Winter Election 2005
Its been more than a week now since I’ve had time to update this livejournal. Aside from being attributable to being shockingly busy, my internet is also to blame, as it has been down ever since I got back from San Fransisco this weekend (I’d been at a Model UN conference but I’ll get to that in due time).
With ASUCD elections last week, this unusual busy-ness made me unable to write the pro and con for Constitutional Amendment #6 as planned. I was quite looking forward to it, because you see, I was slated to write BOTH the arguments of proponency AND opponency. I was planning on making some harsh personal attacks in the con argument (against myself as author of the pro argument).
Additionally, an interesting event transpired during the election. I’m not sure how much opinion I can express on it at this time, as I might have appellate jurisdiction over any further decisions the elections committee makes on the subject, but I shall recount here for your consideration the basic facts of the case:
The Disqualification and Requalification of Mr Robert Roy - an objective recounting
Expenditure forms are due a week before the election, in which one is to indicate all moneys they have expended on their campaign. Candidate Robert “Rob” Roy turned in an expenditure form that was complete except for some receipts which allegedly were lost when his backpack was stolen. Lacking these, Roy, indicated the costs that would have been reflected in the missing receipts as best he could. In investigating, the Elections Committee contacted the noted businesses and found that he had indeed indicated accurate expenditures. The Elections Committee probably would not have known there were missing receipts if Roy hadn’t himself indicated that there were.
ASUCD Gov’t Code Section 112 (8) describes “falsifying expenditure forms.” Among the things that may be falsification it mentions “incomplete forms” in subsection A, for which they cited Roy. Subsection B states that if the Committee finds that a candidate falsified their expenditure form, depending upon the severity of the incident the Elections Committee may by unanimous vote disqualify a candidate.
The Elections Committee announced on the second day of voting that Roy was to be disqualified under these bylaws. No reason was given for exerting the fullest severity of their discretion. The next morning shortly before results were to be announced, they met with the university legal counsel, and then announced that though they stood behind their earlier ruling, they were undisqualifying Roy because they “didn’t want to thwart the will of the students” or something. Roy won by the largest margin in known history.
Relevant history: Last election, members of the Student Focus party were caught cheating by a number of people, and later found guilty by Student Judicial Affairs. The Elections Committee obstinantly refused to disqualify those involved.
Questions to Consider: (1) Are the things listed as possible forms of falsification things that are necessarily always falsification or just possible forms of falsification? (2) Under what conditions would one expect the “discretion” to disqualify a candidate pursuant to this bylaw to be found in favour of disqualification? Under what conditions should the discretional disqualification not be exercised?
Note: The above really does seek to be accurate and objective. If one notices any inaccuracies, the friendly staff here at e.m.o.s.n.a.i.l. would love to rectify it.
Weekly Shadyness Rating
Poll Shadyness Rating
Additional Commentary - commentary on things other than the merits of the disqualification
(1) Whether or not one thinks the Committee was right in exercising its discretional ability to disqualify, I strongly believe they should have explained their reasoning. “Discretion” isn’t an invitation to make whatever arbitrary decisions one happens to feel like, discretion is leeway to define the conditions considered. (2) The reversal was not based on any kind of legal argument, merely the Elections Committee tried to make themselves sound like “the good guys” and imply they were benevolently bending the rules on Roy’s behalf. Whether or not one thinks the original disqualification was justified, and even if there WERE compelling reasons to reverse the disqualification (I’ll weigh in on these issues once the new senators are sworn in on Thursday), the Elections Committee should still not be bending the rules as they see fit -- they should strive to justify their actions by the rules, not by their own opinions.
Related
This has come to be known as The Elections Committee Scandal - Though I think its only one of many "Elections Committee scandals," so I think a different name might perhaps be more apt.