Appeals panel invalidates SGA vote, calls for re-election
After an appeals panel disqualified all nine candidates from the first round of Student Council Executive elections, the Council announced that a re-election will begin Friday.
The Panel's hearings were closed and they did not release the specific reasons for each disqualification. The candidates were allegedly disqualified for infractions ranging from late campaign finance reports to soliciting votes during the voting period. The appeals process took place following last week's election, and the alleged infractions were reported by people closely linked to the election itself.
According to an anonymous member of Student Council, hardly anyone is privy to the information surrounding the disqualifications.
"The worst part of this whole ordeal isn't the actual decisions that [the Appeals Panel] reached, but that nobody on the council ever knows what's going on, except for maybe people at the very top," said the source.
Dan Teran, freshman candidate for President, said he had no idea why he was disqualified last week.
Tyler Krus, chair of the Committee on Student Elections which oversees the elections, said that he would have told each candidate why they had been disqualified if only they had approached him.
"If any candidates had contacted me, they could have been notified of the rationale for their disqualification. It's possible that some of them didn't know they could do that," Krus said.
According to current Student Council President Scott Bierbryer, the vagueness surrounding rules and procedures such as these is a poor reflection on the way elections are currently run.
"The Committee on Student Elections should do everything they can in their power to inform candidates whether they have committed infractions, as more of a courtesy to student body than to the individual candidates," Bierbryer said.
According to Bierbryer, a disservice is done to the student body when a candidate they have elected is later disqualified.
The Panel's hearings were closed and they did not release the specific reasons for each disqualification. The candidates were allegedly disqualified for infractions ranging from late campaign finance reports to soliciting votes during the voting period. The appeals process took place following last week's election, and the alleged infractions were reported by people closely linked to the election itself.
According to an anonymous member of Student Council, hardly anyone is privy to the information surrounding the disqualifications.
"The worst part of this whole ordeal isn't the actual decisions that [the Appeals Panel] reached, but that nobody on the council ever knows what's going on, except for maybe people at the very top," said the source.
Dan Teran, freshman candidate for President, said he had no idea why he was disqualified last week.
Tyler Krus, chair of the Committee on Student Elections which oversees the elections, said that he would have told each candidate why they had been disqualified if only they had approached him.
"If any candidates had contacted me, they could have been notified of the rationale for their disqualification. It's possible that some of them didn't know they could do that," Krus said.
According to current Student Council President Scott Bierbryer, the vagueness surrounding rules and procedures such as these is a poor reflection on the way elections are currently run.
"The Committee on Student Elections should do everything they can in their power to inform candidates whether they have committed infractions, as more of a courtesy to student body than to the individual candidates," Bierbryer said.
According to Bierbryer, a disservice is done to the student body when a candidate they have elected is later disqualified.
Be the first to comment on this story