The English Press Club interviewed Arunaav Padmapati, Utkarsh Tiwari, and Stuti Sinha of the Election Commission (EC) to gain insight into their recent actions concerning the Union Council (UC). The EC claimed it took these measures after a thorough investigation following a complaint filed by the Corroboration and Review Committee (CRC).
The EC started by stating that the UC consists of all Hostel Representatives (H-Reps), the Day Scholar representative (D-Rep), the General Secretary, and the President. When asked about the reasons behind the action taken against the General Secretary and certain other Union Council members, the EC began by clearing the confusion surrounding it. They elaborated that the General Secretary had not been suspended but instead had been relieved of one of his key duties as the head of the Clearance Cell pertaining to financial transactions of the second category and his signatory powers regarding the same. These encompass transactions for clubs functioning for all activities other than Oasis and APOGEE. In addition, five UC members had been suspended from their posts and six others had been warned for failing to uphold their duties as mentioned in the Procedure Manual. They noted that the General Secretary’s signatory powers had been temporarily transferred to the President and the posts of the H-Reps will remain vacant. These penalties would be applicable until December 2, 2024.
They further revealed that on October 19, 2024, every H-Rep and the D-Rep was assigned a set of departments and clubs for inventory checks through a lottery draw. The EC highlighted that the UC members were made aware of their responsibilities regarding the inventory checks by the EC and the CRC. In addition, they were required to report to the General Secretary, who in turn reported to the CRC.
The EC then emphasised the importance of these inventory checks via a few examples. For instance, if a club or department generates revenue through the sale of products, regular inventory checks must be carried out to verify that the revenue reported to the CRC matches the actual amount. They explained that this would highlight any inconsistencies and prevent any club or department from pocketing excess revenue. They added that these checks are referenced when vendors request payments from the Students’ Union for the inventory they have sold. Consequently, if the CRC lacks the proper records, they would have to add up their dues based solely on the vendor’s word. This would lead to situations where the Union could potentially be billed more than they were due.
The EC elucidated that due to its financial significance — especially in a fest where every member of the GBM was charged Rs. 1950 — any mistakes on the UC’s part would directly affect the profits earned or result in losses to the GBM to compensate for the UC’s shortcomings.
They shared that they had received a complaint from the CRC and began an investigation on October 29, 2024, which lasted till November 10, 2024. They went on to mention that while investigating this issue, a clear sign of negligence they had found was the absence of daily reports from the General Secretary which was to be sent to the CRC daily during the fest. Following this, they continued to communicate with club and department Coordinators to corroborate the UC’s story and verify if they had made the efforts that they alleged to have made. The EC claimed to have conducted an extensive investigation and were confident in the decisions they had taken. They also stated that this was the first time inventory checks had been enforced since the COVID-19 pandemic and that this aspect was taken into account in determining the penalties.
The EC emphasised the importance of ensuring that the electorate stays represented and said this is why the suspensions imposed were ‘shorter than would be ideal’. When asked why they thought these actions were necessary at all, the EC quoted Uncle Ben from Spider-Man, saying, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. They recalled that these members had been elected after a long drawn-out election process and that they should be held accountable to the GBM for their slip-ups. The EC also clarified that the suspension of UC members was unrelated to the outcome of the motion regarding the Department of Sponsorship and Marketing (Sponz) during the Oasis Review Meet. They clarified that these penalties had been decided purely based on the UC’s work, or a lack thereof, during Oasis.
They further commented that the motion for the removal of Sponz from its two-year probationary period was an ‘AND’ clause. Elaborating, they explained that for the motion for Sponz to continue as a member of the StuCCA to pass, it had to gain votes in its favour from two-thirds of the UC AND a simple majority from the Oasis Review Committee (ORC). The EC confirmed that neither of these conditions were met.
On being questioned as to why motions regarding probation of the Department of Art Design and Publicity (ADP) were not entertained during ORM, they mentioned that this was a rare occurrence. The EC stated that as the sole interpreter of the Oasis charter, every motion is brought to the EC for a ‘sanity check’ before it is put to vote. They continued by saying that they had received credible evidence that there had been significant strong-arming against the ADP StuCCAn by certain members of the UC. They added that placing a StuCCAn department on probation was an ‘OR’ clause; requiring votes in its favour from either two-thirds of the UC or a simple majority from the ORC. They felt that the integrity of any votes cast for such a motion would have been compromised and keeping this in mind had disallowed any motions for putting the department on probation.
For their concluding remarks, the EC stressed how the UC members were elected by their respective electorates and that it was important for the GBM to engage with them. If the electorate felt that their views were not represented aptly by their candidate, or that the candidates were misusing the powers vested in them, there were mechanisms in the constitution to deal with the same, such as no-confidence motions.
The EC also said that the President is required to call at least one UC-GBM meeting per semester. Since one has not been called yet, it would be called before the comprehensive examinations start. The EC noted that this would be a great opportunity for the GBM to question their representatives, and the UC as a whole, in a formal setting.