Thank you for voting!
We appreciate everyone who took part in the referendum and made their voice heard. After carefully tallying all votes to ensure accuracy and transparency, the results are officially live.
Referendum results are live, and next steps will be shared by our Board of Directors in the coming weeks and months.
For any questions, please reach out to the Elections and Referenda Officer at ero@wusa.ca.
In May, the Waterloo Undergraduate Student Association (WUSA) received a member-submitted petition requesting a referendum. After deliberation by the Elections and Referenda Committee (ERC), the ERC formally recommended questions to Board. Your WUSA Board of Directors approved the recommended questions, meaning the referendum process is officially in motion.
Referendum Questions
Should the University of Waterloo sever its partnership with Technion-Israel Institute of Technology due to its role in the research and development of technology used by the Israel Defense Forces?
Yes Vote: Supports WUSA adopting a position that the University should sever its partnership with Technion-Israel Institute of Technology due to concerns about its involvement in technology used by the Israel Defense Forces.
No Vote: Supports WUSA adopting a position opposing the University’s severing of ties with Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.
Should the University of Waterloo review its partnerships and investment portfolios to ensure alignment with Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) principles and Amnesty International, to prioritize institutions that demonstrate a commitment to human rights, peace, and international law in a manner that is timely and transparent to the undergraduate student?
Yes Vote: Supports WUSA adopting a position that the University should review its partnerships and investments to ensure they align with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles and Amnesty International’s standards, prioritizing institutions committed to human rights and peace.
No Vote: Supports WUSA adopting a position opposing the review of partnerships and investments,
maintaining the current approach without additional scrutiny for ESG and human rights alignment.
Your Voice, Your Vote
The voting period runs from October 1st-6th.
Vote below and make your voice heard.
Allegations & Appeals
Allegation: Submitted 09/30/2024
Complainant: M. Cimetta
Defendant: Yes Committee 1 and Yes Committee 2
Alleged Election Procedure that was violated:
- Campaigning outside of campaign period
- Purposefully and significantly misrepresenting a candidate’s own character or statement(s), or the character or statement(s) of another candidate, campaign team, or committee
- Impersonation of another candidate or committee
Summary
Yes committee is using a social media account created before the campaign period to share official campaign communications. I have a picture of a campaign member holding a campaign sign. It is directing people to [uwahrp.com] . This connects to an instagram account which was set up before the campaign period and was sharing content and collecting followers before the campaign period. This account and website is sharing irrelevant content about the war generally instead of focusing in on the questions students should vote on (ERP Sec 10.7).
ERO Decision:
Campaigning outside of the approved Campaign Period – The respondent pointed out in their response that the account remained inactive after submission of the petition on April 29, 2024, with the accounts being reactivated for campaign-specific communications on September 24th once the official campaigning period for the referendum began. It is also important to consider that it is not out of place for the Yes Committees to use the same social media accounts used for the petition since the position of the Yes Committees is a direct fall out of the petition. In light of the foregoing, my decision is in favour of the Yes Committee as I do not believe they had an unfair advantage by virtue of using an existing social media platform used for the petition, neither do I believe that this resulted in them campaigning outside of the Campaign Period.
Misrepresentation by sharing content unrelated to the referendum’s key questions – It was alleged that the Yes Committees shared irrelevant content about the war generally instead of focusing on the referendum questions. I have reviewed the contents shared by the Yes Committees and find that it is not out of place to highlight the situation in Gaza since the referendum initiated as a result of the petition are both due to the situation in Gaza.
Lack of differentiation between committees – It was alleged that the two Yes Committees ran their campaign jointly and that should not have happened since they are two different committees. I have reviewed the Elections and Referendum Procedures, and it allows teams run their campaigns jointly though this will inherently affect the spending limits and reimbursements available to the teams.
The ERO assigns 0 demerit points to the Yes Committees for the allegation dated 9-30-2024.
Complainant: Amir Hamadache
Defendant: No Committees
Alleged Election Procedure Violated:
- Sabotage of campaign materials by removing Yes Committee posters.
- Alleged harassment of campaign members.
- Potential Policies violated referenced from ERP Section 6.5:
- Minor Contravention of the spirit, or indirect or implicit violation of these or any other relevant bylaw, policy or procedure of the Federation of Students
- Major contravention of the spirit, or indirect or implicit violation of these or any other relevant bylaw, policy or procedure of the Federation of Students
- Serious breach of democratic process (e.g. intentionally compromising ballots, etc.)
Summary:
The Yes Committees alleged that their campaign posters had been torn down across multiple locations on campus, including the SLC and MC buildings, which they believed was done by members of the No Committees. This action, if proven, would contravene the spirit of fair campaigning, as outlined in the Elections and Referenda Procedures (ERP). Additionally, photographic, and video evidence was submitted related to alleged harassment, but it was unclear due to the poor quality of the AV and lack of identifiable information on the accused.
The ERO determined that there was insufficient evidence directly linking No Committee members to the removal of posters or the harassment. Without concrete proof of their involvement, it would be unjust to penalize the entire committee. The video, and photographic evidence did not provide enough clarity to make any conclusive findings.
The ERO ruled that no electoral violations had been proven, and 0 demerit points were assigned to the No Committees. Should further evidence be presented, the decision could be revisited. Parties were reminded of their right to appeal within 24 hours.
Allegation: Complainant: Remington Zhi
Defendant: No Committees
Alleged Election Procedure Violated: Posting campaign materials on a MathSoc bulletin board without adhering to MathSoc’s Board Procedure 14 for poster approval.
Summary:
The complainant accused the No Committees of violating MathSoc’s Board Procedure 14, which requires posters to be approved and stamped by the VP, Communications, before being displayed. A campaign poster was placed on a MathSoc bulletin board without this required approval, potentially giving the impression that MathSoc endorsed a particular stance in the referendum.
ERO Decision:
The ERO found that while the poster might be improperly placed, this violation pertains to MathSoc’s internal rules. Since MathSoc oversees the enforcement of these policies, the responsibility for addressing the matter lies with them. After reviewing the situation, the ERO ruled that no electoral rule had been violated by the No Committees.
As a result, 0 demerit points were assigned. Parties were informed of their right to appeal the decision within 24 hours through the appropriate violation appeal form.
What Happens Next?
The results for each referendum question will be compiled and presented to the Board to ratify and determine WUSA’s official position on the topics. While WUSA’s approach will be based on the vote outcomes, we do not control the University’s funding or operations. The final results will be used to advocate for student interests and engage with the University for discussion and negotiations.
Timeline
- Nomination Period: July 24th-September 20th
- All-Campaign Meeting: September 23rd
- Interim Period: September 21st-23rd
- Campaigning Period: September 24th-October 6th
- Voting Period: October 1st-6th
Learn about referendums
How does a referendum work Infographic
View accessible PDF version of this infographic.
How does a referendum come to life?
For closed captioning please view on YouTube.
How does a referendum affect WUSA?
Watch on YouTube
Questions?
Chief Returning Officer
cro@wusa.ca
The CRO oversees the referenda process and may be contacted to appeal decisions or rulings related to the referenda process
Elections & Referenda Officer
ero@wusa.ca
The ERO handles a wide variety of actions including allegations of misconduct, breach of by-laws, policies, and procedures, and questions about campaign spending.