Student Union Elections: Why does The U React in Controversy, not Proactively?

Today there is a a students union by-election that most are unaware of. This election is for the Board of Directors for the Student Union, electing a Director-at-Large, and a First-Year Representative.  With multiple candidates running for both positions, this is a competitive election. However, The U has put out minimal advertising for this election. This leaves students asking why?

The seven day long campaigning period opened on September 19th, originally intended to end on the 26th. Over the course of the following seven days, The U's official Instagram did not put out any information regarding the election, or any information for students.

Historically, there has always been a Meet the Candidates post, an all-candidates' debate, and reminders on how and when students should vote. During the campaign, the responsibility of reaching students fell solely to the candidates. However, The U does have an administrative responsibility in ensuring students have the basic facts about the election.

 Additionally, The U objectively has more reach than the average student campaign account. The U’ s official Instagram account has nearly 5,900 followers, where individual campaign accounts average around 100-200 followers. Students use The U's Instagram to get information about these sorts of events, and when nothing is posted, how are students supposed to know about election dates?

This raises important questions about the role of the Students’ Union in facilitating informed participation. In past elections The U provides a non-biased perspective on all candidates, sharing their individual statements all in one post. Understandably, candidates should be responsible for their own individual campaign, but The U has due diligence to provide a platform for these candidates to jump off from.

When speaking with candidates, they described being very disappointed in the management of this election. Sheridan Belair, candidate for Director at Large, expressed “The lack of promotion for the election was a little frustrating. Nobody knew an election was happening at all, which would have seriously affected both mine and my fellow candidates’ chances in the election due to the lack of people voting. While I’m glad they posted eventually, the principle still stands; we shouldn’t have had to ask for them to do their jobs”. 

Another candidate in the race, Martin Ballard-Guildford, running for First Year Rep expressed similar sentiments, sharing “The U gave candidates inconsistent instructions and failed entirely to publicize the elections, that is repeated neglect. Running a fair election is the most basic duty a student union has, and The U failed. Students deserve accountability, and a concrete plan to fix this before the next elections take place.”

In previous years of by-elections, The U has provided a space for candidates to answer questions live in front of an audience, alongside a live stream on Instagram, in the form of an all-candidates debate. This year, the elections team and Chair decided not to host this event.

 Ballard-Guildford also stated “An all-candidates debate would have provided not only a clear idea of each candidate's priorities should they be elected, but also a platform for students to understand the role of a first-year representative at a greater level. Although given the nature of the election, I can understand not having a full debate.”

After student complaints to the Union, only then did the Chair of the Board decide to react. After issuing a statement on the Instagram story extending the campaigning period, they then sent an email to the candidates running in the race. Within 24 hours of the first student complaint, submitted by Kate Benning, The U put up the long-anticipated Meet the Candidates post.

Benning explained “I sent in the complaint because I found it very problematic that the union was aiming to run an election in less than 24 hours, which they had not informed the student body of whatsoever, and expected students to vote for candidates they had no neutral platform to receive information from.” In response to her email to the Students’ Union Benning noted that “the response I received after my complaint did not resolve my frustrations, and overall, makes me less confident in the Students Union.”

The Chair of the Board responded to the complaint explaining that she would be following up with the Marketing Manager and the General Manager of The U. “I surely hope candidates were apologized to privately and more than just publicly on The U’s story for all the students to see. In the future, I hope executive members of The U are able to acknowledge when their actions aren't in the best interest of students and proactively make changes before they receive complaints,” Kate said.

This leads me to wonder, if it was possible to put up this post within 24 hours, why was nothing released during the initial campaign period?

Operating under a $2 million budget, almost 49,000 student dollars (in the 2025-2026 school year) are spent on the Marketing Office. Elections are recurring events; this specific by-election happens every school year. Ideally, the elections and marketing teams should rely on established procedures rather than scrambling last minute to pull together election promotional materials. With a budget of this amount, students should expect a higher level of service and a concept of a contingency plan for events such as elections.

Ultimately, students should not be hearing about these elections as a result of controversy. The U should be a space where students go to find information and get involved on campus.  They have a responsibility to inform students on the functions of their services, especially elections.