Honourarium Committee.
20. Carter said that all Gazette interviews are taped and he has the right to ask for the tape
if he would like to listen to it
21. It was pointed out that President Carter was asked to comment for the Gazette article
but she declined to comment.
22. Carter explained that Lesarge was welcome to write a letter to the editor if he felt he had
been treated unfairly.
23. A visiting student once again questioned the issue of establishing fair market value.
24. Kahn repeated how the Committee established the Fair Market Value. Word press is a
free website. Candidate Castillo purchased a Domain Name and then created his
webpage himself. The other one was produced by a professional company, Campus
Creative. If you click on the company’s logo on the bottom of Lesarge's website it clearly
states what the prices are. Lesarge’s video is also advertized on the company’s website.
25. It was asked if Ivey Students are part of the King's Community. The Speaker responded
that yes Ivey Students could speak at the meeting as part of the greater King’s
Community.
26. Geraugh felt that there should not be different interpretations of fair market value. He
went on to say that book value is different than Fair Market Value.
27. Carter explained that this is a new policy. If there are problems we can change the policy
going forward but we cannot retroactively change the policy.
28. McColl asked if there is only one definition of fair market value then why is it up to the
discretion of the CRO
29. Soti pointed out that in the past when there was an issue with KUCSC documents we
look to the USC documents. Soti stated that this issue came up at USC and the USC
does not count the cost of labour. We have to make an effort of move forward but you
need to make an effort to make sure this doesn't happen again.
30. Bowley asked why we are still discussing the definition of fair market value. The decision
has been made and so why are we still talking about this.
31. Secalus disagreed he felt that we need to talk about fair market value further.
32. A motion was put forward to recess for 5 minutes. A recess was taken
33. Geraugh commented that there is only one definition for market value. He went on to
state that Mr Lesarge’s issue revolves different interpretations of the policy regarding
budgeting and reimbursements.
34. Steeper asked that we make a motion to move on with the rest of the meeting. The
motion was seconded.
The motion to move on to the next item on the agenda was called to question and passed
with the majority of voting members in favour.
Presentations to Council:
1. Health and Wellness Committee:
Kahn and Bowley gave a brief presentation about the Health and Wellness Committee. The
aim of the committee is to improve mental health services at King’s. They have been
involved in focus groups discussing Health and Wellness issues at King's. The Committee
welcomes comments from all students about health and wellness services at King’s. They
have tried to have focus groups for students but there hasn’t been much interest so far. She
indicated if anyone had any comments or questions they should come forward after the
meeting.
2. Follow Up Report from the Honourarium Committee:
The Committee gave a brief follow up to the recommendation which was passed by Council at
the last meeting. The statement from the last meeting read as follows:
“Our recommendation is to issue a $100 fine (cut from his honorarium). This fine is justified by
his repeated failure to communicate with the rest of the executive and the administrators,
including repeated failures to attend meetings. These failures have impeded the ability of the rest
of council to work efficiently. And strained the relationship between the KUCSC and the
Administrators.
The fine is to be donated to charity.
In the case of new complaints (in the form of a written statement from administration, a
commissioner, or two or more members of the executive), he will be automatically brought
before the honorarium committee. Additionally, the honorarium committee will meet in two
weeks to review VP Lesarge’s behavior.
Secondly, we recommend that VP Lesarge write an email apologizing to Erin Lawson, Jeff
Major, and Mary Carol Waters for his behavior. This email will be approved prior to
dissemination by either the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. And he is required to copy either the
Speaker or Deputy Speaker on the email.
The Chairperson for the Committee, Everett Aukema, stated that there haven't been any new
issues with Jon's behaviour. The letters of apology have now been written and approved. It was
noted that Lesarge’s behaviour has been improved over the past two weeks.
Soti asked why the Speaker and Deputy speaker had not been cc'd when the letters of apology
had been sent out.
Lesarge indicated that he had not been given the recommendation and as a result his letters to
the Honourarium Committee had not been sent. He said that he was not aware of what was
expected of him.
The General Manager made a point of information that this recommendation was posted on the
website along with the minutes of the last meeting.
Aukema indicated that the Committee felt that Mr Lesarge had fulfilled the requirements of his
sanctions as set out by the Honourarium Committee and hence no further action is required at
this time.
New Business
None
A final roll call was taken
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm
____________________________________________________________________________
Appendix:
1. Copy of Speech Given by CRO Kendra Di Bacco:
Before I begin, I want to clarify that the Elections Committee, comprised of 12
individuals on the KUCSC, is a discretionary body with the right to make decisions regarding
elections in accordance with the elections policy. The Elections Committee makes all decisions
with intention to uphold principles of fairness, democracy and to protect the reputation of
King’s University College and the King’s University College Students’ Council.
While I, as the Chief Returning Officer (or C.R.O), am responsible for presenting issues
and evidence to the Elections Committee. I am not, however, allowed to be present during the
committee’s deliberations. As a non-voting member, I am also not allowed to offer my opinion
toward the final decision. It is my responsibility as CRO to present the decision of the
Committee, as well as the reasons and explanations of its members, to Council tonight.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 10:00 PM, I held all-candidates meeting for anyone
interested in running for KUCSC President. This meeting was attended by two potential
candidates: Mr. David Castillo and Mr. Jonathan Lesarge, who at the time were asked to submit
three forms: 1) Their nomination form, 2) Their proposed budget, and 3) A list with the names
and signatures of their campaign team members. While both candidates submitted their
nomination form, they failed to submit their proposed budget and campaign team list. I
informed both candidates that, as per elections policy, the two missing forms were to be
handed in prior to the start of the campaign period (which runs from February 3, 2014 to
February 10, 2014). The meeting was roughly an hour in length and during it I went over several
rules and regulations as stated in the elections policy. Both candidates were welcome to
contact me if they had any future questions or concerns, or if they needed any further
clarification regarding certain terms or sections.
At 11:59 PM on February 2, 2014, prior to the start of the campaigning period, I had
received the following documents from the candidates:

David Castillo: Nomination form, proposed budget, and a soft-copy of his campaign team
members.
Mr. Castillo handed in the hardcopy of his campaign team members (names and signatures) on
the morning of Monday, February 3, 2014. However, as per elections policy 9.8.2, any
candidate who submits forms after the deadline is to receive demerit points at the discretion of
the CRO. As such, Mr. Castillo received one (1) demerit point.

Jonathan Lesarge: Nomination form
The afternoon of Monday, February 3, I also informed Mr. Lesarge that he would be receiving
one (1) demerit point for not handing in his forms prior to the deadline. By midnight of
Monday, February 3, despite my reminder email, Mr. Lesarge had not yet submitted his
proposed budget, or his campaign team form. An email reminder was sent the morning of
Tuesday, February 4:
Hi Jon,
I am still waiting on your proposed budget and your campaign team list. These were
supposed to be handed in on Sunday night before campaigning started. Both items need
to be submitted and on my desk by midnight tonight or more penalties will occur.
I received an email (i.e. soft-copy) from Mr. Lesarge the evening of the 4th with the names of his
campaign team members, as well as his proposed budget. He stated that he would submit the
campaign form in person the following day. He followed this email with another asking if I could
send him the campaign team form. It is to be stated that while both candidates only received
one copy of each form, additional copies could have been requested prior to the submission
deadline, or taken directly from the KUCSC website.
By the afternoon of Wednesday, February 5, I had yet to receive the hardcopy of either form, so
I sent another reminder. I explained to Mr. Lesarge that he was required to submit a hard copy
of both forms, that he had been reminded several times to do so, and that for him to ask for a
form after the deadline was inappropriate. I informed Mr. Lesarge that the Elections Committee
would be notified of his actions, primarily his failure to follow expectations in regards to
handing in important forms.
Upon receiving a hard copy of the campaign team list, it is to be noted that the name and
signature of Mr. Lesarge’s campaign team manager was missing. Mr. Lesarge explained that he
was not available to have the individual sign the form, and that he would so as soon as possible,
thus marking his campaign team form as incomplete.
This was the first of two issues brought to the attention of the Elections Committee. Due
to the fact that a hard copy of Mr. Lesarge’s forms were not submitted prior to the start of the
campaign, and given that one of his forms was still considered incomplete on the third day, the
Elections Committee assigned Mr. Lesarge 1 point per missing form per day (5 points). The
Elections Committee also felt that Mr. Lesarge should not have needed several reminders from
the CRO., therefore he was assigned 2 points per every email reminder (4 points). The total
number of demerit points assigned was 9 demerit points. In his appeal process, Mr. Lesarge did
not appeal to have these points reconsidered, so they have remained at a fixed 9 points.
Mr. Lesarge agreed that these demerit points were assigned appropriately. KUCSC Office
manager Andrea Jolliffe, acting as an advisor to Council, and Dean of Students, Mary Carol
Watters, agreed that the Committee had handled this issue in accordance with policy.
The second issue brought to the attention of the Elections Committee was that of clause
9.8.1 which involves “fair market value”. Within the policy it clearly states that the term ‘fair
market value’ is to be determined by the C.R.O. The principle of fair market value is upheld in
order to ensure a level playing field between those involved in KUCSC elections. The principle
helps to mitigate any personal or professional connections a candidate may hold in order to
prevent one candidate having a significant advantage over another. This means that even if one
candidate had access to free/discounted resources, it should be considered as if the other
candidate was expected to pay the visible value of that resource.
After deliberation, the Elections Committee felt that this professional service made for
an uneven playing field – not because Mr. Lesarge was receiving them, or because of the quality
of the material (which is comparable to Mr. Castillo’s website); rather, because Mr. Lesarge had
allowed for the company to do two things: 1) Advertise the name of their company on Mr.
Lesarge’s campaign website, 2) Place his campaign video on their website portfolio. These two
items immediately placed a value on Mr. Lesarge’s campaign as significantly greater than that
of his $100 elections budget. If any candidate were to access Mr. Lesarge’s website, in
comparison to Mr. Castillo’s, s/he would be under the impression that the site – despite being
created through an in-kind donation – was valued at nearly $600. The Elections Committee felt
that Mr. Lesarge should have reasonably known about the $100 budget, and that he should
have come forth with questions regarding any clarification. He was therefore assigned the
maximum of 15 demerit points for a substantial misrepresentation of fact – totaling 24 points
and disqualifying him for campaigning.
During his appeal Mr. Lesarge stated that he had interpreted the term ‘fair market
value’ differently. The Elections Committee informed him that as per elections policy the term
is defined by the C.R.O, and that it would have to follow that definition. The Committee
reevaluated its stance on the 15 demerit points previously received. After deliberation, it was
decided that because of the website and video (clearly holding a fair market value of over the
$100 maximum campaign budget) that:
2 demerit points per day of campaigning for the website and 2 demerit points per day of
campaigning for the video would be given out. Due to the fact that on Thursday, February 6 the
issue was under appeal, this day was excluded. As such, after reevaluation and deliberation, the
Elections Committee assigned a total of 12 demerit points in place of the original 15.
Monday, Feb 3 – 2 demerit points per video + 2 demerit points per website
Tuesday, Feb 4 - 2 demerit points per video + 2 demerit points per website
Wednesday, Feb 5 - 2 demerit points per video + 2 demerit points per website
Totaling: 21 demerit points making Mr. Lesarge ineligible to run for KUCSC president.
2. Elections Committee Statement:
February 7, 2014
To: All Council Members,
This letter is being sent by the C.R.O., Kendra Di Bacco, representing the
Elections Committee. I would once again like to remind you that the Elections
Committee is comprised of 12 individuals on council, and that they are a discretionary
body with the right to make decisions regarding elections as they see fit. While I
presented evidence to the Elections Committee as the C.R.O., I am regarded as a nonvoting member, and was not part of the decision making process and was not present
during deliberations.
The Elections Committee makes all decisions with intention to uphold principles
of fairness, democracy and to protect the reputation of King’s University College and the
King’s University College Students’ Council.
On Wednesday, February 5 Elections Committee held a meeting in regards to
various issues brought to the attention of the C.R.O. After a unanimous decision,
Elections Committee found multiple infractions on behalf of candidate Jonathan
Lesarge, thus awarding him a total of 24 demerit points. Please note that a total of 20
demerit points or higher means a candidate is ineligible to campaign any longer.
The first issue brought to the attention of council is that Mr. Lesarge failed to
hand in his campaign team form, as well as a proposed budget prior to the campaign
date of Sunday night as made clear by the C.R.O. Both these items are considered
necessary as per the elections policy, but it does not state that a candidate is ineligible
to run without them. Jon was also sent two reminder emails (one sent Monday, one sent
Tuesday) regarding this issue. Due to the fact that a hard copy of Jon’s budget was not
on the desk of the C.R.O. until Wednesday and although the campaign team list was
there and it was just missing signatures, the Elections Committee felt it fit to award Mr.
Lesarge 1 point per missing form per day, plus 2 points per every reminder sent out, as
they felt this shouldn’t have even been necessary to send reminders, as these forms
should have been delivered according to deadlines. Therefore:
Monday Feb 3 – 1 point per missing budget, 1 point per missing campaign team
form
Tuesday Feb 4 - 1 point per missing budget, 1 point per missing campaign team
form
Wens. Feb 5 – 1 point per incomplete campaign team form
Plus 2 points per reminder email sent (both Monday and on Tuesday).
Totaling 9 demerit points
The second issue at hand that was brought to elections committee was that of
clause 9.8.1 which involves “fair market value”. As determined by the C.R.O, the
principle of fair market value is upheld in order to ensure a level playing field between
those involved in KUCSC elections. The principle helps to mitigate any personal or
professional connections a candidate may hold in order to prevent one candidate having
an advantage over another. This means that even if the candidate had access to
free/discounted resources, the candidate will be expected to pay the same value as any
other reasonable person would be expected to pay.
Both Jon’s website and video were done via a company called “Campus
Creative”. After deliberation, the Elections Committee felt that this professional service
made for an uneven playing field because if another candidate had wanted these
services, he would have had to pay well over the $100 budget set at fair market value.
The Elections Committee felt that Mr. Lesarge should have reasonably known about the
$100 budget, and should have come forth with questions regarding this issue. Therefore
he was awarded the maximum of 15 demerit points – totaling 24 points and
disqualifying him for campaigning.
On Thursday, February 6 Jon put forth an appeal (as allowed by elections policy)
to the advisor of council, Andrea Joliffe as well as Mary Carol Waters. Andrea and Mary
Carol felt it was their role to ensure that all policy and standards were being upheld in
the decision making process. After meeting with the C.R.O and Jon to review, it was
suggested by all that Jon bring his appeal towards Elections Committee and that they
reevaluate based on his evidence brought forth. At this time it was confirmed that all
policy and standards were upheld, and all parties were made aware that the decision of
the Elections Committee after hearing Jon’s appeal would remain final and could not be
appealed a second time.
That night, Jon met with elections committee and was provided time to explain
his stance as well as answer any questions elections committee had. After this, Mr.
Lesarge left and the policy was reviewed by the C.R.O. before she left as well so that
the Elections Committee could make their decisions.
The Elections Committee, after hearing all evidence felt that the 9 points should
still stand for failing to submit forms. The 15 points awarded was the major issue that
was re-evaluated. After deliberations, the Elections Committee felt that according to
clause 9.8.1 stating “the maximum amount of money that a candidate may spend on
his/her election campaign is $35 at fair market value excluding a Presidential election
campaign and externally elected Vice presidential campaigns, which allows for a total of
$100. Fair market value will be determined by the C.R.O.” that the most problematic
issues at hand were both the campaign website and campaign video, both of which are
evidently created by the company “Campus Creative” and gave unfair advantage and
benefits to Jon over the other candidate.
The elections committee felt that if another candidate were to try to obtain these
resources from the same company, they would not have been able to under the $100
budget, and this therefore gave an unfair advantage in the campaign process.
The Elections Committee recognized that Jon may have interpreted this
in a different manner, but felt that it clearly states in policy that the C.R.O. is who
creates fair market value standards, and that this standard was put in place to prevent
giving a candidate a “leg up” in the competition.
Therefore, the Elections Committee reevaluated their stance on the 15 demerit
points previously received. After deliberation, it was decided that because of the website
and video (clearly made by Campus Creative as the video is displayed on their website,
and the company is listed as creators at the bottom of Mr. Lesarge’s website) that this
gave an unfair advantage over the other opponent for multiple days and that:
2 demerit points per day of campaigning for the website and 2 demerit points per day of
campaigning for the video would be given out. Due to the fact that on Thursday,
February 6 the issue was under appeal, this day will be excluded.
Monday, Feb 3 – 2 demerit points per video + 2 demerit points per website
Tuesday, Feb 4 - 2 demerit points per video + 2 demerit points per website
Wednesday, Feb 5 - 2 demerit points per video + 2 demerit points per website
Totaling: 12 demerit points
Therefore after reevaluation , the appeal process and deliberation, the Elections
Committee awarded a total of 21 demerit points making Jon ineligible to campaign for
KUCSC President any longer.
Please contact me with any further questions you may have.
3. Statement Given by Jonathan Lesarge:
Firstly, thank you all for attending this meeting on such short notice. I truly am grateful that you
were all able to bring your open minds to hear my appeal.
1. I had a different interpretation on article 9.8- Respectfully, I say, I was not
irresponsible in not asking when I had a question; I simply thought that my
interpretation was correct, so why would I ask questions? Since it is a well
established practice for candidates to have friends offer them help with the creation
of campaign features, such as websites, why would I consider this to be an unusual
practice in my case. The article in question is written in a manner that addresses
reimbursement, not the allowance of donated time and money. Since that is not
addressed in writing, it is my belief that my different interpretation is valid and
ought to be discussed.
2. I also believe that this committee was guilty of severe malpractice when they called
my friend under a fake alias, pretending to be a student from Huron. I believe such
behavior is fraudulent in its very nature and, consistent with proper judicial
practice, corrupts any and all information that resulted from the phone call. I also
believe that it was a very inaccurate and non-objective way to establish “fair market
value” which is not so simple as calling a shop under false pretences.
3. There is, in fact, great difficulty in evaluating the “fair market value” of websites.
The objective observer will note that my website is of comparable quality to David’s
website, as well as previous websites used in King’s Presidential campaigns.
According to webpagefx.com, a professional website designer, multiple factors go
into pricing the “fair market value” of websites. The number of pages, quality of
services, and labour hours are all factors that must be considered and evaluated . My
website is one page, with no professional-grade services. It does not have a content
management system, search engine optimization, flash, or e-commerce features.
Furthermore, the labour hours came in the form of an in-kind donation by my
friend, and were not extensive, and I did not feel I needed to declare them given my
interpretation of article 9.8. Finally, how do we know what the “fair market value”
was of the hours that went into creating David’s website – and how do we judge
that? The assessment of fair market value seems to be very selective in its
application to my website alone. Does that seem fair? I understand that there are
rules to ensure there is an equal playing field for all candidates, but if you honestly
look at my website and David’s, can you really say there is a discrepancy in the
quality? In their “fair market value”??
4. I am also disappointed that I was not given a right of reply. When this committee
discussed the issue of my budget and my website’s impact on my budget, I was not
permitted an opportunity to defend and explain myself. Had that been given to me, I
would have explained my different interpretation of Article 9.8, and how I thought it
only pertained to reimbursement, as its title indicates, and how it does not touch on
tangible or intangible donations.
5. Could I also ask everyone to consider the implications of retroactive punishment? I
think it is abundantly clear that there are two, equally valid, interpretations of
Article 9.8 and that we can all agree that it needs to be rewritten going forward.
However, since there are two competing interpretations that both carry validity, I
think it is unfair to punish me for not sharing the same interpretation as this
committee. If this committee wishes to definitively say one interpretation is correct,
I will respect it. I am willing to take down my website and/or video if it is the wishes
of the committee. However, respectfully, it is my opinion that, it is unfair to punish
me with demerit points for having a different interpretation on Article 9.8 when
there was no clear ‘correct interpretation’ at the time of my actions.
It is essentially like having your family or roommates establish a swear-jar without
telling you and then, when you swear, they force you to pay up. This would clearly
be unfair, because if you knew there was a swear-jar you would behave differently. I
see this as a parallel example to what we have here; if I knew that my interpretation
of article 9.8 would be considered wrong by this committee, I would not have gone
about creating a website in the manner that I did. I would have acted differently to
adhere to this committees interpretation of the rules. So please do not make me pay
money into the swear-jar.
6. Lastly, I would just like to highlight that at the end of the day, we do still have a level
playing field. David and I both have comparable websites, and to be completely
truthful, it is my belief that with the committee’s previous interpretation of Article
9.8 both websites should be found illegal since we do not have a parallel mechanism
to, fairly, evaluate what the “ fair market value” of the effort that was put into
David’s website would be
. Finally, I plead for this committee to allow the democratic process to continue;
allow David and I to complete this election based on our merits, and let the students
decide who they want their President to be. Thank you again for your open minds
and your time.