Here are my reasons:
1. She didn't actually do anything. It was two of her friends that sent the email in question. According to Nirvana, she was never asked to report any "campaign staff," so they didn't have any official titles. It could have been anybody that went on Blackboard and sent out an email in support of a candidate. Can every candidate be expected to control everything that is said about them by other people? And, as she wisely points out in her appeal, the rule states that "No candidate may send any campaign message..." Well, in this case, the candidate did not send the message.
2. The punishment does not fit the crime. The BOE's rules also state that they can disqualify candidates in "extreme cases." This should not count as "extreme." It was only one email. Last year, I hung up a banner on the freaking parking garage and one of my friends posted extremely inappropriate comments on Zack's Facebook group. My punishment? Nothing. A few years back, Ashley Mushnick made a video in the residence halls, which was not allowed. Her punishment? She was not allowed to actively campaign for the final two days (she still won). Seth Rosenstein posted a comment on this blog that the BOE determined was "campaigning," before campaigning was allowed. His punishment? He had to ask me to delete it. Nirvana's case is not extreme. Not even close.
The email that was sent out was unfortunate, as it does probably violate the spirit of the rules. However, it should not result in a disqualification. That is outrageous. We, the students, deserve to have the full field of candidates to choose from. The BOE needs to stop acting like they are God, and just let people run for office. I understand that there is a need for rules, and a need for them to be enforced. But too often they take themselves way too seriously and do something like this.
Also, it should be noted that, in the absence of a Chairperson for the BOE, the Chair of the Judicial Board fills in. Therefore, the BOE (which disqualified Nirvana) and the Judicial Board (which will hear her appeal) are currently chaired by the same person. That seems fair.
Without getting into the mess of mixed precedent and procedure that most of the post tries to address, I'd like to talk about your last point.
ReplyDeleteErika Zois, the Chair of the Judicial Board, is currently the acting head of the Board of Elections. But this isn't some orwellian conspiracy. Shortly before the elections, due to personal and unforeseen circumstances, we were left without a BOE Chair. And the BOE had no members who had ever made it through an entire election before.
Erika moved to take the position and its obviously rather onerous duties after consultation with the executives as well as numerous senators - including one Nirvana Habash.
And during last night/this morning's hearing, she didn't speak and abstained from voting - although the governing documents still required her to be there.
The fact (now evident) that her ruling was even partially overturned is proof that the conflict of interest was thoroughly allowed for despite the vagaries and dangers of the situation.
I'll gladly go question for question and point for point on election reform, which is one of my pet issues in the SG, but I don't think this particular bit needs a soapbox.