Mike Flood '03 contested last week's election versus Blake Sparrow '04 on the grounds that two specific emails violated parts of the SGO Code of Elections.
Each candidate was allowed to defend his position in a statement given at the hearing and the committee had the option of questioning the candidates and calling additional witnesses.
The five members will rule on the validity of Flood's claim and will decide on a course of action based on this ruling, which they expect to make in the next few days.
Flood submitted a motion at the beginning of the hearing to suppress another email that was written and distributed by SGO Vice President Amy Summerville '02. According to Summerville, the email was sent to her friends and encouraged them to join her in voting for Flood.
"My dispute named two specific emails … one written by Xavier Blake Sparrow and the other written by David Jaquette," stated the motion, written by Flood. "Any discussion of an email Summerville wrote would be irrelevant to the purpose of this hearing." The committee approved the motion to suppress the email.
Flood made his statement to the committee first, explaining he had disputed the election because he felt Article II, Section 7 and Article III, Section 2 of the Code of Elections had been violated.
Article II, Section 7 states, "any candidate or his/her representatives found influencing voting patterns through pecuniary means shall automatically be disqualified." Flood stated that David Jaquette '02, the cultural sub-committee chair of the Student Finance Committee, had sent an inappropriate email to the leaders of the clubs to which he is in charge of allocating funds. The email suggested that the leaders of the clubs vote for Sparrow and encourage their members to do the same.
"I encourage you all to vote for Blake Sparrow," read Jaquette's email. "He is for a thousand reasons, the more experienced, competent, deserving and concerned candidate. I feel very passionately about this and hope that you take a few moments out of your day to vote ... and hopefully to encourage your clubs to vote (for Blake) as well!"
"Insofar as [Jaquette] explicitly endorsed Sparrow in the email, he may have created the implication in the minds of the recipients of the email that a vote for Sparrow was a deserved payback for the generosity of the Sparrow SFC administration," said Flood in his statement. "Additionally, the email may have created an implication that … these clubs have a financial interest in the continuation of the Sparrow administration."
Flood said that he believes the Jaquette email is in violation of the "spirit" of the Code of Elections. Flood also disputed the election on the grounds that an email sent by Sparrow, who is the sophomore class president, violates the spirit of the Code of Elections.
"On Feb. 12, Sparrow abused his all-class email privileges by sending a 'reminder' to the class that there was an election happening," said Flood during his statement. "The corresponding secretary explicitly stated in the Candidate's Meeting before the election that class email accounts were not to be used in conjunction with the election."
Flood summarized his contestation by stating that he believed the letter and spirit of the Election Code had been clearly violated. He said that if the committee did not find reason to disqualify Sparrow, the results from the original election should be released.
After Flood's statement explaining his contentions, Sparrow was allowed to make a statement defending himself against Flood's claims.
Sparrow explained that the email he sent was related to class business and the encouragement to vote was not the primary purpose of the email.
According to Sparrow, the email he sent during this election was sent for the purpose of explaining to his class that the shot glasses and bottle openers he had purchased as his first semester class project were in his room if any class member still wanted one. The email also discussed plans for second semester's class project. The final phrase of the email pertained to the election. "Third, there's an election, so please go to vote," the email stated.
Sparrow also mentioned that he has sent an email encouraging his class to vote during every election, regardless of whether or not he was running.
Sparrow also defended Jaquette's email. "Jaquette did not promise or imply anything, he only stated a preference," said Sparrow. "There was no mention of money in the email."
Sparrow raised a concern during his statement that Flood did not submit his dispute in a timely fashion. According to the Code of Elections, a candidate has 24 hours after the poles close to contest the election. The committee later raised further questions about the timeliness of the contestation and whether Flood had submitted it before the 24 hours had expired.
Jaquette was present in the building during the meeting, but he could not sit in on the meeting because he was a potential witness.
"Though a little surprised that I was not asked to speak at the hearing, I trust that Sparrow presented a convincing argument and that a fair decision will be reached," said Jaquette.
After statements by both candidates, the election committee took a short break to discuss calling witnesses and further lines of questioning. They decided not to call any witnesses. "We had done some investigation on our own," said committee member David Bugge '04E.
The committee did question Flood about the timing of his protestation and how he learned of the Jaquette email.
Flood explained that the leader of one of the clubs to whom Jaquette had sent the email forwarded the email to Flood, feeling that it was "strange and inappropriate."
The committee members questioned Flood about the timing of his complaint. Flood replied that he did not learn of the email until around 11 p.m., at which point he moved quickly to lodge his complaint within the mandated 24-hour period. "Had I found out earlier, I would have moved earlier," said Flood.
The formation of the election committee caused some controversy earlier this week as the involved parties complained about biased committee members.
When the committee first met last Wednesday after Flood formally contested, the election committee was composed of SGO e-board members. However, Summerville recused herself at that meeting. "Because I sent friends an email supporting Mike, I had clearly registered an opinion," said Summerville. "Since the hearing pertained to what appropriate email use consists of, I didn't want the email I sent compared with the emails in question."
Assistant Dean of Students Samuel Haynes spoke with members of the e-board as they were trying to decide who could be an impartial presence on the election committee. "When I spoke with the e-board, I asked them to evaluate their own integrity verse serving on the e-board and what the public might say," said Haynes. "I have no concerns about the impartiality of any of the members of the SGO Executive Council."
On Monday morning, SGO President Michelle Oliveros-Larsen '02 also decided to recuse herself. "A few individuals expressed concerns. I didn't think the concerns were valid, but rather than hold up the proceedings, I decided to look for somebody to take my place," she said.
The executive board of the SGO eventually agreed on the composition of the election committee. The SGO Constitution requires that senators compose the committee. The e-board contacted senators they believed would be impartial and asked them to serve. Flood was informed of the decision because he expressed a specific concern about the impartiality of a possible committee member. "It was all very amiable," said Oliveros-Larsen.
Zeeya Jamal '02 Lincoln Mayer '04, Bugge '04E, Alex Ulianov '03E and Luke Swarthout '04 compose the final election committee. They are uncertain as to when they will rule. "It'll be sooner rather than later," said Bugge.
"We will justify our ruling in our decision," said Mayer.