After a short deliberation Thursday night, the Student Association Judicial Board decided on a grievance filed against the Elections Committee — there will not be a re-run of the SA elections.
However, the nine-member board did acknowledge that there were possible violations of the bylaws. Judicial board members are nominated by the SA president and confirmed by the Assembly.
The hearing occurred to address a grievance from Russell Heiman, a sophomore majoring in management. He said he filed a grievance after he noticed bylaw violations in the College-in-the-Woods elections.
“I witnessed the people sitting at the poll telling other people to vote yes [for the fee increase] if they like OCCT [Off Campus College Transport],” Heiman said. “They are not allowed to express their opinions, and they are misleading people by doing this.”
In addition to his claim that poll sitters were endorsing the referendum during their shifts, Heiman said that they also did not properly check his identification according to Section V(8)(H) of the election bylaws.
Elections committee chair Karen Galan breathed a sigh of relief when the board announced its decision. She said that if the judicial board had determined the infractions to be severe enough, the committee would have to run elections again.
“It’s the weight of paranoia [that causes stress],” she said. “I think I did everything at my best. If I went back I wouldn’t have done anything different.”
MISLEADING MESSAGES
E-mails from the office of the Adam Amit, the SA president, led Heiman to consider changing the current bylaws.
Multiple SA-Line e-mails were sent out to the student body supporting the mandatory student activity fee, as well as an increase of that fee. Those items passed in the referendum by 92 percent and 82 percent, respectively.
The e-mails encouraged students who use Off Campus College Transport, attend SA programming and are involved in student groups to support the referenda on the elections ballot. The e-mail went on to say that the SA would have no funds if students did not approve the activity fee.
Amit acknowledged that when he first started campaigning for the fee he expressed false information. He originally indicated that voting the increase down would eliminate the fee, but he said the error was corrected in later e-mails. The e-mails came after he was told that voting to keep the fee mandatory would be enough to sustain funding.
“I did not know the vote for a mandatory fee had to be included,” Amit said. “I knew if one vote failed [the SA] would lose the fee. When I realized it was two votes, I thought both had to pass to keep the fee,” he said of the mandatory fee and fee increase.
When the misunderstanding was brought to Amit’s attention by members of the Assembly, and confirmed by Jacqueline Zagorsky, administrative director for the SA, he said he used the SA-Line to make sure the students got the right information.
The SA’s endorsement of the activity fee is what Heiman said might have caused the poll sitters to lead voters to vote yes.
According to Section V(13)(B) of the current SA bylaws, no member of the Assembly can use SA office resources to publicize a candidate endorsement. However, there is no bylaw prohibiting an SA affiliate from using office resources to endorse an issue brought to a referendum.
Heiman cannot file a grievance against this act since it did not violate a bylaw, but he feels that it was irresponsible for Amit’s office to use their power to influence a vote. He will be working with Galan to write an amendment to the bylaws stating that the “SA cannot endorse a candidate or a referendum.”
According to Mark Zglobicki, chair of the SA’s judicial board, Heiman’s was the only grievance on the elections committee this year. Last year there were four grievances against the committee.