 "Photo:")
The candidates for the Student Government Association elections are a few steps away from being disqualified.
Adam Giery and Austin Smith have two minor violations against them. Logan Berkowitz and Brandon Delanois have one minor violation against them.
Three minor violations or one major violation disqualifies candidates from running in the election. To thicken the plot, at Thursday's Senate meeting, Berkowitz will be brought up on impeachment charges for sending e-mails with his SGA account.
The results of that meeting weren't available before press time
On Wednesday and Thursday, the Election Commission met to oversee four pending violations filed against Giery/Smith and three pending violations against Berkowitz/Delanois.
In Thursday's hearing, the Elections Commission heard one violation against Giery/Smith and two against Berkowitz/Delanois.
The violation against Giery/Smith was for a Facebook message similar to one that they received a violation for on Wednesday. It was a duplicate message that was sent three minutes after the original.
The Election Commission decided not to give Giery/Smith another violation, because it was too similar to the previous violation.
Berkowitz/Delanois received a violation for not including the Election Commission's approval on an e-mail sent to student organizations.
Supervisor of elections, Cherayne Metz said she isn't happy about the "petty" violations that have been filed by both tickets.
"I think it's ridiculous and that the candidates should focus more on their own campaigns than what the other is doing," Metz said.
The first hearing took place in the SGA office and was attended by several SGA members, including Giery's opponent in the SGA race, Logan Berkowitz. Berkowitz is the current SGA vice president.
Members of Berkowitz's campaign staff also attended the hearing, including Andrew Stein, who said that he filed the violations. The violation forms state they are from an anonymous source.
The hearing allowed both parties to speak and ask questions of each other and the Election Commission.
The first violation that was discussed involved a message that went out to Giery and Smith's Facebook group about one of their campaign events.
The complaints about this message were that it was not completely approved by the election commissioners and that it was sent out with alcohol references in the body of the message.
The message that was sent out on Facebook did not follow Statute 605.2, which requires approval from the election commission on all electronic messages.
In this situation, Giery said that he relied on his roommate to send the message that he had written and approved with Metz. However, Giery said that his roommate thought that his original message was boring, so, without permission, he "zested up" Giery's message by writing that kegs and a DJ would be at the event. The things his roommate allegedly added were not actually at the event, Giery said.
When he found out about the message, Giery immediately sent a retraction letter to Metz. She approved the retraction letter.
"If I wanted it zested, I would have done it myself," Giery said. "It is very obvious that the people who [sent] this are SGA rookies. It was literally out of my hands."
Giery said he asked his roommate to send the message because he had to wait for Metz's approval, which he got.
The roommate wasn't present to testify.
Despite the circumstances, the accuser, Stein, said he felt that the Election Commission should not allow any such violations.
"I don't think that is a precedent we should set," Stein said.
Stein said that whether Giery said he wrote the unapproved message or not, the commissioners should pay attention to the fact that they couldn't prove that Giery did not write the message.
The commissioners decided that this first accusation was a minor violation against Giery and Smith.
The second accusation regarded a Web site Giery had created that listed things Giery has accomplished with SGA and as the director of Campus Life. This Web site included no commission approval information.
Giery asked that this be considered a non-violation because he said he created the site for a potential employer. Giery said that a managing job he was applying for asked that he create something that highlighted what sets him apart from the other applicants.
Although Giery said the Web site was not for campaign purposes, Stein wanted to know why only SGA-related accomplishments were listed.
"[SGA] was my thing," Giery said, in response to Stein. "This is my selling point."
Smith said that if the Web site was meant for Giery's campaign, then its address would have been on their campaign fliers and T-shirts. He also pointed out that he was not mentioned on the site.
In the end, the Web site was voted a non-violation.
"[The Web site] doesn't say 'I am running for president; vote for me,'" Metz said. "I don't see it as being campaign material."
The last possible violation dealt with a Facebook message that was approved but did not have the date and election commissioner information on the bottom.
In this situation, Smith said that, when he went to the Commission Office to get the message approved, none of the election commissioners were on duty. He proceeded to get approval from an employee of the Multicultural Student Center, but he said he was not sure if he could put her name on the message since she was not an election commissioner.
"Basically, you guys should have been in the office," Smith said, addressing the commissioners.
Smith added the message to Facebook and got approval from actual commissioners afterward.
"Later, when I spoke to Sean [Hughes], he told me to put his name on the thing," Smith said.
Be the first to comment on this article!