Council rejects election probe

Senior Class President Stephen Goutman's proposal to form a committee to investigate last week's Executive Board Elections was rejected by everyone but Goutman at Tuesday's Student Council meeting. Every member of Student Council except for Goutman either abstained or voted against the proposal, which sought to clarify allegations of voting irregularities and questions of student conduct.

"This proposal was a way for Student Council to look at itself and to look at its conduct in the elections and bring out the facts in the elections," said Goutman.

The proposal resolved that "Student Council establish an investigative committee to question the events of the 2002 Executive Board Election."

Goutman felt the need to bring up such a proposal in order to separate "what's fact and what's rumor. I though by holding this hearing? we could look at Student Council and look at how it operates."

Student Council President Anuj Mittal felt that Goutman's resolution did not pass "because he put it in a structure that was too strong," and added that it was "over the top."

The committee, as proposed by the resolution, would include nine members, include people from the Ethics Board, the Student Life Staff, a representative from the Office of the Dean of Homewood Student Affairs and the president of each class.

It did not include a representative from the Board of Elections (BoE). Because "he didn't include the BoE in [the committee]" said Class of 2005 Vice President Megan Coe. "It did seem like it would undermine the BoE's authority."

Other Student Council members had more general reasons for rejecting the proposition. "The elections already been decided I didn't find a reason to look back into it," said Class of 2003 Representative Chris Cunico.

Mittal would prefer to see "discussion rather than an investigation" about the issues surrounding the election.

The interpretation of the BoE rules and regulations have been questioned in the wake of events that occurred near the end of the campaigning period for the 2002 Elections.

The weekend before the March 4 elections, Audrey Henderson, one of the three candidates for StuCo president, was cited for a having a banner hanging in a dorm room right above the entrance to MegaBYTES in AMR II. The BoE rules state that "physical campaign materials are limited to posters and advertisements in campus publications. No exceptions." In addition, the rules state that "You may not hang banners outside or off of any campus structures. Anything larger than 8.5" x 11" is a banner." Henderson was in violation of this rule, according to BoE co-Chair Erika Stoddard. "You can't put up any kind of banner," said Stoddard.

As a result of this violation, Henderson was informed by the BoE on Sunday afternoon that she would no longer be able to do campaigning of any kind. She was not allowed to tell anyone to vote for her.

"These are severe punishments," said Mittal. "Saturday, Sunday and Monday are absolutely key days" for campaigning.

Additionally, "there were other complaints brought up by a couple of other candidates," said Stoddard, including illegal postering.

Over the weekend, other allegations of improprieties surfaced. Class of 2003 Secretary Tara Feehan posted an away message on America Online (AOL) Instant Messenger listing the "Top Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Audrey." Instant Messenger messages are visible to anyone that knows the person's screen name, which can be obtained by entering the person's e-mail address. The message included the words "Don't vote Audrey!!" and "Go with Chris or Manish! Either way you win!" She was referring to Cunico and Manish Gala, the other two presidential candidates.

When asked about Feehan's alleged conduct, Director of Student Involvement Dr. Bill Smedick said, "I think it's unfortunate. Ethically, I don't think it was appropriate."

"It is disappointing that someone would take that stance," said Mittal; however, he added, "it is Tara's personal space."

Another BoE regulation governs negative campaigning. It states that "negative campaigning is prohibited. You may not misrepresent your opponent to the public or to the BoE..." Additionally, the rules state that "you are responsible for all campaigning on your behalf."

In retrospect, this "violation was more from a moral perspective and a professional perspective" than a legal perspective, said Mittal.

"I didn't look at it as campaigning on my behalf. If anything illegal was going on, I didn't know about it," said Cunico. "I have nothing to do with what she puts up on her AOL profile."

Cunico felt that the proposal would not resolve anything because he "didn't feel the need to investigate rumors."

Mittal intends to have a "less structured set of discussions" with Student Council members about the events of the election.

Student Council members wanted Goutman's proposal to be more explicit in what he was looking to investigate, but he "didn't think it was appropriate to do that publicly," said Goutman. The point was "so that we're not talking about rumors, so we can sit down and look at the facts.

Despite the fact that his proposal did not pass, Goutman thinks the BoE needs to examine itself.

"The BoE is going to have to look at what happened in the last election and if they feel they need to make changes in the election procedures, they have the power to do that."

When asked what he thought the BoE should do in response to the questions surrounding the election, Mittal said, "Some of their rules allow for unfair practices. Their rules are clear, they just have to be consistent."

Despite what may have gone on, "Manish is president and it's as good as a Supreme Court decision," said Goutman.