We at the S&B work hard to maintain a level of objectivity and detachment from our stories. When people are involved in a newsworthy situation, we do not let them write or edit the piece covering it. This is always difficult on a small campus, where it can feel like everyone knows everyone. The recent run-off election between Eric Olson ’08 and Caitlin Carmody ’08 shows just how hard this can be: Carmody is co-Editor-in-Chief of the S&B.
While we certainly would not have chosen this situation, the significance of this election and its aftermath is too great to ignore. Carmody has not been involved in any way in any part of this story—in fact, we purposely wrote and edited this piece when she was not present. We’ve done our best to make this piece fair to all parties, regardless of our personal affiliations. This story of an election and ensuing constitutional crisis deserves serious attention, through whatever lens you choose to view it.
— Ben Weyl, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Abby Rapoport, News Editor, David Logan, Assistant News Editor
by Abby Rapoport and David Logan
On Sunday, March 11, Joint Board held an emergency meeting to discuss the outcome of an election process that had started a week earlier but was still mired in uncertainty. On Friday, March 9, Election Board had held a run-off election between Eric Olson ’08 and Caitlin Carmody ’08 for Vice-President of Academic Affairs (VPAA). Soon after, an anonymous student filed a grievance with Election Board, questioning Olson’s campaign tactics, and leading Election Board to recommend a revote without Olson on the ballot. Olson appealed the decision, requiring an emergency Joint Board meeting; at that meeting, Joint Board elected to suspend the SGA Constitution, making Olson the VP-AA-elect.
THE CAMPAIGN
Upon hearing that he was in a runoff election Thursday, March 8, Olson decided to ask his friend and Loosehead senator Laura Lienemann ’08 to poster for him. Lienemann had already offered to help at least three times previously, according to Olson. “It was done on a friendly level,” he said.
Lienemann also sent an email out to fifteen friends, asking them to vote for Olson. The email, which was given to the S&B anonymously due to the fact that the source did not receive the original email, began by saying “I know for many of you, I’m not your senator anymore … but I’m sending this to you to tell you why I voted for Eric Olson.” Lienemann did not mention this email to Olson.
According to Election Board member and SGA Treasurer Brad Bishop ’08, Election Board decided that both Lienemann’s posters and e-mail violated Article III Section 1 of the SGA Bylaws which prohibits the sending of “…material promoting any candidate…through campus mail, or through unsolicited email” and “…candidates from soliciting SGA Senators to distribute any campaign materials.”
Olson’s run-off campaign also included posters with pictures of current SGA Vice-President Michael Billups ’07 and Olson, who have been friends since Olson’s first year. “I was just looking for some new, funny material [in my posters],” said Olson. The posters included sayings like “Stay the Course” and pictures of Billups knighting a kneeling Olson. Additionally, SGA Administrative Coordinator Nick Blencowe ’08 helped Carmody poster during the run-off campaign. While current Cabinet members are not prohibited from endorsing or helping candidates, the practice is considered atypical.
Olson received 55.8% of the 451 total votes cast in the run-off. But before he ever found out these results, Election Board received a grievance alleging that Lienemann’s aid constituted a violation of SGA bylaws. Election Board convened the next day to assess the validity of the charges.
ELECTION BOARD
According to Bishop, Lienemann’s violations of election policy would normally result in Olson forfeiting his status as an official candidate; he would still be able to participate in the election, but only as a write-in candidate.
But because the election was a runoff, according to SGA Bylaws, Election Board could not simply remove Olson from the ballot since doing so would have left Carmody as the only official candidate. Election Board also decided that it could not legitimately invalidate Olson’s candidacy or declare Carmody the winner. “We solicited assistance from past members of Election Board to see if this had happened before,” said Bishop. “It had not. We had a constitutional crisis.”
After much deliberation, members decided to resolve the crisis by holding a second runoff with Carmody and Lindsay Dennis ’08 as official candidates while allowing Olson to participate as a write-in. “The course of action was agreed upon by consensus,” said Bishop. “No one on Election Board disagreed with the decision.”
Upon hearing these results, Olson decided to appeal Election Board’s decision, which meant Joint Board had to convene an emergency meeting within 24 hours.
JOINT BOARD
As the meeting began, Joint Board voted to make it a closed session, but included Election Board members, as well as Carmody and Olson. According to the minutes of this session—which were given to the S&B by a source who wished to remain anonymous due to the closed nature of the session—Election Board offered senators four options based on whether or not they believed Olson to have violated the Constitution and whether they thought Election Board’s decision should stand.
Olson and Lienemann said they did not know about the rule, and further believed they had respected the intention of the rule, if not the rule itself. “If you’re going to do a technical reading of the Constitution, yes I violated it,” said Lienemann. “However, I don’t think I violated the spirit of the laws.”
According to the Constitution, Election Board must publicize the election rules, but what this means is up for interpretation. “I think it’s the duty of Election Board to make available the rules of elections,” said Bishop. “But I feel it’s the responsibility of candidates to inform themselves.”
Billups had a different take. “[Election Board] should offer a bullet point breakdown of the rules,” he said. “Technically, Election Board is to publicize the document.”
Furthermore, some took issue with the rule itself, believing it to limit speech. “On an individual level, we should never try to stop people from expressing preference,” said Olson. “There’s a line between the office and the individual holding the office.”
Many at the Joint Board meeting expressed their dislike of the rule, and hoped to later rewrite it in an SGA Constitutional Reform Committee.
After much debate, Joint Board senators unanimously voted for “Option D”, declaring that Olson had violated the Constitution, but that the rule he had violated was unfair. But “Option D” required use of the Elastic Clause, which allowed Joint Board to go around the Election Board decision and make a new one in its place. Only the President or Vice President could approve a motion to enact this clause, and since SGA President Chris Hall ’07 was out of town for the weekend, Billups was the only person who could do so.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Because of Billups’ endorsement of Olson, he was in a difficult position. “In hindsight, I probably wouldn’t have gone that route,” said Billups. “I guess on principle [I shouldn’t have endorsed Olson].”
Vice President of Student Affairs-elect (VP-SA) Jan Koszewski ’08 agreed that the situation was complicated at best. “[Billups’] endorsement was, to be quite honest, out of place,” Koszewski said.
“He was well aware of the awkward place in which he was caught.”
Ultimately, Billups approved the motion for the Elastic Clause after taking several straw poll votes to gauge interest. While others were displeased by Billups’ situation, no one at the meeting felt the conflict of interest was significant enough to prevent the motion. “I think [the endorsement] was a conflict of interest and a double standard,” Lienemann said. “But I think he did what Chris [Hall] would have done.”
“I’ve said before and maintain that if it happened the other way around, I would have done the same thing,” said Billups. “I acted in the most principled manner I could as a member of SGA. I feel like my personal relationship…didn’t come into play.”
Billups was not the only one whose ability to participate was questioned. Before discussion began, Joint Board members agreed that due to potential conflicts of interest, senators Lienemann and Dennis as well as those senators serving on Election Board were barred from voting. Only two members of Cabinet, Michael Van Hulle ’07 and Karly Newton ’07 were considered far enough removed from the situation to vote.
The decision to enact the Elastic Clause also required a four-fifths majority, and while some members expressed reservations about enacting the clause, they believed it was the best option available. “We’d have gotten much more of an uproar if we’d have thrown out the results,” said Lindsay Dennis ’08, who abstained because she was a candidate in the initial election for VPAA. Joint Board ultimately voted unanimously to enact the Elastic Clause.
Some of those not voting did not think the clause should have been enacted. Blencowe, who had to abstain due to his candidacy for VP-SA, was vehement in his opposition to use of the Elastic Clause. “I don’t think it was appropriate for them to use the Elastic Clause to exonerate people that should have known better,” he said. “What we saw is essentially [SGA] doing favors and fucking with our constitution when we shouldn’t have.”
Blencowe also thought this use of the Elastic Clause set a bad precedent. “I understand the reasoning on [invoking the Elastic Clause],” he said. “But I think this is a bad time to start picking and choosing what rules we follow.”
Because so many people abstained, some took issue with Koszewski’s decision to vote in the matter. “As someone who had just been elected to be either Eric or my counterpart, for him to be making decisions to allow even the slightest advantage for one of us seems to be a huge conflict of interest,” said Carmody. Koszewski said in hindsight, he wished he had abstained. “I tried to keep my … participation at a minimum,” he said. “I felt I had a duty as an active senator [to vote].”
Billups said he would have abstained had he been in Koszewski’s situation “in light of the fact that you’ve got a whole other six weeks as vice-president elect to build relationships. This really sets the tone for your whole vice-presidency whether or not you’re going to act in a principled manner.”
Koszewski and Olson will join Megan Goering ’08 as next year’s SGA Executive members, but some are still pondering the election itself. “I still have doubts [about the decision],” said Billups. “I sort of feel for public officials who have to make those decisions that can be seen as overly political. You do the best you can at the time.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The session was not closed, and the minutes are public information for all students.
We just got the following by email from SGA Treasurer Brad Bishop '08: "while Joint Board closed the session at the beginning of the meeting, it was later reopened and all the regulations involved in limiting the meeting in its closed nature taken away. It was originally closed to protect parties within the meeting, depending what the proceedings were, and at the conclusion, Joint Board voted to rescind the motion to close the session due to the overall courteous nature of the session."
Thank you, S&B, for an informative article. I hope you return to it in your post-break edition.
To my knowledge, election board did not find the emails I sent in violation of the constitution as Eric didn't know about them. Also, I think it is a bit misleading to use an ellipsis to skip over multiple paragraphs of text in my email. Otherwise, thanks for the article.
Laura,
Two members of Election Board, Brad Bishop and Harry Krejsa, told us that your emails were a violation of the Constitution. The simple fact that an SGA Senator sent unsolicited emails endorsing a candidate constitutes a violation; the fact that Eric did not know about them is irrelevant.
As to the rather long ellipsis you mentioned, we were trying to show that you were using your position as a senator or former senator to the recipients of the email to encourage them to support Eric Olson. I don't think we were mistaken as to your intent.
Thanks for your comments--we appreciate the dialogue.
I appreciate your coverage of this issue. My largest is concern is that you do not sufficiently point out that the results of the election were unknown to everyone except the members of Election Board prior to and during the emergency session of Joint Board. They were only revealed to the candidates and the student body (including Joint Board) after the elastic clause was invoked.
To suggest that anyone voted to specifically benefit Eric winning is not entirely fair, as those know knew he had won the election prior to the hearing did not vote.
I especially find the criticism of Jan Koszewski troubling. The entirety of Election Board did not suggest that he not vote because he, like most other senators was unaware of the results. In addition, to suggest that because he is VPSA his concern in the matter is any greater than any other member of Joint Board who wants to continue serving and thus working with whomever would be elected VPAA is unfair.
Finally, I would like to clarify Senator Allison Amphlett did not vote for the elastic clause as she was not present during this portion of the proceeding, nor did other members of Joint Board who were not present. The missing senators were Rachel Osborne, Nate Lindsay, and Suzanne Polivy. The vote was unanimous among members voting, but not among all members of Joint Board.
Christy,
You're right--we should have included a sentence explaining that no one knew the results at the time of the Joint Board meeting. To be honest, that didn't even enter into our heads as a potential issue because we were so focused on the process of the story; I don't think we ever suggested that people were voting purposely to install Olson.
Regarding the criticism of Koszewski: it quickly became clear that this story was not only about SGA By-Laws and Constitutions but one of conflicts of interest. Several people mentioned their criticisms to us about Koszewski's decision to vote and we felt it was thematically consistent with the article.
Your last comment is a bit nitpicky, I think, but certainly true. As our previous Secretary of Defense would say, "You vote with the Joint Board you've got, not the Joint Board you wish you had." Do you know why those Joint Board members were not present? You seem to suggest that they would not have voted for the Elastic Clause. Why not? And if so, we'd love to interview them and find out their reasons...
I want to point out that, to my knowledge, Administrative Coordinator Nick Blencowe abstained because he is on Election Board (though not involved in holding this election for obvious reasons), not because he was a candidate for the VP-SA position. I think that this small distinction matters in light of Christy's concern about the criticism of Senator Jan Koszewski.
I also want to make clear that I'm posting this comment as a student and observer, not as part of the S&B--since I wasn't involved in the interviewing, writing, or editing process, I can't and shouldn't speak from that perspective.
Yes, it may be nit picky to mention absent members of Joint Board. However, it has demonstrated that the sentence "Joint Board senators unanimously voted for 'Option D'," suggested to students that all senators (except those abstaining) voted for that option, as a number of students have asked me why I chose it. This is simply inaccurate. I did not choose that option, as I was forced to leave the meeting prior to the vote because I had to work. Had I remained at the meeting I would have chosen to abstain from the vote due to a conflict of interest.
-Allison Amphlett
Dear Sirs and Madams,
HAIL ERIC OLSON!
Sincerely,
Tim Jung
Ben Weyl -
I strongly reprimand you and Abby for what little thought and impartiality you've dedicated to this article. There are glaring inconsistencies in what you've written and what actually took place over the course of the past week. This serves to me as a strong indicator of the influence your personal opinion about the events that took place during the emergency session of Joint Board and around the runoff election in general has had on your writing. I recently read the minutes distributed by my SGA senator, and it thoroughly disappoints me that apparently neither you nor Abby took the time to read them in the slightest, if you did indeed have a copy of them as you purport.
Your blatant, inescapable errors:
The session was never closed.
No voting member of joint board had any knowledge of what the election results were before they voted to enact the elastic clause.
Election Board member and East Senator Miranda Paley declared that Election Board dismissed the charges against Laura's e-mail.
Election Board members never once made any kind of endorsement for a particular course of action in regards to the grievance during the session of Joint Board. It seems to me that the senators were presented with four possible courses of action without anyone (Miranda Paley, Brad Bishop included) making any recommendations for a second election between the VPAA candidates. Furthermore, Danny Haupt speaking up about his own feelings on the election strongly contradict Brad Bishop's claim that "[Election Board's] course of action was agreed upon by consensus."
Joint Board members came to the consensus that Eric had violated the constitution, but that the bylaw was anarchic and outdated. Hence, the decision to employ the elastic clause. Using the elastic clause in no way decided the fate of the election as you insinuate, and you cannot prove this.
Furhter harm you've perpetuated:
You've confessed to twisting the words in Laura's e-mail (using the very first and very last words) to make it appear as if she was using undue influence as a senator - I hardly call this impartial or objective reporting.
If Election Board making the rules of the election known to the candidates is "up to interpretation", as you say, then why isn't the rest of the Constitution? Why isn't the line declaring that SGA senators cannot distribute campaign materials (surprisingly cabinet is exempt) up to interpretation as well? The minutes clearly reflect that Election Board didn't make the slightest effort to publish the rules anywhere (a point conceded by Brad Bishop in your article), and I find it incredulous that you attack the candidates for Election Board's inaction.
Some final concerns:
Caitlin Carmody, as you've confessed, is an editor for the S&B, with whom you and Abby have probably worked very closely with during the course of the past year. I find you and Abby's personal involvement in the writing of this article - and the subsequent admonishment of Joint Board for acting in a way that ultimately led to her losing the election - distasteful, and perhaps the greatest conflict of interest represented here as a probable friend of Caitlin's.
If the minutes from the closed session just came out from SGA last night, how exactly did you manage to get your hands on a copy of them? It appears to me that only Nick Blencowe would have had a copy of the minutes, and I'm cynically surprised to see that your source wanted to remain anonymous. Clearly, Nick's obvious distaste for Joint Board's actions and this article's slant against joint board participants are simple coincidences.
You've horribly twisted what words and quotes you've managed to gather into a sensationalist piece of crap that only serves to inspire intrigue, drama, and partisan bickering with the only aim I can see as trying to further your and Abby's already horribly sordid reputation as objective journalists. I find it deplorable, shameful, and tasteless; my only thanks I can give you is for not involving Caitlin Carmody in the writing of this piece more than you have. If there's one S&B editor I do hope to have in the future, it is her. My dearest hope is that you graduate and leave the S&B soon. Good riddance to you sir.
Anonymous-
This is a tricky issue, as everyone realizes and has admitted. I'm off-campus now and am very removed from both the election and the S&B writing process; the first I knew of the controversy was the all-campus email explaining the decision, and then this story. I can't speak for any accuracies or inaccuracies in the article.
But I feel that I can speak for your underlying argument: that these errors were the result not of bad information, or avoidable mistakes, but rather deliberate bias on the part of the writers. (Or rather one of the two writers and the editor; David Logan is not mentioned in your rebuke.) You certainly seem to know Ben and Abby to a certain extent. So do I, having worked with them for some time on the S&B. You may dismiss this as simply friendly or professional loyalty, which is certainly your right to do. But unless the two of them have changed drastically in the several months, it would have been a case of professional honor as journalists to do their best not to write a slanted article. Indeed, in cases where conflicts of interest are impossible to avoid, I've found that I (and Ben and Abby) usually err on the side of trying so hard to not be biased that you end up favoring the other direction.
That point aside (and dismiss it if you will), I disagree with your assertion that the article is an "attack." All of the personages that you describe as being attacked are quoted in the article, usually defending their point of view. Much of the events that led to the grievance are in fact narrated principally from Olson's point of view.
You did not choose to identify yourself, nor to disclaim (as the authors of the article did) your connections, if any, to the people and events in question. As a writer I enjoy receiving feedback about my articles, and particularly prompt feedback about any errors that I have made. That is always appreciated, and most of the comments above are in that vein. Your post went one step further and related factual errors to an ad hominem attack on the article's writers. I encourage you, if you feel continue to feel strongly about this issue, to stay engaged in the debate, using your own name, and providing not just a list of mistakes but specific arguments for how the article's writing implies bias on the part of the writers.
-David H. Montgomery
ex-S&B News Editor
Anonymous,
I’ll first deal with your substantive criticisms, and less so with your personal attacks.
You say the session was never closed. That is incorrect. It was initially closed but reopened at the end of the session, which I noted in an earlier blog comment. As you can read at the end of the now-released minutes: “The session was reopened with nine voting in favor (Cabinet and Senators Razavi, Koszewski, Kober, Johnston, Hade, Reisberg, Bateman, Mahmood and Graves) and four abstentions (Senators Krejsa, Paley, Lienemann and Abramson acting as Senator Dennis’ representatives).”
You’re right that no voting member of joint board knew the election results. And as you can see in an earlier blog post, I noted that we should have specified.
You note that Election Board member Miranda Paley said that Election Board dismissed the charges against Laura's e-mail. That doesn’t mean her actions weren’t a violation of the Constitution. In fact, according to two other Election Board members, Brad Bishop and Harry Krejsa, it was a violation, but in interviews with us, they told us that they decided not to pursue it because they felt the postering was a stronger offense and so disregarded it.
You say that we said that Election Board members endorsed a particular course of action to Joint Board. We did not; we only explained what Election Board had decided prior to Olson’s appeal. As it says clearly in the minutes, all four options gave senators the choice to “Uphold Election Board” or “Overrule Election Board.” The reason the emergency Joint Board session was called was because Olson appealed Election Board’s decision, which called for another election on Monday featuring Caitlin Carmody and Lindsay Dennis with Olson being required to run as a write-in candidate.
You point out that in the minutes Danny Haupt was displeased with Election Board’s decision, which contradicts Brad Bishop's claim that "[Election Board's] course of action was agreed upon by consensus." But, according to Bishop and Election Board Chair Ari Anisfeld, at the time, those present agreed on the decision unanimously.
Nowhere do we insinuate that Joint Board’s use of the Elastic Clause decided the fate of the election. If you haven’t realized it yet, this story is about more than an election. It’s about process, about what the Constitution says, and about what actions our elected senators should take in respecting that Constitution. We don’t know all the answers—we’re just posing the questions.
I’ve already addressed our use of Lienemann’s email. In her first paragraph she wrote, “I know for many of you I’m not your senator anymore.” In her second paragraph she wrote, “I’m sending this to you to tell you why I voted for Eric Olson.” Perhaps there was too much of a distance between the ellipsis but surely we did not change the intent of the email. Really, the subject line of the email is “why I voted Eric Olson.”
I’m not sure what you mean by attacking the candidates for Election Board’s potential failure to publicize the rules. As we noted in our article, Bishop and Billups disagreed on how well Election Board fulfilled their responsibility in informing the candidates of the rules.
To address your personal attacks: we did not “confess” that Carmody is an editor of the S&B; we were providing an important disclaimer. Is she a good friend of ours, yes of course. But as journalists, we put our relationships aside. If you don’t believe we can do that, then fine, don’t read the article. But with our prominent disclaimer, we were letting our readers make the choice.
Second, I did not write this article. Abby Rapoport and David Logan wrote it, but I stand behind it 100% as their editor.
This article was not an admonishment of Joint Board as you suggest. As you can see in our article, the only people criticizing each other are other members of SGA. And again, this article is not about Carmody losing or Olson winning. It is about process and the way our student government acts, especially in sticky situations.
We had a number of sources who refused to talk on the record, and I’m not going to violate their trust. I do find it a little ironic, however, that you criticize others for remaining anonymous when you do the same.
Your final paragraph reminds me of why I love the blogosphere so much: ad hominem attacks! I’m not going to respond to your colorful use of adjectives attacking my integrity, though I thank David Montgomery for his always level headed logic and friendly support—even from abroad (though he must be wrong about this person knowing me at all; otherwise there would have been no attack on my character).
If you’d like to further dialogue in constructive ways, please do not hesitate to do so. We will be publishing this story in the print version when we return from Spring Break and hopefully any oversights that initially occurred, will be taken care of.
Cheers!
Does anyone here believe that SGA was right to change the rules in the middle of the competition?
That just seems unfair to me.
The message sent is that you could violate a rule to get advantage, as long as you have SGA friends that will get rid of that rule.
Anonymous,
Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. All of Laura's buddies on SGA were all of the people voting whether or not her conduct was a constitutional violation. Of course you know how that is going to work out in the case of anything not absolutely egregious. There is only one branch of SGA, so there are no checks and balances.
With the elastic clause, there really is no standard of conduct. Anything in the constitution can be ignored as long as enough people in SGA are going to stand up for their buddies. The constitution carries no weight.
I remember when, in 1999 or 2000, when no candidate got 50%+1 of the votes after the third round of voting, and then SGA put up fliers around campus that said, "Think third time's a charm? Think again. SGA." That next Joint Board meeting was awesome -- there were girls crying in the hallway.
Eventually the three front runners all withdrew their candidacies, and a whole new election was held with different candidates.
Come to think of it, wasn't that the year the Campus Monarchists went to Joint Board to request $80,000.75 to build a moat around North Campus and to buy a computer disk?
-- Ross W. Martin, '02.5
Post a Comment