[1166] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Creighton/Brar Election Commission decisions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roger Ford (raf@mit.edu))
Thu Mar 14 10:47:12 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1196021213==_ma============"
Message-ID: <a05101002b8b624e209ad@[18.243.0.220]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:21:18 -0500
From: "Roger Ford (raf@mit.edu)" <raf@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
--============_-1196021213==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
[ua-all@mit.edu, ua-announce@mit.edu, and ec-discuss@mit.edu dropped]
I understand that the UA has been inundated with complaints and that
everyone on mit-talk has received more than enough email for one day.
Consider this to be one more, though. I find it hard to accept a UA
official asking people to stop providing feedback, since a lack of
real student representation is one of the commonly perceived flaws in
the UA, and so I shall ignore that request. I also think there are
important points that have not been made, and so I have tried to make
them.
The issues as I see them, along with explanations for each point, are
as follows.
1. There is no legitimate basis in the Election Code for the
decisions regarding Creighton and Brar.
A. There was no complaint against Creighton and Brar, as required by
the Election Code, or if there was one, proper procedures were not
followed.
The process for complaints and sanctions is clearly laid out in the
Election Code and the Rules Document, both available on the UA's web
site. That process requires several things. First, there must be a
complaint to the Rules Board; it can't act on its own. Second,
acknowledgement of that complaint must be sent to "all parties
involved", which in this case would clearly include Creighton and
Brar. As far as I know, no such complaint or acknowledgement was ever
made or sent.
B. Creighton and Brar are not candidates, as that term is used in the
Election Code. Because they are not candidates, Creighton and Brar
have not in any case committed a campaign violation
A candidate, the Election Code clearly implies, is someone who has
filed a Statement of Candidacy. Creighton and Brar have not. This is
not explicitly defined, but precedent is on the side of not
considering write-in candidates to be candidates, as the term is used
in the Code. For instance, in the last few years write-in candidates
have campaigned within 20 feet of the voting booth, passed out candy,
and otherwise campaigned in ways not consistent with the Election
Code requirements for normal candidates. Write-in candidates are also
not required to fill obligations normal candidates must fulfill, such
as providing staffing and general publicity for the elections.
Since only candidates are governed by the campaign rules, Creighton
and Brar can not have committed a campaign violation.
C. Even if Creighton and Brar are candidates, they have not violated
the Statement of Candidacy.
The Statement of Candidacy reads, in its entirety:
>If elected to the office of President / Vice President of the
>Undergraduate Association, I <name> hereby promise to fulfill all
>responsibilities of my offices enumerated in the Undergraduate
>Association Constitution, other bylaws of the Undergraduate
>Association, and the Undergraduate Association Election Code. I
>fully understand that failure to do so will result in my removal
>from office by the Undergraduate Association Council.
This statement pertains solely to action once elected, and not to
campaign activities.
D. Even if Creighton and Brar are candidates, they have not violated
the "spirit of the campaign".
The "spirit of the campaign" is not a nebulous term that can be
expanded to include whatever rules the Election Commission wants. It
is specifically defined in the Rules Document as "an atmosphere of
friendly competition." Creighton and Brar have not disrupted that
atmosphere; if anything, members of the Election Commission and UA
officials have. There is no basis in the Election Code for
interpreting the "spirit of the campaign" as carte blanche to invent
rules, even if they are seemingly sensical rules that may have been
accidentally left out of the Election Code.
Because they haven't violated the Statement of Candidacy or the
"spirit of the campaign", there is no obvious campaign violation
Creighton and Brar might have committed. Having read the Election
Code several times, I see no specific violation they committed other
than perhaps postering violations, though at least half the
candidates for UA or class office this year have committed postering
violations.
E. Even had Creighton and Brar committed a campaign violation, the
Election Commission cannot prevent their election.
Suggested sanctions for "severe" violations of the Election Code,
from the Rules Document, include "place the phrase 'violated election
rules' next to the candidate's name on the ballot," "revoke all
campaigning rights," and "remove the candidate from the ballot."
These sanctions have one thing in common: they all allow the
candidate to win anyway. Anything less would subvert the democratic
process the UA is hopefully trying to create.
2. There is reason to believe that members of the Election Commission
are biased, and thus unfit to hear complaints about the
Creighton/Brar activities.
The following personal email was sent to Rhett Creighton:
>Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:12:38 -0500
From: Daniel D Liston <liston@MIT.EDU>
To: rhett@sub-zero.MIT.EDU
Subject: Elections
Creighton,
There is no way you will win the UA presidency. You are wasting your
time and mine. Even if you get enough votes the moment you sign the
Statement of Candidacy I'll throw you out of office for campaigning
against the "spirit of the campaign." But you probably already know
this and don't really care. I figure your goal is to disrupt the
election, poke some holes in the UA, and get your name in the tech.
Congrats. You've done everything you've wanted. Now when this is
all done with you can go back to your powerless, innane existence.
Sleep well.
Dan Liston
Election Rules Board Chair
This email is unprofessional, accusatory, biased, and not consistent
with the responsibility that the Rules Board Chair position requires.
It also alleges powers that do not exist, such as the power to "throw
[someone] out of office."
Mr. Liston's next email said:
>Our decision,
Due to campaigning against the spirit of the campaign, the election commission
and the UA would immediatley revoke Creighton and Brar's position,
if they win a position.
Therefore all Creighton and Brar votes are now void and those who
voted for them will have their next votes counted. It is the
election commission's duty to elect officers of high standards.
Creighton and Brar do not live up to these standards as shown by
their unfair campaign tactics.
>Dan Liston
>Rules Board Chair
In particular, when Mr. Liston says that "It is the election
commission's duty to elect officers of high standards", he is wrong.
The duty of the Election Commission is to run a fair election and
ensure sufficient candidates for the Undergraduate Association (which
is, after all, composed of all undergraduates) to be duly
represented. Anything further undermines the spirit of democracy. His
opinion of Mr. Creighton attempts to substitute his own judgment for
that of the electorate, which could be sufficient grounds for removal
from office.
3. A decision at this point in the election cycle has the potential
to bias the election; any decision should have waited until after the
election.
By declaring Creighton and Brar to be ineligible in the middle of
voting, and in a manner that is clearly contrary to the governing
mandate of the Commission, the Election Commission creates an
environment in which it discourages votes for a specific write-in
candidate. This has the potential to change the result of the
election, and should the Commission's decision be overturned, would
invalidate the results of the election. A decision after the fact has
much less potential for bias and interference.
4. The multiple decisions run counter to the principles of election
fairness with respect to the issue of write-in candidates.
Write-in candidacies have historically been a way for "outsiders" to
gain elective office, and for a dissatisfied electorate to declare
its dissatisfaction. As such, they provide a valuable service to the
community as a whole, and should be encouraged.
The entire purpose of qualifying candidates for ballot listing is
that in return for giving up certain rights, such as agreeing to
campaign limits and spending limits, candidates gain certain
benefits, such as ballot listings and space on the official election
web page. To hold write-in candidates to the same regulations has the
effect of neutering write-in candidates to the extent that they are
essentially not a factor in elections. If that is the goal of the UA,
the proper course of action is to remove the write-in provision of
the Election Code. Otherwise, it appears that the UA is doing
anything it can to disrupt any viable write-in candidate.
This philosophical view of write-in candidates is supported by the
Election Code. The Code specifically holds write-in candidates to the
same regulations as other candidates *once they have won*. It nowhere
holds them to the same campaign, publicity, polling place, or
petition regulations, though.
5. The decisions reinforce the common view that the Undergraduate
Association is out of touch, elitist, and unrepresentative of the
undergraduate student body.
The UA clearly thinks it performs valuable services for the student
body. I personally think it does. But when UA officials refuse, when
asked on mit-talk, to explain what it has done, and when the UA
reacts with apparent alarm to a viable write-in candidate because
they think he is "inane" and does "not live up to these standards",
it is not representing its constituents. It is suppressing them.
I clearly believe, and I believe I have made a good case for the
view, that the election decisions are unacceptable, not consistent
with the UA's rules and Constitution, and consistent with a
reactionary, out of touch UA. I call on the Election Commission to
overturn them immediately. In addition, the current balloting has
clearly been tainted by the controversy, so I call on the Commission
to, in a manner consistent with its governing mandate, to hold a new
vote. Anything less would strike at the fundamental values of
fairness and democracy. The disrespect for the democratic process the
UA has shown its constituency this week saddens me; it is likely the
entire Creighton/Brar write-in candidacy would have been a minor
event had the Election Commission not legitimized it by attempting to
strike it down.
On my own behalf and no one else's,
Roger A. Ford '02
member, the Undergraduate Association
member, the Student Committee on Educational Policy
--
--============_-1196021213==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Creighton/Brar Election Commission
decisions</title></head><body>
<div>[ua-all@mit.edu, ua-announce@mit.edu, and ec-discuss@mit.edu
dropped]</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I understand that the UA has been inundated with complaints and
that everyone on mit-talk has received more than enough email for one
day. Consider this to be one more, though. I find it hard to accept a
UA official asking people to stop providing feedback, since a lack of
real student representation is one of the commonly perceived flaws in
the UA, and so I shall ignore that request. I also think there are
important points that have not been made, and so I have tried to make
them.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The issues as I see them, along with explanations for each point,
are as follows.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>1. There is no legitimate basis in the Election Code for the
decisions regarding Creighton and Brar.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote>A. There was no complaint against Creighton and Brar, as
required by the Election Code, or if there was one, proper procedures
were not followed.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote>The process for complaints and sanctions is clearly laid
out in the Election Code and the Rules Document, both available on the
UA's web site. That process requires several things. First, there must
be a complaint to the Rules Board; it can't act on its own. Second,
acknowledgement of that complaint must be sent to "all parties
involved", which in this case would clearly include Creighton and
Brar. As far as I know, no such complaint or acknowledgement was ever
made or sent.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>B. Creighton and Brar are not candidates, as that term is
used in the Election Code. Because they are not candidates, Creighton
and Brar have not in any case committed a campaign
violation</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote>A candidate, the Election Code clearly implies, is someone
who has filed a Statement of Candidacy. Creighton and Brar have not.
This is not explicitly defined, but precedent is on the side of not
considering write-in candidates to be candidates, as the term is used
in the Code. For instance, in the last few years write-in candidates
have campaigned within 20 feet of the voting booth, passed out candy,
and otherwise campaigned in ways not consistent with the Election Code
requirements for normal candidates. Write-in candidates are also not
required to fill obligations normal candidates must fulfill, such as
providing staffing and general publicity for the
elections.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Since only candidates are governed by the campaign rules,
Creighton and Brar can not have committed a campaign
violation.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>C. Even if Creighton and Brar are candidates, they have
not violated the Statement of Candidacy.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote>The Statement of Candidacy reads, in its
entirety:</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">If elected to the
office of President / Vice President of the Undergraduate Association,
I <name> hereby promise to fulfill all responsibilities of my
offices enumerated in the Undergraduate Association Constitution,
other bylaws of the Undergraduate Association, and the Undergraduate
Association Election Code. I fully understand that failure to do so
will result in my removal from office by the Undergraduate Association
Council.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>This statement pertains solely to action once elected, and
not to campaign activities.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>D. Even if Creighton and Brar are candidates, they have
not violated the "spirit of the campaign".</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote>The "spirit of the campaign" is not a nebulous
term that can be expanded to include whatever rules the Election
Commission wants. It is specifically defined in the Rules Document as
"<font color="#000000">an atmosphere of friendly
competition.</font>" Creighton and Brar have not disrupted that
atmosphere; if anything, members of the Election Commission and UA
officials have. There is no basis in the Election Code for
interpreting the "spirit of the campaign" as carte blanche
to invent rules, even if they are seemingly sensical rules that may
have been accidentally left out of the Election Code.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Because they haven't violated the Statement of Candidacy
or the "spirit of the campaign", there is no obvious
campaign violation Creighton and Brar might have committed. Having
read the Election Code several times, I see no specific violation they
committed other than perhaps postering violations, though at least
half the candidates for UA or class office this year have committed
postering violations.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>E. Even had Creighton and Brar committed a campaign
violation, the Election Commission cannot prevent their
election.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote>Suggested sanctions for "severe" violations of
the Election Code, from the Rules Document, include<font
color="#000000"> "place the phrase 'violated election rules' next
to the candidate's name on the ballot," "revoke all
campaigning rights," and "remove the candidate from the
ballot." These sanctions have one thing in common: they all allow
the candidate to win anyway. Anything less would subver</font>t the
democratic process the UA is hopefully trying to create.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>2. There is reason to believe that members of the Election
Commission are biased, and thus unfit to hear complaints about the
Creighton/Brar activities.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote>The following personal email was sent to Rhett
Creighton:</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:12:38
-0500</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>From: Daniel D Liston <liston@MIT.EDU></blockquote>
<blockquote>To: rhett@sub-zero.MIT.EDU</blockquote>
<blockquote>Subject: Elections</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Creighton,</blockquote>
<blockquote>There is no way you will win the UA presidency. You
are wasting your time and mine. Even if you get enough votes the
moment you sign the Statement of Candidacy I'll throw you out of
office for campaigning against the "spirit of the
campaign." But you probably already know this and don't
really care. I figure your goal is to disrupt the election, poke some
holes in the UA, and get your name in the tech. Congrats.
You've done everything you've wanted. Now when this is all done
with you can go back to your powerless, innane existence. Sleep
well.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Dan Liston</blockquote>
<blockquote>Election Rules Board Chair</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>This email is unprofessional, accusatory, biased, and not
consistent with the responsibility that the Rules Board Chair position
requires. It also alleges powers that do not exist, such as the power
to "throw [someone] out of office."</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Mr. Liston's next email said:</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Our decision,</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>Due to campaigning against the spirit of the campaign, the
election commission</blockquote>
<blockquote>and the UA would immediatley revoke Creighton and Brar's
position, if they win a position. </blockquote>
<blockquote>Therefore all Creighton and Brar votes are now void and
those who voted for them will have their next votes counted. It
is the election commission's duty to elect officers of high
standards. Creighton and Brar do not live up to these standards
as shown by their unfair campaign tactics. </blockquote>
<blockquote>>Dan Liston</blockquote>
<blockquote>>Rules Board Chair</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>In particular, when Mr. Liston says that "It is the
election commission's duty to elect officers of high standards",
he is wrong. The duty of the Election Commission is to run a fair
election and ensure sufficient candidates for the Undergraduate
Association (which is, after all, composed of all undergraduates) to
be duly represented. Anything further undermines the spirit of
democracy. His opinion of Mr. Creighton attempts to substitute his own
judgment for that of the electorate, which could be sufficient grounds
for removal from office.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<div>3. A decision at this point in the election cycle has the
potential to bias the election; any decision should have waited until
after the election.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote>By declaring Creighton and Brar to be ineligible in the
middle of voting, and in a manner that is clearly contrary to the
governing mandate of the Commission, the Election Commission creates
an environment in which it discourages votes for a specific write-in
candidate. This has the potential to change the result of the
election, and should the Commission's decision be overturned, would
invalidate the results of the election. A decision after the fact has
much less potential for bias and interference.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>4. The multiple decisions run counter to the principles of
election fairness with respect to the issue of write-in
candidates.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote>Write-in candidacies have historically been a way for
"outsiders" to gain elective office, and for a dissatisfied
electorate to declare its dissatisfaction. As such, they provide a
valuable service to the community as a whole, and should be
encouraged.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>The entire purpose of qualifying candidates for ballot
listing is that in return for giving up certain rights, such as
agreeing to campaign limits and spending limits, candidates gain
certain benefits, such as ballot listings and space on the official
election web page. To hold write-in candidates to the same regulations
has the effect of neutering write-in candidates to the extent that
they are essentially not a factor in elections. If that is the goal of
the UA, the proper course of action is to remove the write-in
provision of the Election Code. Otherwise, it appears that the UA is
doing anything it can to disrupt any viable write-in
candidate.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>This philosophical view of write-in candidates is
supported by the Election Code. The Code specifically holds write-in
candidates to the same regulations as other candidates *once they have
won*. It nowhere holds them to the same campaign, publicity, polling
place, or petition regulations, though.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>5. The decisions reinforce the common view that the Undergraduate
Association is out of touch, elitist, and unrepresentative of the
undergraduate student body.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote>The UA clearly thinks it performs valuable services for
the student body. I personally think it does. But when UA officials
refuse, when asked on mit-talk, to explain what it has done, and when
the UA reacts with apparent alarm to a viable write-in candidate
because they think he is "inane" and does "not live up
to these standards", it is not representing its constituents. It
is suppressing them.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<div>I clearly believe, and I believe I have made a good case for the
view, that the election decisions are unacceptable, not consistent
with the UA's rules and Constitution, and consistent with a
reactionary, out of touch UA. I call on the Election Commission to
overturn them immediately. In addition, the current balloting has
clearly been tainted by the controversy, so I call on the Commission
to, in a manner consistent with its governing mandate, to hold a new
vote. Anything less would strike at the fundamental values of fairness
and democracy. The disrespect for the democratic process the UA has
shown its constituency this week saddens me; it is likely the entire
Creighton/Brar write-in candidacy would have been a minor event had
the Election Commission not legitimized it by attempting to strike it
down.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>On my own behalf and no one else's,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Roger A. Ford '02</div>
<div>member, the Undergraduate Association</div>
<div>member, the Student Committee on Educational Policy</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1196021213==_ma============--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
