Breaking News #2 - The Verdict is In

[aggienaut]

   Special Report #2: EMOSNAIL has come into possession of the texts of the two Campus Judicial Board rulings on the Elections Committee, both of which were found 7-0 in favour of the Plaintiffs (Complainants), "the Orwellians."

Members of panel:
Elvin Lee, Chair
Michael Fein, Co-Chair
Jennifer Frost, Board member
Carla Hernandez, Board member
Dustin Ingraham, Board member
Venessa Laurel, Board member
Kalie Moody, Board member

Complainants:
Chad Van Schoelandt, Spokesperson
Marie Huynh
Brent Laabs
Jonathon Leathers
Chris Rood

Respondents:
Christine Schacter, Elections Committee Chair/Spokesperson
Renee Ashbaugh, Elections Committee member
Sallie Boorman, Elections Committee member
Jacob Cutler, Elections Committee member
Jamie Phelps, Elections Committee member

Recording Monitor: Oliver Hsu, Board member

[same for both cases]

FINDING OF FACT FROM THE UC DAVIS CAMPUS JUDICIAL BOARD
In the case of ASUCD Elections, Fall 2004 – Complaint #1
Summary of Complaint:
The complainants allege that the Elections Committee failed to perform the duties of their office in conformity with the ASUCD Constitution or legislation enacted pursuant to the ASUCD Constitution (ASUCD Judicial Code, Section 402). Specifically, the complainants state that the Elections committee sent an e-mail to potential Senate candidates on October 26, 2004 warning those individuals against publicizing themselves as Senate candidates before they had been officially confirmed as candidates by the Elections Committee. The complainants allege that the Elections Committee improperly warned candidates about a rule that did not have any basis in ASUCD policy or law.

Summary of Findings:
The panel found that the language used in the e-mail dated October 26, 2004 from the Elections Committee Chair to potential Senate Candidates to be sufficiently strong such that it appears that an official Election guideline was being communicated. Based on the testimony from both parties, as well as a review of the ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, the panel concludes that no such rule or guideline existed that would prohibit candidates from publicizing their candidacy prior to being confirmed as an official Senate Candidate. Furthermore, nothing in Section 102 (Duties of the Elections Committee), Section 105 (Petitions and Notice of Candidacy), Section 111 (Posting and Distribution Regulations), nor Section 112 (Election Regulations, Violations and Penalties) provides the Elections Committee with the discretionary power to create or enforce such an Election guideline. Thus, the panel concludes that the Elections Committee wrongly informed potential Senate Candidates of a non-existent guideline. The Elections Committee’s attempts to clarify the matter at the Mandatory Candidate’s Workshop (October 26, 2004) were insufficient because they failed to issue a retraction of a blatantly false statement. Instead, it appears that the statements made at the Workshop only may have had the unfortunate opposite effect of reaffirming the original message in the minds of some Candidates, including the complainants. According to ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 102, Subsection 1, the mandatory workshop is intended to “inform candidates, tickets and Ballot Measures (pro/con Treasurers) of election guidelines and the election process.” Thus the panel finds that the Committee’s communication of a non-existent guideline, followed by its subsequent failure to retract the false statement at the Mandatory Candidate’s Workshop constitutes procedural error on the part of the Elections Committee.

Preponderance of Evidence: Establishes procedural error

Vote: 7-0

Recommendations of the Panel:
The panel acknowledges the Elections Committee’s goal to facilitate a fair and impartial election. If the Committee’s concerns about early publicizing of candidacy are determined to be founded, and that such actions are detrimental to the Committee’s goal, then the panel recommends that an official guideline be written to regulate this. If it is desired that all candidates should refrain from posting or dispersing campaign materials before the date upon which those candidates are confirmed, then this stipulation should be included under ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 111 which addresses “Posting and Distribution Regulations”.

If it is determined that no such guideline is necessary, then the panel recommends that the Committee refrain from advocating (potential) candidates to adhere to such a guideline, in order to avoid confusion.


FINDING OF FACT FROM THE UC DAVIS CAMPUS JUDICIAL BOARD
In the case of ASUCD Elections, Fall 2004 – Complaint #2
Summary of Complaint:
The complainants allege that the Elections Committee failed to perform the duties of their office in conformity with the ASUCD Constitution or legislation enacted pursuant to the ASUCD Constitution (ASUCD Judicial Code, Section 402). Specifically, the complainants state that the Elections committee improperly edited ASUCD candidates’ statements and platforms that were published as part of the ASUCD Elections Voluntary Spending Agreement. The complainants allege that the Elections committee did not provide notice to the candidates that such statements and platforms were subject to editing for content. The complainants state that the Elections committee failed to carry out its duties under the Voluntary Spending Agreement by refusing to publish the statements/platforms as submitted to the Committee.

Summary of Findings:
The panel thoroughly reviewed ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 112, Subsection 6A.iii and concluded that no guideline exists that explicitly grants editorial power to the Elections Committee over any content that may be published as a Voluntary Spending Agreement incentive. The panel also notes, however, that Subsection 6A.iii.a does indeed stipulate that “the procedures for printing copies shall be determined by the ASUCD Elections Committee and shall be announced to all candidates for office.” A liberal reading of that guideline would allow the Elections Committee to grant itself editorial powers over such content, provided it included those powers in the procedures for printing and made those procedures known to all candidates at the onset of the Voluntary Spending Agreement. Based on the written and oral testimony of both parties, the panel concludes that the Elections Committee failed to establish such procedures that would have allowed them editorial discretion. The Committee maintains that, at the Mandatory Candidates’ Workshop (October 26, 2004), they stated, “campaigning should be kept clean, handled in a responsible manner, and respectful of other candidates.” Careful inspection of Section 112 reveals no guideline that pertains to the Committee’s request. Furthermore, the panel finds that that statement does not fall under the category of establishing printing procedures for flyers, as governed by Section 112, Subsection 6A.iii.a. In regards to the statements which were edited for the sample ballots, inspection of relevant portions of ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 112, Subsection 6A.iii.b yields no statement that grants editorial power to the Elections Committee, whether explicitly or implicitly. The Committee also maintains that the portions of the ASUCD Government Codes which read “all candidates and tickets shall be responsible for the information disseminated at the workshop” and the duties of the Elections Committee are to “ensure that all elections are conducted fairly and equally” to mean that they had the power to prohibit certain types of statements. The panel finds this reading of the ASUCD Government Codes to be erroneous and taken highly out of context. Firstly, while it is true that “all candidates and tickets shall be responsible for the information disseminated at the workshop” (ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 102), this in no way empowers the Committee to disseminate false information, or create new guidelines outside of its jurisdiction. Secondly, the full text of the excerpted statement (ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 102) reads, “To ensure that all elections are conducted fairly and impartially, the ASUCD Elections Committee shall adhere to the following guidelines.” (emphasis added) The Committee needs to take care that it thoroughly adheres to the guidelines, and does not overstep its bounds. Section 102 clearly states there that the Elections Committee only has the powers granted to it within the Codes, and discretionary powers where explicitly granted. Thus, the panel finds that the terms of the Voluntary Spending Agreement are as stated in the Voluntary Spending Agreement contract which was signed by the Candidates, pursuant to ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 112, Subsection 6. As a result, the panel finds that the Elections Committee’s refusal to publish the statements as submitted by the complainants to constitute procedural error under Subsection 6.

Preponderance of Evidence: Establishes procedural error

Vote: 7-0

Recommendations of the Panel:
If it is determined that the Elections Committee ought to have the right to edit the content of campaign materials which the body reproduces, this authority should be conferred to the group under ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 112, Subsection 6A.iii. To avoid confusion, the scope of the discretionary powers under Section 112, Subsection 6A.iii.a which reads, “procedures for printing copies shall be determined by the ASUCD Elections Committee…” ought to be clarified. Furthermore, the guidelines for evaluating libel and slander in the event of Recall Elections (ASUCD Government Codes, Chapter 1, Section 112, Subsection 6A.iii.b) should be expanded to include statements in normal elections as well.

Comments

[codetoad.livejournal.com]

Is this posted online anywhere? Or do they just email this to the important ASUCD people?

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I can email you the originals if you want. The only change I've made is I moved the listing of parties / panel members to the top of both (it was previously two documents with that listed twice).

I asked Mark Champagne for them.

[codetoad.livejournal.com]

I don't really have a use for the originals, but thanks. I just wish ASUCD put everything online.

I am with Arlen, "If everything was open source, databased, and online, the world would be a better place."

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

The ASUCD method of putting documents up is that the unit from whence the document comes from submits it to SGAO, who if specifically prodded by someone to do something with it may submit it to "Media Link" or whatever tehy call it, who, if specifically prodded by someone (again) may put it up on the website.

[revchad.livejournal.com]

I fully support the Board's decisions. I especially like times when they find the Elections Committee of procedural errors which the Orwellians never mentioned. The Board was very fair and thorough, and for that I applaud them.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I hope the Aggie puts it somewhere prominant on the front page when school resumes.

[revchad.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should send them copies. Or have someone unknown do so. This Kristy person I keep hearing about has no ties to me that I know of, maybe you could ask her to send them in. This way the Aggie can't just think I'm trying to manipulate them or anything.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

But she sends them articles about kitties every week, and they never publish them. (= jk.

HA!

[basicallyasap.livejournal.com]

The Aggie should definitely let me have a kitty/squirrel/koala-focused column.

Re: HA!

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

With pictures/diagrams!