RSU candidate disqualified

In News6 Comments

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Rebecca Burton

Associate News Editor

The Ryerson Students’ Union election race thins after Mark Single, running for VP Operations, was disqualified from the race on Feb. 4 after posting unapproved posters around campus.

The Chief Returning Officer, Hakim Kassam, deemed the offence a “severe violation.”

The posters highlighted the approximate annual salary paid to RSU executives. Single then inserted his own opinion by saying he would reduce the salary to minimum student wage.

Single said the point of these posters was to inform students that the RSU collects annual salaries. Single proposed working for free or minimum wage because he said the position should be for someone whose primary aim is to make Ryerson a better place.

The posters were unapproved by the CRO but Single said he chose to post them anyway on the evening of Feb. 3.

A complaint was then received by the CRO regarding the poster.

The CRO reported the posters were found on top of oppositional slate Students’ United posters.

“It went against good faith and maligned the individuals it was posted by,” said Kassam.

Single said the CRO was in the right over the fact that the posters were never approved yet called the disqualification ‘biased.’

According to Candidate guidelines and RSU, Kassam said Single violated approximately six offences. This included bylaw 6.59, that posters should not be offensive and if so, it would be up to the discretion of the CRO to remove and destroy the poster. Subsequently the CRO could then disqualify the individual.

Sean Carson will now be running unopposed on election day. However, he must receive a total of 50 per cent plus one extra vote to win in the yes or no ballot. The ballots have already been printed so Mark Single’s name will still appear on the ballot.

While Single was given 24 hours to appeal the CRO’s decision, Single said he would not be appealing.

Image supplied by Mark Single


  1. I fail to see why Single’s poster was not approved in the first place. It is simply stating a fact. How is this maligning the other candidates?

    I am actually surprised to learn that RSU executives collect a salary and I think many other students would be too.

    What is a “Chief Returning Officer”? Is he elected or appointed? If he is appointed is it by the current RSU execs? It seems like something fishy is going on here.

    1. the poster is stating somewhat factual information to spread a false message. of course if it’s presented in that context, any student would be like WTF?!

      but when you’re an exec, its a fulltime job (40-60 hours a week) – which ends up being a bit less than minimum wage. i know that as a student $30k seems like a lot of money…

      but when you work full time:
      OSAP cuts you off and you have to start paying it back monthly and then there’s rent and living costs as well.

      So yes, executives do get paid – but they’re putting in the time and effort to go along with it. It’s not a volunteer position, and the fact that it is paid actually puts me at ease as a student because its their JOB to get things done, and we can hold them to that!

  2. This is so ridiculous! I was wondering when the CFS/CRO was going to screw over the RU Change slate. If student apathy towards RSew elections wasn’t so high, they’d never get away with their crap!

  3. Sean Carson will be running opposed to set him up for the presidency next year. The RSU has become a farce. The presidency has been handed from person to person on one slate for the last seven years (Rose to Jabbar to Loreto to Jabbar to Whitfield) It will be handed to Caitlin Smith, then to Carson, then to Rodney Diverlus, and then whomever the slate determines is brainwashed enough to follow CFS doctrine.

  4. the rsu is a democratic institution, and students democratically elect its leaders.

    its too bad there are soar losers amongst those posting comments.

    1. Reasons y RSU perceived as a farce:
      1)100-150 students decide $7million health and dental plan for 31000 students(2009 AGM)
      2)CRO of elections appointed by current board members and executives who also run for the elections(every year)
      3)Election Appeals Comm. that is supposed to be unbias and independent is appointed by the current board members and executives who are the ONLY candidates that know the identity of the Comm.(every year)
      4) Reasons 2 and 3 negate anything that allows for a perception of a democratic student election.

Leave a Comment