Monday, April 13, 2009
proof of chalking 36 days before election (code only allows 25 days). Proof for violation 1
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:25:38
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:25:38
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:25:23
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:25:23
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:20:01
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:20:01
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:19:20
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:19:20
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:18:58
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:18:58
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:17:22
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:17:22
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:17:04
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:17:04
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:16:42
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:16:42
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:16:07
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:16:07
Image Generated: 2009:03:04 10:15:29
Image Digitized: 2009:03:04 10:15:29
Banners are 27 quare feet, but are only allowed to be 16 square feet. (Evidence for violation 2)
tape measure, bottom left is open to three feet, an open to three feet on the side. Don't trust me? go do it and see for yourself.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Evidence for violation 4 (testimonies)
Written testimony of Election Commission Member 1
Tuesday, March 24th following hearing board I received a text message from May Davis, Vice Presidential candidate, who is a member of my sorority. May asked me if I was a member of the hearing board, when I replied yes, she responded in outrage. She informed me that we were ridiculous and that it was one mistake in ordering, not multiple violations for each poster. She took blame for the violation, but said that the fine was unfair. I admittedly responded with more information than I should have presented to her.
I told her that I knew it seemed large, and that the hearing board had come to a compromise that we wouldn’t fine United Students for every poster ordered, just the ones documented. At this time I don’t know if that conversation even took place in hearing board or if I told her that so she wouldn’t be as angry with me. I also told her to look on the bright side that the other three violations presented that night had been dismissed, which I now realize sounds like I was pulling for her coalition, but was not my intent whatsoever.
I then began to answer her questions about that night’s ruling. She asked if other coalitions could come in with documentation of more posters to increase the fine already determined. I told her that she could not be fined more for the violation, if she met the guideline to add the commission website by April 1st. She proceeded to explain how upset she was via text message, and I responded with a simple sorry.
The next day, Wednesday, March 25th at 3:26 p.m. May sent a text message to election commission member 2 and I stating that she was sorry for her actions the previous night and requested to meet with us later that evening. We both responded that it would be okay. However, I chose to go to bed early that night, and by the time she wanted to have the meeting I was already asleep. She proceeded to meet with election commission member 2 separately.
On Thursday, March 26th May approached me while I was getting ready for class, around 8:30 a.m. May proceeded to explain that she had met with election commission member 2 the previous night, and was sorry for being harsh with us. She then continued to rant about how the violation was unfair and I believe she informed me of her plans to appeal. I also remember her saying something regarding the inability to spend less than $6000 if the fines were going to be this substantial. At this time, I do not honestly remember what information I told her, but remember keeping quiet for most of the conversation and focusing on my task of getting ready.
The following Tuesday, March 31st, election commission member 2 and I approached the election commissioner about our shared sorority membership with May following the elections commission meeting. Concerns had been brought up at the meeting regarding her appeal. That night following the meeting with the election commissioner I made sure to tell May that any further questions she had regarding the occurrences at hearing board and elections commission meetings should be directed to election commissioner.
On Saturday, April 4th around 5:00 p.m. I received a text message from May informing me that Adam and some other people wanted to have meetings with members of hearing board. I told her to direct those people to Steven and that I knew at least two members of the commission were out of town. She informed me that they were to be individual meetings. I asked why, and was told it was something good and not to worry. Later that evening, at Alpha Chi Omega, I informed May that I wasn’t comfortable with the proposed meeting taking place. After that she dropped the subject completely.
I have done my best to recount the previous occurrences as I remember them, but I am unfortunately human and do not have a full recollection of what occurred two weeks ago. I would like to apologize for divulging information that was supposed to be kept between the five members present during hearing board. I will avoid any further situations that put me in a place to speak with May Davis one on one regarding student senate elections. If any information is brought to the commissioner or commission about my presentation of classified information to any coalition or candidate after this point, I will either defend myself fully or step down willingly from the commission.
Written Testimony of election commission member 2
On Tuesday the 24th, the Elections Commission decided to fine the United Students coalition $350 for a code violation regarding campaign material, specifically posters. That evening, at approximately 10 pm, I received a text message from United Students Vice-Presidential candidate May Davis asking me if I was on the hearing board. I replied that I was. She then responded "Are you guys SERIOUS? We made on mistake making the order, NOT multiple. So, why are we being fined multiple times? The violation is our bad, but can we be charged for each one we bought?" I did not reply to that text nor speak to her for the rest of the night. The next day, Wednesday the 25th, I received another text from Miss Davis sometime between 3 pm and 4 pm asking if she could speak with election commission member 1 and I later that night. I said that I would.
That evening sometime after 10 pm, I was walking up the stairs and Miss Davis asked if she could talk to election commission member 1 and I now. We went to find election commission member 1 but she was already asleep so Miss Davis and I proceeded to go into a lounge to talk. When we got into the lounge, Miss Davis said that she was very angry last night and felt that she couldn't even come home because she was so upset. She did apologize for sending such a rude and angry text message the night before. Miss Davis said something to the effect that she was told we didn't "pull for her" as much as others did in the hearing. I asked who said that and then told her that it wasn't my job to fight for one coalition or the other. She said she didn't understand how we were fining them for multiple posters violations when they made the mistake only once. I said that we were only fining the ones we had evidence of and not all of the posters. Miss Davis asked me if we were fining United Students for the sake of fining United Students or if the violation was that offensive. I told her that we did agree that it was a minor offense (thus the $25 times 14 posters to get the $350) but knew that $25 was too small of a fine, so it was a unanimous decision to fine them for each poster. I also told her that it was in clear violation of the code, which states the elections commission website must be present on each poster. Miss Davis asked me if not having the website on their poster gave them such an advantage as to warrant a fine of $350 and to that I did not respond, but said again that it was a clear violation. In addition, I said that the elections commission wanted all coalitions to know that we take the code seriously and that they should as well. It was from this comment (or something similar as I do not remember verbatum what I said) that I believe Miss Davis got her information that is in her appeal.
Also during the course of our conversation, I told Miss Davis that originally I was unsure of what to fine them and thought that it should be lower than $350 but that after thinking about it during our deliberation, I obviously voted to "approve" it as it was passed unanimously. Miss Davis was also very upset because she said she spoke with Adam Wood, who filed the complaint, and he apologized for filing it at all. According to Miss Davis, Mr. Wood said that he felt the fine was too large; I believe this "fueled the fire" so to speak. Miss Davis also said she wanted to know if she should plan on being fined so much in the future so that she could create a budget for it. She mentioned something to the effect that she is not a"rules-person" to which I responded that I am. She said that even if they were to spend more than $6000, we should not expect them to turn it in.
Miss Davis also asked me whether they would be fined additionally if they were unable to add the website to each poster. I told her that it was my personal opinion that if they made a substantial effort to add the commission website that they shouldn't be fined a large amount. Miss Davis also informed me of her appeal (which I took as she had already appealed).
On April 4th, May Davis text messaged me again, asking to meet "with some of us about a violation thing." I asked her about what, because I didn't want to talk about Student Senate things outside of the Commission meetings. She then said it was about something that Mr. Wood was bringing through; I didn't reply to this text message. That was the last contact I have had with Miss Davis, with regards to Student Senate or otherwise.
I do understand that divulging the initial information to Miss Davis was wrong, but I do think that speaking to her one-on-one is an intimidating situation that I was unprepared for. I do take full responsibility for any other grievances that may occur in the future and will either defend my position or voluntarily resign.
Again, I apologize for any stress and trouble that I may have caused.
Sincerely,
election commission member 2
May Davis appeal,
3/30/09
To the University Judiciary Board:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, the Hearing Board of the Student Senate Election Commission heard complaints in the matter of United Students hanging posters around campus before the date as prescribed in §401(B)(2) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations, hanging more than one poster on a bulletin board as prohibited in §409(D)(4) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations and not including the election commission website as prescribed in §300(T) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations. The board voted unanimously to dismiss the first count because of an ambiguity in the section as amended by an independent committee in the fall of 2008 and to dismiss the second count for a lack of proximate cause.
For the third violation, the hearing board was presented with pictures of 14 posters on campus that did not include the URL as prescribed in §300(T). This provision of the code was added the previous year to encourage voter awareness and turnout in the yearly student senate elections. Although it was added last year, this was the first year of full enforcement of the provision because the change occurred after some posters had already been distributed. Upon a private discussion of the hearing board, it was unanimously voted that each poster was a “minor offense,” as stated under §412(G)(1) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations. Under this section, each “minor violation” requires a $25 fine. It was also unanimously decided that each of the 14 posters was its own violation and thus each poster would carry a $25 fine. Multiplying $25 by 14 posters, the hearing board fined United Students $350. In addition, it was unanimously decided that United Students would either remove the posters in violation or amend them to include the missing URL before 5:00 pm, April 1, 2009, or face additional fines.
During the hearing, testimony was offered that while there was only evidence of 14 posters without the URL, many more posters all over campus did not include the URL. United Students did not deny this allegation. The hearing board unanimously decided that it would be unfair to speculate as to the number of the posters that do, in fact, exist without the URL. They simply fined United Students for the posters that there were evidence of at hearing board.
Conversations held during hearing board during deliberations are confidential, but allegations in the appeal, in my opinion, make it necessary to disclose some of the discussion for the sake of justice. During deliberations for the hearing in question, discussion was had to cut the $350 fine in half because of fear of the parties running the collation to pay the fine. Committee members opposed cutting the fine in half because of the arbitrary nature of such an act. It was also stated that if we arbitrarily cut fines, candidates in the election will not take the rules seriously and not adhere to the rules set forth in the election code. After this discussion, the hearing board voted unanimously to fine United Students $350 for the violation.
Claiming that the committee was concerned with an assertion of power could not be farther from the truth. The election’s committee sole reason for existence is to ensure fair elections take place. The only powers the election commission has are the rules set out in the election code. If anything, the committee is handicapped to rule only as the code dictates. While no section in the election code clarifies whether multiple posters in violation of §300(T) is a single claim or multiple claim, the hearing board made a judgment call and found that each poster was an individual violation. If the hearing board is guilty of any wrong doing, it is not explaining to all the members of the hearing board that discussions that happen during deliberations are confidential and should not be communicated to anyone outside of hearing board. For these reasons, the appellant’s claim should be denied and the decision upheld.
Sincerely,
Chair, Elections Commission Hearing Board
Elections Commissioner
Tuesday, March 24th following hearing board I received a text message from May Davis, Vice Presidential candidate, who is a member of my sorority. May asked me if I was a member of the hearing board, when I replied yes, she responded in outrage. She informed me that we were ridiculous and that it was one mistake in ordering, not multiple violations for each poster. She took blame for the violation, but said that the fine was unfair. I admittedly responded with more information than I should have presented to her.
I told her that I knew it seemed large, and that the hearing board had come to a compromise that we wouldn’t fine United Students for every poster ordered, just the ones documented. At this time I don’t know if that conversation even took place in hearing board or if I told her that so she wouldn’t be as angry with me. I also told her to look on the bright side that the other three violations presented that night had been dismissed, which I now realize sounds like I was pulling for her coalition, but was not my intent whatsoever.
I then began to answer her questions about that night’s ruling. She asked if other coalitions could come in with documentation of more posters to increase the fine already determined. I told her that she could not be fined more for the violation, if she met the guideline to add the commission website by April 1st. She proceeded to explain how upset she was via text message, and I responded with a simple sorry.
The next day, Wednesday, March 25th at 3:26 p.m. May sent a text message to election commission member 2 and I stating that she was sorry for her actions the previous night and requested to meet with us later that evening. We both responded that it would be okay. However, I chose to go to bed early that night, and by the time she wanted to have the meeting I was already asleep. She proceeded to meet with election commission member 2 separately.
On Thursday, March 26th May approached me while I was getting ready for class, around 8:30 a.m. May proceeded to explain that she had met with election commission member 2 the previous night, and was sorry for being harsh with us. She then continued to rant about how the violation was unfair and I believe she informed me of her plans to appeal. I also remember her saying something regarding the inability to spend less than $6000 if the fines were going to be this substantial. At this time, I do not honestly remember what information I told her, but remember keeping quiet for most of the conversation and focusing on my task of getting ready.
The following Tuesday, March 31st, election commission member 2 and I approached the election commissioner about our shared sorority membership with May following the elections commission meeting. Concerns had been brought up at the meeting regarding her appeal. That night following the meeting with the election commissioner I made sure to tell May that any further questions she had regarding the occurrences at hearing board and elections commission meetings should be directed to election commissioner.
On Saturday, April 4th around 5:00 p.m. I received a text message from May informing me that Adam and some other people wanted to have meetings with members of hearing board. I told her to direct those people to Steven and that I knew at least two members of the commission were out of town. She informed me that they were to be individual meetings. I asked why, and was told it was something good and not to worry. Later that evening, at Alpha Chi Omega, I informed May that I wasn’t comfortable with the proposed meeting taking place. After that she dropped the subject completely.
I have done my best to recount the previous occurrences as I remember them, but I am unfortunately human and do not have a full recollection of what occurred two weeks ago. I would like to apologize for divulging information that was supposed to be kept between the five members present during hearing board. I will avoid any further situations that put me in a place to speak with May Davis one on one regarding student senate elections. If any information is brought to the commissioner or commission about my presentation of classified information to any coalition or candidate after this point, I will either defend myself fully or step down willingly from the commission.
Written Testimony of election commission member 2
On Tuesday the 24th, the Elections Commission decided to fine the United Students coalition $350 for a code violation regarding campaign material, specifically posters. That evening, at approximately 10 pm, I received a text message from United Students Vice-Presidential candidate May Davis asking me if I was on the hearing board. I replied that I was. She then responded "Are you guys SERIOUS? We made on mistake making the order, NOT multiple. So, why are we being fined multiple times? The violation is our bad, but can we be charged for each one we bought?" I did not reply to that text nor speak to her for the rest of the night. The next day, Wednesday the 25th, I received another text from Miss Davis sometime between 3 pm and 4 pm asking if she could speak with election commission member 1 and I later that night. I said that I would.
That evening sometime after 10 pm, I was walking up the stairs and Miss Davis asked if she could talk to election commission member 1 and I now. We went to find election commission member 1 but she was already asleep so Miss Davis and I proceeded to go into a lounge to talk. When we got into the lounge, Miss Davis said that she was very angry last night and felt that she couldn't even come home because she was so upset. She did apologize for sending such a rude and angry text message the night before. Miss Davis said something to the effect that she was told we didn't "pull for her" as much as others did in the hearing. I asked who said that and then told her that it wasn't my job to fight for one coalition or the other. She said she didn't understand how we were fining them for multiple posters violations when they made the mistake only once. I said that we were only fining the ones we had evidence of and not all of the posters. Miss Davis asked me if we were fining United Students for the sake of fining United Students or if the violation was that offensive. I told her that we did agree that it was a minor offense (thus the $25 times 14 posters to get the $350) but knew that $25 was too small of a fine, so it was a unanimous decision to fine them for each poster. I also told her that it was in clear violation of the code, which states the elections commission website must be present on each poster. Miss Davis asked me if not having the website on their poster gave them such an advantage as to warrant a fine of $350 and to that I did not respond, but said again that it was a clear violation. In addition, I said that the elections commission wanted all coalitions to know that we take the code seriously and that they should as well. It was from this comment (or something similar as I do not remember verbatum what I said) that I believe Miss Davis got her information that is in her appeal.
Also during the course of our conversation, I told Miss Davis that originally I was unsure of what to fine them and thought that it should be lower than $350 but that after thinking about it during our deliberation, I obviously voted to "approve" it as it was passed unanimously. Miss Davis was also very upset because she said she spoke with Adam Wood, who filed the complaint, and he apologized for filing it at all. According to Miss Davis, Mr. Wood said that he felt the fine was too large; I believe this "fueled the fire" so to speak. Miss Davis also said she wanted to know if she should plan on being fined so much in the future so that she could create a budget for it. She mentioned something to the effect that she is not a"rules-person" to which I responded that I am. She said that even if they were to spend more than $6000, we should not expect them to turn it in.
Miss Davis also asked me whether they would be fined additionally if they were unable to add the website to each poster. I told her that it was my personal opinion that if they made a substantial effort to add the commission website that they shouldn't be fined a large amount. Miss Davis also informed me of her appeal (which I took as she had already appealed).
On April 4th, May Davis text messaged me again, asking to meet "with some of us about a violation thing." I asked her about what, because I didn't want to talk about Student Senate things outside of the Commission meetings. She then said it was about something that Mr. Wood was bringing through; I didn't reply to this text message. That was the last contact I have had with Miss Davis, with regards to Student Senate or otherwise.
I do understand that divulging the initial information to Miss Davis was wrong, but I do think that speaking to her one-on-one is an intimidating situation that I was unprepared for. I do take full responsibility for any other grievances that may occur in the future and will either defend my position or voluntarily resign.
Again, I apologize for any stress and trouble that I may have caused.
Sincerely,
election commission member 2
May Davis appeal,
3/30/09
To the University Judiciary Board:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, the Hearing Board of the Student Senate Election Commission heard complaints in the matter of United Students hanging posters around campus before the date as prescribed in §401(B)(2) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations, hanging more than one poster on a bulletin board as prohibited in §409(D)(4) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations and not including the election commission website as prescribed in §300(T) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations. The board voted unanimously to dismiss the first count because of an ambiguity in the section as amended by an independent committee in the fall of 2008 and to dismiss the second count for a lack of proximate cause.
For the third violation, the hearing board was presented with pictures of 14 posters on campus that did not include the URL as prescribed in §300(T). This provision of the code was added the previous year to encourage voter awareness and turnout in the yearly student senate elections. Although it was added last year, this was the first year of full enforcement of the provision because the change occurred after some posters had already been distributed. Upon a private discussion of the hearing board, it was unanimously voted that each poster was a “minor offense,” as stated under §412(G)(1) of appendix C of Student Senate Rules and Regulations. Under this section, each “minor violation” requires a $25 fine. It was also unanimously decided that each of the 14 posters was its own violation and thus each poster would carry a $25 fine. Multiplying $25 by 14 posters, the hearing board fined United Students $350. In addition, it was unanimously decided that United Students would either remove the posters in violation or amend them to include the missing URL before 5:00 pm, April 1, 2009, or face additional fines.
During the hearing, testimony was offered that while there was only evidence of 14 posters without the URL, many more posters all over campus did not include the URL. United Students did not deny this allegation. The hearing board unanimously decided that it would be unfair to speculate as to the number of the posters that do, in fact, exist without the URL. They simply fined United Students for the posters that there were evidence of at hearing board.
Conversations held during hearing board during deliberations are confidential, but allegations in the appeal, in my opinion, make it necessary to disclose some of the discussion for the sake of justice. During deliberations for the hearing in question, discussion was had to cut the $350 fine in half because of fear of the parties running the collation to pay the fine. Committee members opposed cutting the fine in half because of the arbitrary nature of such an act. It was also stated that if we arbitrarily cut fines, candidates in the election will not take the rules seriously and not adhere to the rules set forth in the election code. After this discussion, the hearing board voted unanimously to fine United Students $350 for the violation.
Claiming that the committee was concerned with an assertion of power could not be farther from the truth. The election’s committee sole reason for existence is to ensure fair elections take place. The only powers the election commission has are the rules set out in the election code. If anything, the committee is handicapped to rule only as the code dictates. While no section in the election code clarifies whether multiple posters in violation of §300(T) is a single claim or multiple claim, the hearing board made a judgment call and found that each poster was an individual violation. If the hearing board is guilty of any wrong doing, it is not explaining to all the members of the hearing board that discussions that happen during deliberations are confidential and should not be communicated to anyone outside of hearing board. For these reasons, the appellant’s claim should be denied and the decision upheld.
Sincerely,
Chair, Elections Commission Hearing Board
Elections Commissioner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)