CRO investigation into claims made around election, leads to no change in outcome.

Another election for the Student Association (SA) board of directors has passed, and the winners are set to start their term shortly.

While there may be varying opinions on those who are about to take over the top two positions on the board, some things have come to light which may foreshadow how they’ll act.

On Dec. 12, just hours before the board of directors were set to meet and ratify the election results, Charles Wilson, the chief returning officer (CRO) released a report on an investigation undertaken during the voting week. The investigation in question looked into allegations and complaints against Pranjal, incoming director of communications & internal, and Jeetu Patel, incoming director of operations.

Some of the complaints made by other candidates running in the fall 2024 election included:

• Outsiders conspiring with Pranjal and Patel to intimidate voters
• Suspended members of the board being asked by Pranjal and Patel to interfere with the election
• Students being paid money to vote a certain way
• Students from a certain community harassing other candidates
• Bribing students with pizza and chocolate to vote for particular candidates
• Campaigning near polling stations
• And other allegations of impropriety

Considering the predecessors of Pranjal and Patel were suspended by the board mediation committee in October 2024, this does not bode well for an organization that has already had to deal with months of stalled motions, underhanded tactics and even refusals to hold monthly meetings.

In his report, Wilson notes “on Thursday, November 28, 2024, the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) received a request to meet with several candidates regarding concerns raised during the election. The CRO met with them and informed them that, while the concerns were serious, they had not provided substantial proof to support the allegations. The CRO further informed them that any complaint must be made in writing and must include sufficient evidence for election action to be taken.”

Later that day, reports came in of a student intimidating voters near one of the polling stations. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that this person was no longer a George Brown College student. Evidence submitted on this matter included video and photographic evidence, as well as a statement from a staff member with the SA.

In the videos, the actions undertaken by the person in question show him encouraging students to vote for Pranjal; photos show the same person near polling stations.

In the statement from the staff member, it is noted that “LC was near the polling station coercively influencing voters, holding their hands, and urging them to vote for Pranjal and Jeetu Patel by appealing to communal sentiments.”

On Nov. 29, the same person was seen in the St. James King’s Lounge sitting near Pranjal and Patel. He was removed from campus and the candidates were asked by Wilson to explain their association to him.

In his explanation to Wilson, Patel “firmly denies all allegations of campaigning alongside LC or soliciting his assistance during the election. He states that he campaigned independently, was not present at St. James on the day in question, and was unaware of any campaigning by others on his behalf. Patel explicitly denies asking or communicating with LC in any way that could imply he wanted LC to campaign for him. He emphasizes his awareness of the rules prohibiting external assistance and his commitment to complying with them. He suggests the matter be clarified with the individuals involved, as he had no knowledge or involvement in the alleged actions.”

Pranjal’s response is similar to Patel’s as she emphasized “her adherence to election rules and commitment to a transparent process. She states that on November 29, 2024, she was returning from classes at the Waterfront Campus to St. James Campus and engaged in a conversation with the CRO and another student during that time. Pranjal asserts that she did not ask anyone to campaign or endorse her, nor did she discuss such activities with anyone, as she is fully aware of the election regulations. She denies being present at the alleged locations and suggests verifying her whereabouts through campus security footage.”

After weighing the evidence, Wilson found that the person known only as LC, did in fact interfere with the election.

In the matter of chocolates, Wilson says it is allowable so long as it is for the purposes of engaging with students and not buying votes. Because the candy was included in her financial statements, the evidence he received does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a violation of the election code occurred.

The evidence in question was two emails which he received after voting was over.

These emails – made by unnamed students – note that they were encouraged to vote for Pranjal and Patel in exchange for the candy.

The first statement notes Lindt chocolates were offered for the explicit solicitation of a vote.

“In the days of voting Pranjal came to me and asked that ‘please come with me and vote for me and if you voted for me in exchange, I’ll give you chocolates’ and the chocolates she was giving in exchange was of Lindt’s. So, in this way, she tried to convince me,” said the first student.

The second student notes aggressive campaigning by two people who wanted them to vote for Patel.

“Near the elevator by the St. James campus library, two people were handing out chocolates in exchange for votes and campaigning very aggressively. They were pushing me and others nearby to vote for someone named Patel. It felt way too close to the polling station, and the way they were campaigning didn’t seem right.”

Despite all of the evidence and allegations against them, Wilson, using the highest standard of Canadian law – the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt – was unable to find a reason to assign demerit points and disqualify candidates. The number of demerit points needed to disqualify a candidate is 20.

As Wilson notes “I find that the burden of proof for election discipline has not been met under Bylaw 12, section 11(a), and the use of the annulment power under By-law 12, section 15 is unwarranted.”

While Pranjal and Patel may feel exonerated due to the outcome, only time will tell if they truly deserved to win; or if they, like current members of the board, only care about their own interests.