Viewport width =
July 19, 2010 | by  | in News |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

VUWSA almost fucks up by-election. Again.


VUWSA has narrowly dodged a constitutional bullet by revising the date for the first polling day in the upcoming by-election.

Had VUWSA proceeded with the original date for the first day of polling, the by-election would have breached the rules prescribed for the conduct of elections outlined in the VUWSA Constitution.

The constitution states “not less than fourteen office days before the first polling day a notice calling for applications for any position or positions to be filled shall be posted on the Association noticeboard”.

VUWSA had originally scheduled the first day of polling to be 22 July. Nominations for the vacant positions opened 12 July. A notice was placed on the Association noticeboard on the ground floor of the Student Union Building late last Monday afternoon.

The notice was placed on the noticeboard only eight office days before the first day of polling. Had the date for the first day of polling not been changed, the by-election would have been unconstitutional.

Early last week, Salient asked VUWSA President Max Hardy if he was confident that the by-election met all the obligations outlined in the constitution.

The following day Hardy told Salient there the date for the first day of polling would be changed.

The dates for the by-election were set by the election committee. The election committee is appointed by the VUWSA exec, and consists of three past VUWSA exec members or returning officers.

This near-miss follows in the wake of the botched July 2009 by-election, which was deemed invalid by an independent panel following a complaint by a student.

It was found that the 2009 by-election had not been conducted in accordance with requirements set out in the VUWSA constitution. The panel determined that the inclusion of “No Confidence” in electronic ballots did affect the election outcomes in some positions.

The Returning Officer had not provided Salient with the revised polling dates before we went to print.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Editor for 2010, politics nerd, panda fan and three-time award-winning student journalist.

Comments (1)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. peteremcc says:


    Also, vuwsa still owe me $10 for my sucessful challenge last year.

Recent posts

  1. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  2. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  3. One Ocean
  4. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  5. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  6. Political Round Up
  7. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  8. Presidential Address
  9. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?
  10. Sport

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge