2014-Spring-Election..

2014 University of Massachusetts
—
Amherst
Student Government Association
Spring Elections Report
c
AASSACI1fj
$GA
VOTER TURNOUT
Student PopLilation
20,500
Number of Voters
3628 (President/VP)
3711 (Student Trustee)
3670 (Average)
-
20,500
20.500
-
Percentage
17.69%
18.10%
18.00%
PRESIDENT! VICE PRESIDENT (Winning Ticket In Bold)
Name of Ticket
Number of Votes
Ellie Miske& Gabrielle Cook
1304
Vinayak Rao& Jacob Schissel**
1157
Savannah van Leuvan Smith & Josh Odam
474
Stefan Herlitz & Amanda Aziz
412
William “BJ” Zamites & Daniel “1)anya” Gordin
221
SIonan Barrett & Rocco Giordano*
8
Seth Perkins & Isilda Gjata*
7
*
Indicates a write-in candidate
**
By a vote of 5—0—1. the Elections Commissions unanimously voted to invalidate the
candidacies of both Ellie Miske & Gabrielle Cook. Please see below for detailed description.
-
-
-
-
—
-,
-
-
--
ST[II)FNT TRUSTEE (Winner in Bold)
Trustee Candidate
Number of Votes
Emily I)evenney
1283
Sarah F’reudson**
1O61
1)iego Fellows
746
Lucas Rockett (lutterman
455
**
By a vote of 5—0—i the Elections Commission unanimously voted to invalidate the candidacy
of’ Emily Devenney. Please see below for detailed description.
,
liiit
Candidate tamites posted a
picture of his nomination forms
FORMAL COMPLAINTS
Comp1ainin Party
Date
(‘andidate Fellows
2/26
on a social media outlet
prematurely, thus Ililsely
announcing his candidac
L
‘[he l)f’vlC Ticket utilized songs Candidate I lerliLz
in their campaign videos that
L
I
—
course of Action
Suspended for 24 hours
after campaigning offlcially
began
The commission asked the
ticket to explain in the
L
they did not own
description of the videos
that they did not own the
rights to the video, because
the commission has no
jurisdiction over copyright
law
-
Seth Perkins and Isilda Gjata
were accused of using sexist
language while talking about
another candidate. as well as
using outside funds from an
Area Government account to
give out prizes while
campaigning
Candidate Miske was seen in
CI)&C using a 10% ott coupon
with her purchase order. The
candidate who saw this felt that
this was unfair because it was a
resource that was not directly
available to other candidates.
An invoice from CD&C
con lirms the use of the 10°/b ott
coupon
Candidate Miske
&
Candidate Herlitz
3/i
J
The commission suspended
this ticket until the results of
the audit, done by the SUA
Secretary of Finance,
proved them to he either
responsible or not
responsible. The ticket was
Ibund responsible of using
Area Government hinds.
and therefore they were
removed from the ballot.
Candidate van Leuvan—
Smith
3/8
&
(‘andidate I lerlitz
l)MC ticket was accused of
vandalism of university
property based upon the
attachment of several posters to C’andidate I lerlitz
academic buildings using duct
tape.
I)MC ticket posted “VOTE
1)MC” messages on individual
whitehoards outside o I rooms
in the C’IIC, including those ol
Candidate I lerlitz and
C’andidate I lerlitz
Candidate Aziz. Also.
Candidate I lerliiz alleges that a
flyer of his was torn down tiom
their hallway by the l)MC
campaign.
This violation was taken
into account in the summary
belOW.
3/8
ihis violation was taken
into account in the summary
below.
3/9
this violation was taken
into account in the summary
below.
DMC campaign was accused of
placing fliers underneath the
doors of residents in
Washington Hall. Candidate
Herlitz also questioned the
ability of the DMC ticket to
Candidate Herlitz
3/10
purchase and use such large
quantities of color and colorpaper posters. full size and
poster size. Picture evidence
provided.
The ability of the DMC
campaign to purchase such
large quantities of colored
Candidate van Leuvan
3/Il
fliers was questioned.
Smith
Photographs of excessive flyer
posting were provided.
Candidate Herlitz is accLlsed of
bringing an iPad around a
residence hall while
campaigning and allowing
Candidate Cook
students to vote while he spoke &
to them. Candidate I-lerlitz is
Candidate Miske
also accused of not having
proper representation within
the res-hall.
Candidate 1-Ierlitz accused
Zachary Smith, a registered
worker of the DMC ticket. of
delimation, by the means of I
posting an Op—lid written by
Mr. I lerlitz in September for
Candidate I Ierlitz
3/12
the l)aily Collegian. Zachary
Smith linked the article in a
Facehook post claiming that
Candidate I lcrlitz should he
ashamed of his writing
Candidate r\ziz is accused of
announcing her ticket and
2/26
candidacy in class on February C’andidaic (julterinan
12.
Candidate Fellows is accused
of announcing his candidacy in
Candidate (i utterman
2/26
his lithics and Policy class in
hIm 214 on February 25.
L
-_
This violation was taken
the summary
below.
into account in
This violation was taken
into account in the summary
below.
No action taken. sufficient
evidence of voter coercion
not submitted. By—laws do
not prohibit this action.
while
ethically questionable, the
actions of Mr. Smith were
not drastic enough to qualify
as “delimation”
No action taken,
Due to lack of concrete
evidence, no action was
taken by the
I
commission.
Due to lack of concrete
evidence, no action was
taken by the Commission.
Candidate J-Ierlitz announced
his candidacy on an
unspecified date in an
unspecified location.
-
-
.
-.
Candidate (utterman
2/26
I Due to lackof concrete
evidence, no action was
taken by the commission.
-
Regarding the Invalidation of Candidates As Stated Above
Following a review of seven formally filed complaints to the Elections Commission, a testimony
from two separate Elections Commissioners, and a formal hearing with both flue Miske and
Gabrielle Cook in front of’ said commission, the Elections Commission has unanimously voted
to invalidate the candidacies of flue Miske, Gabrielle Cook, and Emily Devenney.
The initial complaints Ii led against Candidates Miske, Cook and Devenney outlined the use of
a
10% oIl coupon at Campus Design & Copy. The commission has in its possession an official
invoice from Campus l)esign & Copy that shows the use of’ the I 0
% discount coupon.
According to Title VII I, Chapter 24. Section 3, Subsection 3, “no person shall appropriate funds
for the purpose of campaigning except for the SGA”. In addition, Subsection 5 states that
“all
candidates shall pui’chase their materials at fair market prices to which all other candidates shall
have reasonable access”. Since the remainder of the candidates were unaware of the coupon
in
question, they did not have reasonable access to said resource. Furthermore. the issuance
of’ a
Coupon by a business is essentially equivalent to the issuance of funds, which is in direct
violation with Subsection 3, in which it is dictated that only the S(IA may appropriate funds
for
campaigning.
Secondly, the candidates were found to have been in violation of Title VIII, Chapter 24, Section
3, Subsection 13 which states that “no candidate shall violate the student code of conduct
‘Iwo
elections commissioners, both of whom are willing to testify under sworn oath of’ their office.
witnessed candidate Cook campaigning in Crahtree I lall without a proper escort, which is
defined as a resident of’ said building. I’his action is a cleat’ violation of’ the solicitation policy.
which is delined as “a planned, in—person sharing of information with and/or requesting
of’
infbrmation from students living in a Univei’sitv residence.” Solicitation is permitted in the
residence hall by a non—resident only if accompanied by a resident of the given residence
hall.
Said policy is defined by the Residential Life I)epartmenl. and fulls under the Student Code
of’
Conduct, which all candidates are sworn to abide by.
.
Lastly, according to Title VIII, Chapter 24. Section 3, Subsection 4, “all equipment and supplies
used in campaign shall he registered with the Chancellor of’ Llections prior to their use, and shall
be accompanied by certified copies of’ the purchase orders or inter-activity recharges used to
purchase said materials.” The use ofa pet’soiiil printer, as admitted by both Candidates Miske
and Cook and their campaign manager, is a clear violation of the by—law as stated above, and
provides an unfuir advantage when considering that materials are limited by’ the commission to
the $75.0() provided by the SG\ fur use at Campus Design & Copy. The by-laws define
exceptions to this rule to be “pens, pencils, copy machines, markers, computers, staplers, and
stapler guns”. Since a personal printer does not fall under any of these exceptions, it is a
violation of the by-laws as written. This violation, coupled with the use of a coupon at Campus.
Design and Copy, presents a clear advantage to these candidates in terms of campaign material
production.
Prior to the period of campaigning, all candidates willingly and knowingly signed a memo of
understanding produced by the Elections Commission which outlined all rules and procedures of
the elections, and served as the first and only warning in the case of violations. Given the
evidence submitted to the commission, and the fact that the runner-up ticket was free of any
existing or pendiHg formal campaign complaints, the commission has decided to invalidate the
candidacies of Ellie Miske. Gabrielle Cook. and Emily Devenney and declare Vinayak Rao,
Jacob Schissel, and Sarah Freudson the winners of the Spring 2014 elections.
This Elections Report was ratified by the Elections Commission to be true &
accurate on Thursday, March 13, 2014
Rocco Giordano
(Chancellor of Elections)
Divya Kirti
(Elections Comni,issj oner)
Tiffany Tang
(Elections
mp-iissioner)
John Solitro
Alex Cascais
(Elections Ccrnmissioner)
(EctiO1rnissioner)

Download Report