Decision of the Judicial Council on ComSoc

Written by Communications on April 9, 2025. Posted in My AMS.

To whom it may concern,

On Monday April 7th, the AMS Judicial Committee convened to hear a case brought forward with respects to the ComSoc General Meeting.

The complaint brought forward included concerns about the procedural integrity of the ComSoc General Meeting. By unanimous agreement from the Interim JCOMM Chair, Jeremy Zhu; Secretariat Sylvie Garabedian; and the Case Officer Andrew Anderson that the facts and scope of the concerns pertaining to the integrity of the meeting have been deemed to be of significant public interest, and as such, the decision will be included below.

Policy Infractions

ComSoc Constitution 3.02.01: The rights and privileges of members of the Society shall include …. (vi) to vote at Society Annual General Meetings or Society Special General Assemblies.
ComSoc Bylaws 12.07.01: All votes shall be conducted by secret ballot, managed by the Speaker through approved software as determined by precedent or paper ballots. Should a new software be employed, the CTO must be consulted. This decision can be challenged through 2/3 majority vote to overturn.
ComSoc Bylaws 12.12.01: The Speaker shall provide the complete and final agenda package to all Assembly members at least 48 hours prior to any Assembly meeting.

Voting Integrity

ComSoc General Meetings are traditionally hybrid meetings in which students are invited to join in-person or online. Per the ComSoc Constitution (3.2.1), only members of ComSoc should be able to vote at such meetings. The historical precedent is such that status of each attendee and their membership in ComSoc is not verified. Additionally, voting via a google form has been the traditional precedent at such meetings.

The complaint was brought forward after several voting mishaps resulted in the google form vote having more votes than the number of people present in-person and online. As a result, the Speaker of Assembly directed a vote via the Zoom Chat in which students messaged the Speaker their vote.

During the judicial proceedings, questions were brought forward about the integrity of the vote at the March 23rd, 2025 meeting. There were allegations brought forward that voters were not all members of ComSoc. When asked to produce documentation on voters, it was determined that the only available information is aggregate numbers, and no information was available on the identity of the voters to verify eligibility.

Additionally, it became apparent that the “secret ballot” requirement under 12.07.01 was misunderstood to mean that the identity of voters needs to be anonymous – JCOMM unanimously agrees that this is untrue. A “secret ballot” when properly understood in governance proceedings refers to a voting method in which how individuals vote is private. However, to protect the integrity of the vote, the identity of the voters should never be understood to be confidential. This is consistent with how elections on-campus are administered, and SimplyVoting is one such platform that allows for the protection of the integrity of the vote by verifying the identity of voters while also providing students an option for a private “secret” ballot.

At the hearing, parties informed the Judicial Committee that both the interpretation and application of the voting methods at the March 23rd meeting was consistent with historical precedent, despite the precedent resulting in the mishaps of the meeting of March 23rd. As such, while the Judicial Committee unanimously voted to rule that infractions have taken place, the Committee also unanimously agreed that neither the Speaker nor the ComSoc Executive are found responsible for the infractions. The committee was satisfied that years of precedent were being followed in good faith.

However, despite the best intent of all involved, the committee remained unsatisfied with the procedural integrity of the ComSoc General Meeting. Whereas questions were being raised on the validity of motions voted on (of which there were two), the Committee has unanimously voted to declare the ComSoc General Meeting of March 23rd null. Any decisions approved or rejections will also be declared null and void, unless voted on at an Assembly or General Meeting in which the procedural integrity of the meeting can be preserved.

This decision does not come lightly and is grounded in the need to uphold procedural integrity of General Meetings, but also any decisions approved. While the initial vote did follow precedent, questions of the unsecure ballot cannot be overlooked. Redoing the vote will ensure that the legitimacy of any decisions cannot be called into question in the future, preventing unwarranted scrutiny and ensuring that all decisions are built on a foundation of trust, fairness, and transparency.

The Judicial Committee recognizes that aside from a motion to overturn an interpretation of the Speaker, the ratification of QBOX as a club is the only other motion affected. JCOMM sincerely regrets the inconvenience this presents to QBOX, however, reaffirms, that redoing the vote will ensure that QBOX’s ratification status and legitimacy will not come into question unduly in the future.

Addendum

In making its decision, the Judicial Committee was presented evidence by the AMS Chief Returning Officer and Secretariat, that similar requirements to protect the integrity of a decision were made placed earlier in the academic year. Specifically, the Chief Returning Officer had directed the Engineering Society to verify the identity of voters during the in-person election of the First Year Representative to the AMS as the election follows EngSoc traditions and does not rely on SimplyVoting. The purpose of the direction was to preserve engineering traditions, while ensuring that elections to the AMS Assembly are appropriately held. Additionally, JCOMM was satisfied that the Internal Affairs Office had employed similar measures to protect the integrity of voting at General Assembly of the AMS at both the November and April General Assemblies. As such, JCOMM views this decision both consistent with the precedent, and as an opportunity to reaffirm the principles of democracy, fair and good governance, and the power of each student’s vote.

Agenda

Finally, JCOMM was aware that the agenda for the meeting of March 23rd was released than less 48 hours in advance, and that this is also consistent with precedent despite Bylaw 12.12.01 stating that it must be released 48 hours in advance. While JCOMM disagreed that precedent is a justified reason for a policy infraction, JCOMM ruled that to preserve its mandate and recognize the extenuating circumstances surrounding the meeting of March 23rd, that the Speaker of Assembly, henceforward release the agenda on time. ComSoc Assembly may choose to reduce the time if it so wishes, however, until that occurs, the Bylaws should be respected. An agenda released on time allows students to attend meetings prepared, and conduct their research and consultations leading up to the meeting taking place.

Next Steps

Although JCOMM was informed that ComSoc General Meetings cannot occur after April 1st. Given that the Meeting scheduled for March 30th was postponed by an interim measure of the Judicial System, JCOMM has waive any restrictions on the timing of the meeting. The ComSoc Speaker, in consultations with the Executive, may choose to hold a meeting at a time and date unanimously agreed upon. In addition, prior to the scheduled meeting, ComSoc should work with the Internal Affairs Office to come up with a method to verify the identity of voters and preserve the integrity of the General Meetings.

We encourage students-at-large to respect the privacy of everyone involved and create a safe space on-campus where learning and growth can occur. If there are any questions, please contact the AMS Secretariat at who server the Judicial System as the public representative.