USG Election Results Suspended Pending Investigation
Submitted by Rachel O on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 00:27.
|
By Rachel O’Brien
The USG supreme court issued an opinion on Monday Oct. 29, suspending the USG election results. The election was to fill vacant positions as well as to vote on the proposed constitution. The Justice Department, headed by Advocate General Alexsandra Borodkin, is investigating the complaint that the polls on SOLAR were closed three hours early on Friday Oct. 26, disenfranchising would-be voters. The supreme court issued the opinion, giving Borodkin several days to look into the complaint. The court is expected to issue a second opinion Monday Nov. 5, stating what will become of the election results. “We had a very irresponsible individual who assumed the government is the petitioner in this case,” Borodkin said at the Nov. 1 senate meeting. “This is incorrect. The government is a respondent in this case. We had another individual who came in to the office and asked us to put a stay on the elections and we did.” “We had a very irresponsible individual who assumed the government is the petitioner in this case,” Borodkin said at the Nov. 1 USG senate meeting. “This is incorrect. The government is a respondent in this case. We had another individual who came in to the office and asked us to put a stay on the elections and we did.” Senate Votes to Pay Advocate General, Increase Pay of Executive Vice President, President Pro Tempore At the Thursday Nov. 1 senate meeting, the senate voted to pay the Advocate General $60 per week, increased the President Pro Tempore’s pay from $60 to $85 per week and increased the Executive Vice President’s pay from $8.50 per hour to $11 per hour. The Advocated General, currently Alexsandra Borodkin, is appointed by the president to run the Student Bureau of Investigations in the Department of Justice. The senate voted in strong favor to pass the measure. The President Pro Tempore of the senate, currently Senator Steve Elardo, is in charge of setting up committees and getting senators to sit on those committees. He also fulfills the senate duties of the executive vice president if he is unable to complete them himself, including chairing the senate meetings. The vote for increasing the president pro tempore’s stipend resulted in a tie, six for, six against, with Executive Vice President Nathan Shapiro breaking the tie with a vote in favor of the pay increase. The Executive Vice President’s pay increase was easily passed, with only two senators voting against the measure. “The executive vice president carries out the same responsibilities of the president and his pay should really reflect this,” Senator Kyle Grogan said, referring to Shapiro. Senate Clubs Rules and Funding Committee Suggests Against 85-15 Policy The senate’s Clubs Rules and Funding Committee, formed to discuss the policy that limited clubs having 85 percent of their off campus trips paid for, issued a recommendation that the senate abolish the policy completely, allowing clubs to use their budget as they wish. The statement, presented by committee chair Steve Elardo, is simply a recommendation by the committee to the senate as a whole. New proposed financial bylaws, scheduled to be voted on by the senate at next week’s meeting, do not include the policy. The committee created a survey that was sent out to clubs, asking for feedback on the 85-15 policy. Of the 150 surveys sent out to clubs, 12 were returned with feedback. The committee made its decision based on that student feedback, as well as deliberation among the committee members. |
Submitted by JoeAntonelli on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 23:59.
The Advocate General was ordered by the court to investigate what happened. What was found was that the Elections Board Chair screwed up. The AG made a reccomendation based on the facts of what was found; the polls closed 3 hours early. While it clearly did not matter in the case of the Constitution, it actually mattered in the case of the CEAS Senate seat. The top three vote getters were 59-52-49 with the top two winning for election. While I stayed as far away from this as possible and was willing to accept whatever the court decided, I have to say that its flat out bull to think that it was a fair election for those candidates. I am perfectly okay with how the court decided because it was their decision and only their decision. The AG made a reccomendation on the facts and events that took place. Apparently facts and events mean nothing to you.
The USG May As Well Have Been the Petitioner
As the "very irresponsible person" who assumed the USG was trying to have the results of the elections overturned, I just wanted it noted for the record that the USG's official position, delivered to the Supreme Court by the Dept. of Justice, sided with the petitioner and sought to have the results of the election nullified and a new election to be held. This is proven in the DOJ's recommendations which were presented to the court, which stated:
"The Department of Justice recommends the nullification of the October 22-26 election and asks the court to order the Undergraduate Government to set a new election for the week of November 19-23 (all referendum items must be advertised two weeks prior to their onset and an election, one week prior to its onset.)"
Which brings me to my "very irresponsible" act of sending a message on Facebook to the creator of the anti-Constitutional proposal group after the Supreme Court slapped an injunction on the results of the election pending the outcome of the DOJ's investigation, in which I wrote:
"The USG is apparently trying to have the elections overturned! The Supreme Court has put an injunction on the elections pending further investigation into the polls being closed at 12:15PM instead of 3PM. I'm not sure what remedy the USG may be seeking, but it could be a revote or an additional 3 hours of voting. I'm not sure which."
Since then, I was assured by the DOJ that the USG was the respondent in this case, that a student had filed the petition, and that the Advocate General would be defending the USG. However, as noted above, the USG in its recommendations sided with the petitioner, leaving no one to defend the outcome of the USG's elections. It was Matt Anderson, a candidate for the Senate (CEAS), who took up that responsibility, which by law belongs to the Advocate General in all cases brought against the USG.
Since the USG was the respondent in this case, why didn't the Advocate General defend the results of the election? Considering the outcome of the case ruled against both the petitioner's proposed remedy and the DOJ's recommendations, it is not as if defending the outcome of the elections was an untenable position to take with a basis in the USG's laws.
For the record, based on the DOJ's recommendations, the USG really did try to have the elections overturned. Apparently, I was right after all. Though not for the right reasons. There really was a student who filed a request to have the results of the election stayed, and it was only afterward that the DOJ sided with the petitioner. Still, the assurance that the DOJ would be defending the USG was apparently false. What sort of defense was the DOJ providing the USG in this case?