Turnout: 1564 (36.1%) of 4330 electors voted in this ballot. Please select the individual you wish to elect as President of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen’s University: Option Votes Jeremy Ambraska 798 (51.0%) Jaspar Wong 545 (34.8%) Abstain 221 (14.1%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the acclamation of Cameron Wathey to the position of Vice-President Community of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen’s University? Option Votes Yes 1206 (77.1%) Abstain 261 (16.7%) No 97 (6.2%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the acclamation of Abel Hazon to the position of Vice-President Finance of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen’s University? Option Votes Yes 1245 (79.6%) Abstain 228 (14.6%) No 91 (5.8%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the acclamation of Leo Erlikhman to the position of Vice-President Graduate of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen’s University? Option Votes Yes 1130 (72.3%) Abstain 261 (16.7%) No 173 (11.1%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the acclamation of Ryan Adlem to the position of Vice-President Professional of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen’s University? Option Votes Yes 1111 (71.0%) Abstain 308 (19.7%) No 145 (9.3%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the acclamation of Courtney Bannerman to the position of Graduate Student Senator? Option Votes Yes 1269 (81.1%) Abstain 229 (14.6%) No 66 (4.2%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the establishment of a mandatory student fee of $12.00 (indexed to CPI) for Walkhome? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 903 (57.7%) No 533 (34.1%) Abstain 128 (8.2%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of a mandatory student fee of $1.25 (indexed to CPI) for the Alma Mater Society Food Bank? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1233 (78.8%) No 268 (17.1%) Abstain 63 (4.0%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of a mandatory student fee of $1.00 (indexed to CPI) for Four Directions Indigenous Student Centre? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1196 (76.5%) No 293 (18.7%) Abstain 75 (4.8%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of a mandatory student fee of $174.24 (indexed to CPI) for Queen’s Athletics and Recreation? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1165 (74.5%) No 333 (21.3%) Abstain 66 (4.2%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of a mandatory student fee of $0.71 (indexed to CPI) for Queen’s International Student Society Bursary Program? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1148 (73.4%) No 323 (20.7%) Abstain 93 (5.9%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of a mandatory student fee of $3.50 (indexed to CPI) for The Queen’s Journal? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 911 (58.2%) No 547 (35.0%) Abstain 106 (6.8%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the establishment of a mandatory student fee of $5.56 (indexed to CPI) for Work-Study Program? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 905 (57.9%) No 506 (32.4%) Abstain 153 (9.8%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of an optional student fee of $7.50 for CFRC 101.9FM? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 872 (55.8%) No 533 (34.1%) Abstain 159 (10.2%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of an optional student fee of $2.50 for Kingston Coalition Against Poverty? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1245 (79.6%) No 231 (14.8%) Abstain 88 (5.6%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of an optional student fee of $1.00 for Kingston Youth Shelter? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1359 (86.9%) No 142 (9.1%) Abstain 63 (4.0%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of an optional student fee of $2.00 for Loving Spoonful? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1231 (78.7%) No 228 (14.6%) Abstain 105 (6.7%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of an optional student fee of $1.00 for Queen’s International Affairs Association? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1058 (67.6%) No 352 (22.5%) Abstain 154 (9.8%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of an optional student fee of $20.00 for The Grad Club? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 1085 (69.4%) No 372 (23.8%) Abstain 107 (6.8%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Do you agree to the continuation of an optional student fee of $3.48 for World University Services Canada (WUSC) Queen’s? This fee is subject to triennial review. Option Votes Yes 970 (62.0%) No 376 (24.0%) Abstain 218 (13.9%) VOTER SUMMARY Total 1564 Click here for the certified results PDF.

Today is the beginning of the campaign period for the Society of Graduate & Professional Students (SGPS) at Queen’s University Presidential election, with Tyler Morrison and Stéfy McKnight as candidates. Over the course of the last month, we (Stéfy McKnight and Tyler Morrison) have collectively received a number of questions about why there is a by-election for the position of SGPS President, and we hope that this statement will clarify those points and concerns. The original SGPS Presidential election in January was nullified. The SGPS Chief Returning Officer (CRO) received notice of a self-disclosed accidental infraction of election policy, brought to their attention as soon as it was discovered by the candidate, Stéfy McKnight. McKnight utilized more than the allotted campaign budget. The CRO placed a fine for the violation, which was then appealed by Tyler Morrison, who has since pardoned the infraction. This appeal activated the SGPS Judicial Committee who nullified the results of the election, triggering the upcoming by-election. Although the over spending infraction was small, both candidates accept the decision by the Judicial Committee to nullify the results, and are looking forward to engaging in the upcoming campaign period. We prepared this statement with the desire to put this violation and appeal behind us, and attempt to have the most neutral and fair by-election as possible. Moving forward, we have respectively agreed to not respond to further questions about this issue. We wish to focus the campaign period and election on SGPS issues, policies; our platforms and plans for the SGPS, and not on the infraction and appeal. We urge SGPS members to positively engage in the electoral process, focusing on graduate and professional student issues and policies in the upcoming campaign period, and not on the infraction. We are adamant that this is the most productive and logical way to move forward. Remember to cast your votes online through your email on March 12th and 13th. Submitted respectively, Stéfy McKnight & Tyler Morrison

Kingston, ON – On the evening of Tuesday, February 13, SGPS Council passed the following decisions: To reject the recommendation of the Judicial Committee to have SGPS Council appoint either Stephanie McKnight or Tyler Morrison as president for the 2018-19 academic year. To instead hold a by-election between the two candidates, allowing the student body to elect their president directly. To reduce the threshold for opt-out fees to pass from a 2/3 majority to a simple majority. To reduce the threshold for mandatory fees to pass from a 2/3 majority to a simple majority, so long as quorum of 15% voter turnout is met. If quorum is not met, mandatory fees will require a 2/3 majority to pass. To hold a re-referendum on the Bus-It and OPIRG fees, with the new fee policies, described above, in effect. The by-election and re-referendum will take place March 5-13. The campaign period will occur from March 5-11, and the voting period will occur from March 12-13. Please direct any inquiries to Jennifer Williams, SGPS Speaker, at speaker@sgps.ca.

Kingston, ON – Over the last two days, we listened. We listened to the questions and concerns from the SGPS membership and have decided to release a statement in response to what we heard: According to policy P.11.3 “Procedure”: “The Judicial Committee is…responsible for hearing appeals made by SGPS election candidates.” The Judicial Committee is a confidential body, whose purpose is to protect those involved and the sensitive matters surrounding the appeal process, to the best of our abilities. We withheld these details to protect the candidates, not to purposely withhold important information and details from our membership. Upon hearing from our members, we recognize the need for greater transparency. During the campaign period of the SGPS Presidential election, a self-disclosed violation of campaign rules occurred by a candidate, who overspent their allotted budget on campaign related activities (P.9.8 (f)). Following an exhaustive investigation during the voting days, the CRO instituted a penalty in the form of a fine, following the announcement of the election results. This decision was appealed, within the allotted week following the election, which, as stated in Bylaw and Policy section P.9.10 “Penalties”, activated the Judicial Committee. Given that this decision does address the very nature of our democratic process, the standard set for our deliberations was high. Our deliberations took more than double the allotted time and the Committee came forward with the following points. To the Committee’s knowledge, this is a first in SGPS history with no precedent to follow: The violation in question required a higher penalty than what was initially granted. The maximum fine available to this body is a total withdrawal of the campaign allotment; our Committee determined that this fine was insufficient. Our rationale behind this decision is to set the precedent to prevent candidates who violate the spending allotment to feel that they may do this in the future and be elected to office, which comes with a substantial salary; That the violation, based on policy P.9.10(c), did not meet the requirements for disqualification of the candidate. Our appeal was centered around sub-sections: “(2) any other circumstance determined by the CRO to give a candidate an unfair advantage where such an advantage cannot be nullified in time for voting; and (3) where a penalty is to be levied after the close of voting, in any case where an offence would likely have changed the outcome of the election.”The Committee was unable to assess if the spending violation provided an advantage in the election. The Committee determined that the violation did not warrant a disqualification for the candidate. Instead, we chose to nullify the results; The decision to nullify the results of the election and forward the matter to SGPS Council was seen as the most appropriate solution to the matter at hand. As the election results have been published, we felt that both candidates would not face an equal opportunity to run in a campus-wide by-election. SGPS Councillors are selected by their respective departments and programs to decide on matters on behalf of the student body. We felt that this would be the best opportunity for candidates to have a contested election. The Judicial Committee felt that a group of seven determining the next President of the SGPS would be unfair and we chose to refer this decision to SGPS Council. We also took into account the mental and physical well-being of the candidates involved, and concerns regarding a fair by-election. We also considered the need for sufficient time for Executive transition. As a Judicial Committee, we also feel it is important to note that throughout our investigation, we found significant gaps in Bylaw and Policy concerning the election process, the responsibilities of the election team, and the appeal process. Without a policy framework or precedent, the Committee was forced to look at the current bylaws and determine the most appropriate resolution to the above issue. We are tasking the Bylaw and Policy Committee to meet and rectify these gaps and present amendments at the March Council meeting. Recommendations by the Judicial Committee to SGPS Council: To host an SGPS Presidential Election during the February 13th SGPS Council meeting, as per our previous statement; and To task the Bylaw and Policy Committee to review policies described in this statement, among others, and bring forward amendments at the March Council meeting. Should this recommendation be approved by SGPS Council, all Councillors sitting on the Judicial Committee will either proxy their vote to a department representative or abstain from the SGPS Presidential Election. Please direct all questions and concerns to Jennifer Williams at speaker@sgps.ca. While we encourage discussion, we will not tolerate harassment of any kind. We thank you for your patience as we deal with this matter. PDF Statement