By Peter Odeyemi
With the recently concluded BUSU elections, many students are hoping to see positive changes in how the Student Union operates, both from the elected representatives and the executives. Looking back at the election process, there were several moments that stood out, and I just wanted to share a brief summary and reflection on how things unfolded.
The nomination process started off fairly smoothly. Many students were trying to decide what positions to run for, thinking about their campaign strategies and the plans they would implement if elected. Before long, the nomination period ended and the candidates were announced. It quickly became clear that this year’s election would be highly competitive, with more than five positions having two or more candidates. From what I understand, this was the first time BUSU had that level of competition in several positions.
The campaign period began soon after, although there wasn’t much visible campaigning on campus at first due to reading week. Once the reading week was over and students returned, things quickly picked up. Posters went up around campus and campaign flyers were being handed out by candidates and their teams, mainly within the Brodie Building and Clark Hall. Compared to previous years, this was one of the most active and aggressive campaign periods I’ve seen. It was impressive to see candidates really putting themselves out there and engaging with students, especially with the science and arts representative candidates.
However, throughout the election process, there were also a few inconsistencies from BUSU that stood out. The election itself was monitored and conducted, but there were still some issues that ideally should not have happened. For example, there seemed to be situations where the returning officer and other officials were not fully informed on certain procedures. There also appeared to be limited scrutiny during the nomination process to confirm who was actually eligible to run. Additionally, the town hall meeting felt poorly planned, and communication with candidates at times lacked professionalism.
One experience that stood out personally involved my own situation. Initially, I was not supposed to run in the election because of my affiliation with the campus publication, The Quill. It’s no news that members of The Quill are not allowed to run for BUSU executive or board positions. However, during the nomination process, this was never clearly communicated to me. While I acknowledge that I could have reviewed the BUSU by-laws myself, which is a 50-page booklet all candidates are “obligated” to read prior to the nomination and election, this is also something that ideally should have been flagged during the nomination stage by the returning officer. Instead, I received a phone call on the day of the election informing me that I was ineligible to be in a representative position if I win because of my affiliation with a campus publication. Discovering something like that at such a late stage was frustrating and could have easily been avoided with a more thorough nomination process.
There was also confusion surrounding faculty representative positions, such as arts or science representatives. Several candidates (including myself) wanted clarification on whether voting for these positions would be limited to students within the specific faculty, or open to the entire student body. This information would have helped candidates plan their campaign strategies more effectively.
In my case, I emailed the returning officer asking whether only arts students could vote for the arts representative position. The response suggested that the entire school could vote, not just arts students. However, during the All Candidates Meeting, the answer changed, and we were told that only students from that specific faculty would be able to vote. The returning officer apologized for the earlier confusion.
Still unsure, I later went to the BUSU office to ask for clarification. One staff member initially told me that the whole school could vote, but students outside the faculty would simply have the option to select “Not applicable.” Shortly after, another staff member clarified that only students from the specific faculty would actually be voting. With several different answers given at different times, it created unnecessary confusion for candidates trying to organize their campaigns. This was a very major issue within the system, as electoral officials are not even well informed of the election process.
Allegedly, there were also reports from some candidates that certain concerns raised by email to the returning officer were responded to in ways that came across as unprofessional, publicly in some cases. While misunderstandings are normal during any election process, communication with candidates should always remain clear and respectful at all times.
Overall, the election was competitive and engaging, and it was great to see students actively participating in campus politics. At the same time, these experiences show areas where the process could be improved. Moving forward, I hope the current BUSU administration takes these points into consideration so that future elections can be even more organized, transparent, and fair for everyone involved.
A big congratulations to the successful candidates - I wish them a wonderful tenure and urge them not to forget to always keep students in mind when making decisions. Be transparent, productive, and do what is in the best interests of the students.