Student Assembly Elections Committee

Student Assembly Elections Committee
Meeting Minutes � 30 November 2007 & 1 December 2007

Call to Order

The Director of Elections, Mark Coombs, officially called the meeting to order at 10:19pm on Friday, November 30, 2007.

Attendance

Attendance: Mark Coombs, Ahmed Salem, Vince Hartman, Ashley McGovern (left at 12:08 a.m.), Andrew Wang, Mazdak Asgary (arrived at 10:55 p.m.)

Excused Absences: Jules Marwell, Elan Greenberg

Unexcused Absences: Adam Gay

Structure of the meeting — the committee will briefly discuss the election rules. Throughout the process, individuals will be able to make proposals for 3 minutes. Everyone who wishes to respond will have two minutes to respond, and then the person who made the proposal can speak for 30 seconds.

The Student Assembly Spring Elections Calendar

Coombs said that the calendar does not generally change from year to year. Everything is pretty straightforward. The forum is the optional one with the administrators (Kent Hubbell and Susan Murphy.) The previous forum only had a handful of candidates. The mandatory campaign meeting forces individuals to have the opportunity to ask questions about the rules.

Wang asked if individuals don’t go to the campaign meeting, what the consequences are.

Coombs responded by saying generally no punishment. It is understood, the importance of the forum.

Coombs then continued discussing the forum and how in the past it has not generally been a huge draw for the student body. There have been few questions asked in the past.

Coombs then discussed the election challenge process, and what the committee will be expected to do for that night.

McGovern asked if holidays are a concern. Coombs said these are not included by the academic calendar.

Hartman made a comment in regards to the forum that the student body does not usually attend and having the possibility of a celebrity attend to attract students.

Coombs responded that is entirely possible. Calendar stays constant.

Salem proposed that the time for submission of election receipts be moved to 4:30pm.

Proposal 1: Moving the election receipts time from 12:30 to 4:30pm

Coombs framed the debate by saying that since the office closes at 4:30, could we move the time back to 4:15pm to allow for more convenience by the assemblies staff.

Salem responded by saying he would be fine with that recommendation

Amendment to the Proposal: Move the time to 4:15pm

Wang asked if this would be still feasible by the office of assemblies

Salem said that it was done in the past, and he believes it would be feasible. He asked that this be taken with a grain of salt since it was just his memory.

Coombs pointed out that if the office found any truly problematic concerns, the process could easily be changed to accommodate for these remedies. The 4:15pm time should be fine.

Salem called the proposal to question. There was no dissent.

The motion passed unanimously. The time was changed to 4:15pm to turn in all challenges and receipts.

Salem proposed a second proposal that all receipts and challenges are done in person.

Coombs gave a back history to why this proposal was pertinent. One of the candidates was automatically disqualified because he brought in his receipts 30 minutes late. Another candidate looked like this would happen to him too, but the candidate had apparently turned in their proposal by email and not turned it in by hand.

Salem agreed with this proposal and process that Coombs pointed out. He finds this more accountable for all candidates.

Wang pointed out the concerns with abroad candidates.

Salem said that this is the same for the petition. Create a system of consistency.

Wang cited the election rules in that the committee would have to change the election rules to with the calendar.

Coombs noted this, and said that the committee’s vote would automatically change both the rules and calendar.

The proposal was called to question. There was no dissent.

The proposal passed unanimously.

Hartman asked if the Candidate forum was held at a good time.

Salem pointed out that prelims were later in the night.

Hartman responded by saying it is understandable. The time should probably be the same.

Salem motioned to officially approve the Student Assembly Election Calendar.

Hartman dissented and asked that the committee wait for Asgary to arrive so the committee could hear his opinions.

Salem called the previous question. The vote was 3 — 1. The calendar was called to vote.

The Student Assembly Election calendar was passed unanimously.

Coombs restated the previous proposal by Salem and the new changes in the Election Rules.

The Student Assembly Election Rules:

Hartman stated that the beginning of the election rules is very emphatic and he is personally grateful that the election rules are seen with such great importance.

McGovern asked what was the reasoning and history for the $50 campaign limit.

Salem responded by saying to create a system of fairness for all individuals to run. The previous election committees did not want individuals who did not have the financial funds to feel discouraged from running.

Coombs said that the Student Assembly election is very low comparable to other colleges. At Florida, the President generally spends $20,000.

Hartman also confirmed this statement by saying that OSU generally spent $2500.

Wang asked about an incident regarding students using vehicles for promotion.

Hartman responds that Wang is correct that the costs of gas and parking is included in the expenses for the limit out-of-pocket expenses

Coombs responded that the feasibility is up to the Elections Committee. He asked about the precedent of this problem.

Salem stated that in the election two years ago, he personally put in finances for gas. He was not challenged on this proposal though.

Coombs continued with the rules.

Wang asked what is campus mail.

Coombs responded by saying that campus mail was placing quartercards in the mailboxes.

Hartman clarified that campus mail must be done by campus life, and it is against the policy for individuals to manually stuff mailboxes.

Wang said this does clarify his concerns.

[Mazdak Asgary entered the meeting at 10:55pm]

Salem felt that this should be further clarified, and a proposal would be a great way to clarify this confusion in its entirety.

Asgary clarified even further that adding a proposal would be great.

Coombs continued to electronic communications.

Wang pointed out that the current copy of the election rules that the committee has is not correct from the online version.

Hartman supplied Coombs his online version for the entirety of the meeting to ensure the committee was using the most update version.

The meeting went back to electronic communication.

Asgary pointed out the problems with facebook. The past election committees have not really dealt with these issues. The Trustee Nominating Committee (TNC) outlawed facebook in its entirely.

Coombs stated that the precedent established by the past Director of Elections (DOE) was that facebook challenges would not be accepted. These challenges would not be accepted because facebook was too far removed from the campus. Coombs said that he followed this precedent in the fall.

Asgary said that he was partly wrong about the TNC and it is not officially addressed.

Hartman asked the committee to remember the importance of facebook on college campuses.

Coombs asked if there were any question about electronic communication. There were none.

Asgary asked about campaign finances and if the current rules addressed about the restriction on tickets.

Coombs recognized that the election rules are even more problematic than Wang first addressed. The printed version of the rules needs to be examined. Coombs frowns greatly at the office of assemblies for the gross negligence for insuring the uniformity of the rules.. These are the rules which governance rests, they should be consistent in their entirety.

The phrase “Current SA members seeking reelection are expected to refrain from any self promoting publicity during the petitioning period.” Salem suggested putting it back in, but Coombs noted that moving forward, the online version as of right now is the version we’re working with as the most current version.

Hartman went back to the electronic communication and the concerns that spamming might have if not defined in its entirety. Also, if Class Councils ever endorsed a candidate, they would effectively be able to email the entire university.

Coombs said that the elections committee in the past defined spamming, and the definition has been more that spamming is noticeable when it is done. It’s a hard word to define.

Asgary said that campus life policies should be included in the election rules so all candidates are made fully aware of the rules. Supplements are problematic.

Salem said the process of the UUP is ridiculous in its entirety. The UUP needs to fully changed. The committee should say that the office of assemblies will mandate to campus life to not follow the formal process. It is preponderance that candidates need to do all of these things. It creates a system of huge deterrence for students.

Hartman stated that the Student Assembly does have the power to mandate on campus life.

Salem asked if this was the best process to go about looking at the election rules.

Coombs said that this was to ensure we don’t debate something twice. This way the actually debate process will be quick.

Coombs read the rules for canvassing. He noticed even more errors and made slight changes with wording which did not change the original intent of the rules. The statement about canvassing was ridiculous and was not even a clear sentence.

Asgary noted that anywhere it says election committee it should say the elections committee.

Coombs told everyone that anywhere that there are clerical errors, he will tell the office of assemblies to correct them.

Salem made a statement that by-line funding groups should not endorse candidates financially and figuratively.

Coombs told Salem to keep this proposal in mind for after the run through of the election rules.

Coombs read the harassment policy in the election rules.

Asgary said that if the committee found something in clear violation of the campus code of conduct, the committee would refer the individuals to the Judicial Administrator (JA).

Salem said this clause is the “Tim Lim clause.” While his allegations are not verified in their entirety, the problems that were raised were the jumping point for this whole discussion. He doesn’t see the point of mentioning the campus code if we can’t make the judgments.

Hartman pointed out that in previous elections, former Cornell students have campaigned for candidates without the candidate’s prior knowledge. He asks should the candidate be responsible for these students?

Coombs responds that it is discretion of the committee.

Coombs goes over C and D of Article 1.

Ahmed asked, should the committee judge plagiarism? He feels electronic media is very broad and that the rule regarding electronic media is illogical. He feels freedom of association, should a legislative body restrict freedom of association.

Hartman pointed out that Ahmed has a fair point based on current SA Elections rules.

Note: On December 1, 2007 at 12:08 AM McGovern has left the meeting. Quorum is still.

Asgary suggested that the former removal of Unfair Advantage be included again in the SA Election rules.

Coombs continued to go over C of Article 1.

Wang mentioned that in part 3, major violations only mentions multiple minor but questions how many does multiple mean.

Coombs responded that during challenge hearings, whatever the committee determines will remain the same continuously.

Asgary responded that the discretion is left up to the committee; however the scale of the violation is of different levels in regards to major and minor.

Coombs continued to go over C of Article 1 and started on Article II.

Asgary questioned the list of seats available in Part B, 1b. He asked if the Office Assemblies should include 8 At-Large Seats and 11 Designated Seats. There should be no mention of designations regarding the At-Large Seats because there is no designation according to section 3.1.

Coombs continued to go over Article II Part B. He mentioned that the Elections committee cannot overrule its own rules. Coombs pointed out the idea of consideration if the committee should verify election results. He continued to go over part C.

Asgary suggested that any component regarding “shall” should be changed to shall strive to in regards to the Office of Assemblies.

Coombs continued to go over part C and then started on part D.

Hartman asked why public documents not available on are online.

Asgary commented on consideration of making exception for public document in regards to voting on challenges.

Asgary commented on that the Ombudsman goes with the ruling of Elections Committee. He mentioned that elections decisions should not go to the entire Student Assembly because of bias.

Proposals to the Student Assembly Election Rules (Asgary, Salem, Hartman, Coombs, Wang)

PROPOSAL 1:

Asgary motioned in regards Article 1, letter A, 1b: For at-large seats the “proper constituency” will be defined as any registered undergraduate student. For college seats the “proper constituency” will be defined as any registered student within the college of the seat the candidate is running for.

Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 2:

Asgary motioned under Article 1, Letter A, Number 1, move eligibility letters c, d, and e down and change them to d, e, and f; add a new c which says: To be considered eligible as a candidate one must successfully complete the current P and T test online as well as the charter test found within the elections packet. The successful completion of these tests will be verified by the Office of Assemblies, in conjunction with the Elections Committee.

Ahmed responded against this proposition because it is ridiculous and is an obstacle to participation in government. Test will not ensure candidates will be better. He has taken it 5 times and feels that the test is not good that it is added bureaucracy. The irresponsibility of the candidate should lie with the constituency.

Hartman responded that the SA finances millions of dollars and that the trust, with former method of democracy is challenged because the candidates are not being checked by the public.

Asgary responded that it is not a perfect check, but will help candidates be familiar with rules.

Salem: Trying things is not a good thing. A bureaucracy test is not good for candidates.

Voting: 3 — 1, proposal passes.

PROPOSAL 3:

Asgary motioned to change Article I.A.3. to “Each candidate is asked to submit a statement of no more than 1,250 characters (which includes all spaces and punctuation marks) via the web at http://assembly.cornell.edu/Elections…”

Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 4:

Salem moved to remove under Article I.A.3. “Statements may not include names of political coalitions or campus political organizations.”

Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 5:

Hartman motioned to add, under Article I.A.5 “The Elections Committee is strongly encouraged to find a campus figurehead to lead the debate.”

Voting: 1–3, proposal FAILS.

PROPOSAL 6:

Asgary motioned to change any mention of the word “candidate” found under letter B of Article 1 to “candidates or associates knowingly acting on their behalf”, where appropriate (not under the campaign finance section, number 7, or restrictions, number 10).

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 7:

Asgary motioned to add, under Article 1.B.1., letter ‘d’: “Current SA members seeking reelection are expected to refrain from any form of individual or self promoting publicity during the petitioning period”.

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 8:

Salem motioned to add to Article 1.B.3., “The Office of the Assemblies will be responsible to communicate to the Department of Campus Life and the Office of the Dean of Students the names of all candidates in the current election. Candidates shall therefore not be required to file individual Use of University Property (UUP) Forms.”

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 9:

Asgary asked to add under Article 1.B.4. “The hours a candidate is allowed to campaign in a residence hall are restricted to 6:00 p.m. — 10:00 p.m. Mon-Fri and 2:00 p.m. — 10:00 p.m. Sat. & Sun. RAs will ask a candidate to leave if s/he does not follow these guidelines” after “unless accompanied by a resident of the dorm”.

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 10:

Salem moved to strike the first sentence in Article 1.B.4 beginning with “according to the building safety code” through “unless accompanied by a resident of the dorm.”

Revised from above, after discussion, “According to the Building Safety Code, candidates may only campaign door-to-door in a hall they have the key for, unless accompanied by a resident of the dorm. If they are unable to obtain an escort, the candidate must contact the Residence Hall Director of the building 48 hours prior to the time they wish to campaign in that building. The Residence Hall Director may either find an escort or grant the candidate permission to campaign in the building.”

Salem felt candidates should not be able to find residents in every building in order to campaign. As long as RA’s are aware of the candidates campaigning, then the candidates should be able to go alone in the buildings. Candidates should be encouraged to go door to door, and this rule highly discourages candidates from doing so.

Asgary dissented. RA’s should not be added additional responsibilities to their jobs. Furthermore, if there are damages done to the building, then who is going to be aware of these damages. These buildings are places where people live, and escorts provide that necessary comfort level to the building. In spirit, the idea is good, but the safety issues need to be resolved.

Wang asked Salem the points that Asgary brought forward about possible damages to the building and the RA not being aware of the damage.

Salem responded to the committee by saying that the RA is usually unaware of the escort in the building. The RA is not following these candidates and wouldn’t see the damages if they did occur. They would occur without the RA’s knowledge.

Hartman said that Salem’s proposal has good intent. The building key cards are meant to keep individuals who are not residents of the building from entering. Candidates would essentially be entering the building without keycards. The idea of accompaniment still needs to be recognized.

Salem responded by saying that he sees this issue as elections as a specific time. Candidates are supposed to reach out to their constituents. Safety should be balanced with this issue, but the RA should resolve this issue. Elections are a specific time period though to where we are reaching out to the community, and this policy is prohibitive to the spirit of student elections.

Coombs told the committee that this is “according to the building safety rules.” This rule seems more of a heeded warning to candidates. In the Election Rules, it is also stated that candidates must apply with campus life policies throughout campaigning. The residential house rules mention this escort policy, so candidates would still have to comply with the rules even if this statement was not present.

Hartman provided an amended version of Salem’s committee. The current policy makes it easier for popular individuals who may have more friends in residential halls, especially the freshmen resident halls, for campaigning purposes. We should probably include a statement that if you don’t have an escort, you get permission from the resident advisor or resident hall director to go around without an escort.

Salem said this is fine since all candidates would be subjected to uniformity of being approved or denied.

Asgary further stressed that the building policies need to be enforced — you need to swipe to get in to a building. That being said, we should be encouraging candidates going door to door. Asgary offered a revised proposal where the Hall Director would help the candidate find an escort if he was unable to find an escort.

Salem objected to Asgary’s proposal.

Hartman asked if it would be possible for candidates to receive universal access cards to the buildings.

Asgary said this would be possible, but entirely improbably since Resident Advisors do not receive these cards.

Salem said he is not going to allow this rule to stand as it is since it is ridiculous.

Salem made a new proposal, “if they are unable to attain an escort, the resident must contact the Resident Hall Director of the building 48 hours prior to the time they wish to campaign in the building. The Resident Hall Director may either find an escort, or grant permission for that time period.”

Asgary made a suggestion that the last sentence be properly informed to the Resident Hall Directors by the Director of Elections.

Coombs said that the next sentence states that I need to do so anyway.

Asgary noted that the rules say candidates need to contact RHD’s 72 hours in advance.

Salem contracted Asgary’s statement by saying this is not a rule, and asked Asgary to find this rule. 72 hours is way too long in the course of an election. If Asgary can find this rule, he has a valid point though.

Wang asked if this still solves the problem of candidates not having a key card to enter the building.

Salem said that is why we are getting permission from the RHD. So “the keeper of the house” is letting you in — to use the metaphor. I am trying to balance safety and democracy at the same time.

Coombs asked if there was any dissent to this proposal as it stands.

Asgary still had some concerns about the proper time warning.

Salem said that the RHD for Collegetown only notified residents 24 hours in advance when Hartman was campaigning for Senior Class President.

Asgary found the 72 hour mentioned in the rules, but it was in relation to the UUP section which the committee had amended.

Coombs again asked if there was still any dissent. There was no dissent.

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 11:

Asgary moved to add to Article 1.B.6 to state as letter ‘e’, “Any website on the world wide web, and particularly social networking sites such as Facebook� or MySpace�, used for campaign purposes are subject to these Election Rules. Also, advertisements placed on such sites must be accounted for as detailed in Numbers 7 and 8 of this section of the rules.”

Wang had a question to Asgary’s proposal. Are we not allowing advertisement on facebook anymore?

Asgary responded by saying that ads will still be allowed, they just need to account for these expenses.

Coombs asked Asgary to clarify the proposal by just stating that advertisements need to follow the finance rules.

Coombs asked if there was dissent. There was none.

Voting: Unanimous approval

Asgary told the committee that he plans to clarify the campaign finance section if the restriction section is amended. Would this be an appropriate time to amend the section before we have discussed the restrictions on campaigning?

Coombs said that this proposal should wait until after the thorough discussion of the section labeled restriction. The committee will treat this as a new proposal at the end.

PROPOSAL 12:

Salem moved to add to Article 1.B.8.a. “Further, directly byline funded organizations receiving money from the SAF are prohibited from endorsing or campaigning for or against a candidate.”

Salem is fine with SAFC independent groups endorsing organizations, but does not want the directly byline funded organizations from endorsing candidates.

Hartman clarified Salem’s intent by saying he does not want the Slope Day Programming Board to endorse those candidates who support Slope Day or Class Councils stating which candidates support Convocation. He agrees with Salem’s proposal.

Coombs asked if there was dissent. There was none.

Voting: Unanimous approval

Hartman requested that the Director of Elections to contact the VP of Finance to include a clause in Appendix B to ensure uniformity.

Coombs said he would contact the VP of Finance.

PROPOSAL 13:

Asgary moved to change Article 1.B.9.b to state “Any violation of the Campus Code of Conduct will be considered a violation of these Election Rules. The Elections Committee will determine whether, as far as the election is concerned, a violation occurred that gave a candidate an unfair advantage, as defined in Article 1.C of these rules. If the Elections Committee finds as such, a challenge will proceed against the violator as delineated in Article I.C. The Director of Elections will also refer any such violations to the Judicial Administrator for separate action to be taken by that office, as determined by that office.”

And change Article 1.B.9.c to state in the last sentence instead of “Any action that has been found by the Elections Committee to be considered harassment of the aforementioned policy will also be considered as a major violation” to state “Any action that has been found by the Elections Committee to be a violation of what is delineated in this letter of the rules will result in disqualification of said candidate.”

Hartman felt this gives a clearer process to rules that break the code of conduct.

Salem agreed.

Coombs asked if there was dissent. There was none.

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 14:

Asgary asked to remove Article 1.B.10 titled “Restrictions.”

The committee voted to suspend the structure established at the beginning of the meeting and discuss this issue more in-depth with a controlled debate.

Coombs prefaced that this portion will be the most debated, the committee paused to reload the tape recorder to ensure the committee recorded everything said. [It took about 10 minutes to reload the tape recorder and load the files onto the computer]

Wang began the debate before the recorder had been loaded — he could not wait for recording the meeting to view his opinions. He dissented about this proposal

Hartman made a statement about the current rules giving an advantage to incumbents, and how the past elections were uncontested.

Salem stressed that these rules go against the freedom of association. We are hampering major freedoms of students by running for Student Assembly elections; these election rules are turning a blind eye on liberty.

Wang still had major concern for this proposal. He felt this was effectively going to hurt independent candidates. He ran for Student Assembly without the help of any tickets, and he felt highly discouraged from the process. No ticket contacted him when running even though he had an interest in Student Assembly elections. It goes against his beliefs of Student Assembly elections.

Salem said that associations will still be formed even with this clause in the election rules. A fraternity house will work for the promotion of one candidate or multiple candidates from the house. This already present association gives members of the Greek system a natural advantage to Student Assembly elections. Restrictions on associations are only going to hurt the very candidates that Wang wishes to help. Salem was a huge opponent of tickets his sophomore year, but as he viewed the issue last year debated in its entirety, he understood the effective problems and issues that had arisen from limiting individuals freedom to associate and work together. The party system in American politics has its similar problems, but Congress can not limit the system because of the constitution and our inherent freedoms.

[The tape was reloaded]

Salem said he is not asking Wang to complement his beliefs. Everything about this proposal is logical, but his statement that this just does not make sense is not following a proper order of coming to conclusions.

Coombs interrupted saying that he usually tries to maintain neutrality when it comes to issues of concern to the committee, but this issue needs an opinion from the chair. He felt he had an interesting opinion to add to the discourse. Coombs and Hartman were the sponsors of this portion of the election rules last year, but felt the discussion changed from the original tent that he envisioned when he first wrote the rules. He had to vote against his own resolution that he helped write, and Hartman abstained from the final vote. This was a very general solution to a very specific problem. Tickets were scene as a “Tim Lim” enterprise where candidates would run on this corrupt system where a guy would cajole you to run. Candidates would not care for why they were running. Getting rid of tickets though would fail to take into account the advantages of an incumbent if tickets are not allowed to form. Coombs prefaced that he has been on the Assembly and he is a Sun columnist. If a candidate wishes to run against Coombs, they would have a natural disadvantage because Coombs has been on the Assembly before. Head to head, Coombs has a natural advantage. But if candidates could work together with like-minded people, this would be a different mind-set then the Tim Lim type tickets. This proposal handicaps the very type of people that are motivated to take on Coombs and change the policies of the school. The candidates may not be able to do this individually, but together, they could fight against an incumbent on the Student Assembly. Coombs just asked the committee to think about solving specific problems of “Tim Lim” enterprises with over sweeping effects on the possible good things that are beneficial to the discourse on campus. It was impossible to get this exact problem down in the legislation, and the current rules create new problems. To the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Asgary wanted to preface the committee that the additional spending restriction that he wants to add to the election rules would limit candidates from only running together with contested candidates. He also plans to add the 50% restriction clause to the election rules. Tickets do not have to be these machines with 19 people, but can just be 2 or 3 people who just wish to run together. Just keep in mind that spending restriction will be brought up later after this proposal.

Asgary further stressed that what is the difference of two candidates going door to door together and handing both of their quarter cards and placing them right next to each other on a person’s desk. This is nothing different than candidates being on the same quarter card.

Hartman prefaced the committee that he plans propose a “none of the above” option on the electronic ballot, which would make uncontested candidates still contested since they would need to be approved by majority vote by their constituents. If the college votes “none of the above” more than a candidate’s name, then a candidate should not fill that seat. A seat should not be filled just because it’s uncontested.

Wang did not want uncontested people to merge the money with contested election. As long as this was recognized he would be fine with the election.

Wang noted that spending restrictions should be placed into effect for uncontested candidates.

Coombs called to question as the debate had come to a consensus.

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 15:

Salem motioned to add to Article 1.C.3 “Violations will be classified as follows:”

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 16:

Salem motioned to remove from Article 2.B.1.a, the third and fourth sentences as they currently stand.

Hartman agrees with this proposal, and the Administration would agree with this too. The Administration puts trust in the student body to run its own elections, and we don’t need members of the faculty, University Assembly, and staff as ex-officio members of the board.

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 17:

Hartman asked to add DOS Kent Hubbell and VP for SAS Susan Murphy as ex-officio members, along with Peggy Beach, Director of the Office of Assemblies.

So the change would be in Article 2.B.1.a, the second sentence would read “The Director of the Office of Assemblies, the Dean of Students, and the Vice President for Student and Academic Services shall serve as non-voting, ex-officio members on this committee.”

Salem said he is fine with this addition. These ex-officio members would be appropriate for the elections committee.

Voting: Unanimous approval

PROPOSALS 18, 19 & 20:

Votes will be individual and tallies recorded after each noted change.

Asgary moved to change Article 1.C. to read:

Number 4’s change was removed from consideration by Asgary.

Numbers 4 & 5 will be moved down and renumbered.

Number 4 will now read, “An unfair advantage is defined as any action that a candidate takes that, had she/he not violated the Election Rules, she/he would not have been able to commit, and by doing so, has gained at least one additional vote in the election. The Elections Committee must use this definition in their consideration of challenges.”

Number 4 will now have added, as the second sentence, “In doing so, the Elections Committee will hear all challenges against one particular candidate subsequently, and then vote on disqualification, if necessary.”

PROPOSAL 18 (above): VOTE: Unanimous approval

Number 5 will now strike the second sentence and now instead read, “Failure to do so will result in automatic disqualification of the candidate from the election.”

PROPOSAL 19 (above): VOTE: Unanimous approval

Number 2 was motioned to change to have a third sentence that states, “A signed statement and testimony will hold equal weight to the Elections Committee upon consideration of challenges.”

PROPOSAL 20 (above): VOTE: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 21:

Remove the second sentence of Article II.B.1.f, “A 2/3 supermajority of the members of the Elections Committee must be present to vote on the validation of the election results.”

Vote: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 22:

“None of the above option.” Students can click “none of the above” for candidates in a given category. If the “none of the above” option gets more votes than any of the candidates in that category, the seat(s) will be vacant and filled pursuant to Article 3 of the charter.

Vote: Tie, 2–2, Coombs has to break the tie and votes “no”, FAILS

PROPOSAL 23:

Salem moved to remove, from Article II.C.6., the clause that states “�but disqualified candidates will not have their vote tallies made available.”

Vote: Tie, 2–2, Coombs has to break the tie and votes “no”, FAILS

PROPOSAL 24:

Wang moved to add to Article II.D.2. after “Challenges must be on the Election Challenge Form and contain the following information” to add “to be heard by the Elections Committee”

Vote: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 25:

Asgary motioned add, to Article II.D.3, the end of the top blurb, “The Elections Committee has the right to proceed with all challenges in the absence of the challenger or challenged after proper notification has been commenced.”

Vote: Tie, 2–2, Coombs has to break the tie and votes “yes”, PASSES

PROPOSAL 26:

Asgary motioned to add a new letter to Article II.D.3., ‘d’ and renumber ‘d’ as ‘e’. The new letter ‘d’ will read “Confidentiality will be granted to individuals or hearings where necessitated by Article 5 of the Student Assembly Charter.”

Vote: Unanimous approval

PROPOSAL 27:

Asgary motioned to change the campaign finance section to read (and striking all of number 7 in the current rules and place what is below in its stead):

Candidates must submit all receipts and/or proof of fair market value to the Office of Assemblies, 109 Day Hall, by 4:15 p.m. on the last day of the election in person.

1. Candidates may not exceed the $50 limit for out-of-pocket expenses and fair market value of donations of materials, professional services, and/or money.
2. Fair market value is the value at which something is to be obtained normally if documentation of its dollar value is not provided. Therefore, if there is a supporting receipt for a good used in a candidate’s campaign, then the value of that good is the dollar value on the supporting receipt. For donated materials, professional services, or other goods for which no official receipt is provided, candidates must seek the most plausible assessment of the fair market value of the good. All government imposed taxes are to be accounted for within the $50 limit.
3. Spending Restrictions
   1. Candidates in uncontested races (when only one candidate has submitted a petition) are limited to $10 for out-of-pocket expenses, including government imposed taxes. Uncontested candidates must spend this money only on their own campaign — they may not share any of their $10 budget with other candidates.
   2. Shared costs may not account for more than 50% of a contested candidate’s total budget. Contested candidates must share the costs of all campaign materials on which their names appear equally. For example, if three people are running together, and they make posters that cost $30 in total, on which their names appear equally, then each candidate is responsible for $10 of the expenses; each candidate must include the fair market value of their share of these costs as part of their overall budget. No more than $25 of a contested candidate’s budget may be used towards shared expenses.
4. Donations may be used, but proof of their fair market value must be provided and accounted for within the appropriate aforementioned limits.

Vote: Unanimous approval

Final vote on rules

ROLL CALL VOTE (5:09 a.m.) TO APPROVE THE FINAL SET OF RULES, WITH THE CHANGES NOTED ABOVE:

Yea: Mazdak Asgary, Vincent Hartman, Ahmed Salem, Andrew Wang Nay: Mark Coombs

Passes unanimously.

Adjournment

Conclusion of discussion of changes to the spring 2008 Election Rules happened at 5:06 a.m.