Election Commisson disqualifies Lamb-Breen, Dagher-Ibrahim tickets
Posted by: Molly Redden in News, Vox Populi, tags: GUSA, GUSA Election, Jeff Lamb, Pat DowdLast night, the Election Commission, which will run the primary for GUSA Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates has decided to disqualify two tickets, Voice- and College Dems-endorsed Jeff Lamb and Molly Breen, and Peter Dagher and Elias Ibrahim.
Update 1:34: The College Democrats are encouraging a write-in campaign on behalf of Lamb-Breen. Look to our Twitter for further updates. Update 8:54: Student efforts (especially by Pa Dowd and those behind Twitter’s openGUSA—Troiano, I presume?) have failed to reinstate either party on the ballots the Election Commission mailed out at about 4:00 a.m. Are you planning to write in either ticket?
According to emails exchanged between GUSA President Pat Dowd and Election Commission member Frederick Moore, campaign posters for the two tickets appeared in illegal places. The Hoya confirms:
Lamb and Breen posters were found in the Intercultural Center and Darnall Hall, which violates resident hall posting policies. Dagher and Ibrahim posters were found in O’Donovan Hall and Village B.
Dowd expressed vehement opposition to the decision. But even his insistence that the violations were minor, that the two tickets had worked hard on sincere campaigns, that GUSA’s legitimacy was at stake, and his quoting of Pearl S. Buck to the Election Commission (“Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied”) couldn’t save the candidates. At 7:30, Moore wrote,
“Thank you for voicing your concerns. Please know that the Election Commission read your email and took it into account when re-evaluating our decision to disqualify the two tickets. We also greatly appreciate your service to the Georgetown community and hold your advice in high regard. Unfortunately, after discussing the issue with the other two members of the Election Commission, we have decided to uphold the disqualification. As such, neither ticket will be on the ballot that will be sent out later tonight.” [Emphasis his]
Dowd responded, “With all due respect, I have to say that this is the most insensitive, asinine decision that I have witnessed during my entire year in office.”
I’m inclined to agree. The full text of Dowd’s plea appears after the jump. What do you think?
Update 1:26: Peter Dagher to Election Commission before his disqualification (partial email), and it’s not without some j’accuse of its own:
Before making this decision final, we would like the chance to explain ourselves in regards to the issue …. This morning we distributed a final set of fliers out to our campaign staff and directed them to post up at all of the common student locations. While we were sure to warn them that they needed to be careful where posting and to keep the fliers in the designated areas, it’s understandable that some people weren’t listening properly and made the mistake of putting up fliers in improper spots. For this violation we are sincerely sorry, but at the same rate we are not the only ones guilty of this offense.
While walking around the dorms the past few days, Lamb & Breen have placed their quarter sheets on the floor, under students doors, and everywhere in between. Additionally, McGroarty and Koutsoukos have their promo squares littered all over the floor in university buildings and dorms. It’s obvious that fliering is a difficult thing to keep control of but we’re really passionate about this campaign and have a lot of people helping out who don’t necessarily understand all the rules.
Dear Sophia, Will and Fred,
I am writing to you to express serious concern with your collective decision to disqualify two pairs of candidates from the GUSA presidential race. While I appreciate your desire to judiciously enforce the rules in the interest of fairness, and respect you all a great deal personally, I cannot say with any confidence that your decision is either practical or wise, and I strongly encourage you to reconsider.
One of my simple pleasures every week is reading the “Wit and Wisdom” column on page 17 of my favorite magazine, The Week. In the most recent issue for the week of February 27th, there was one quote in particular that struck me as remarkably insightful. The quote is attributed to Pullitzer Prize winning American author Pearl S. Buck and was referenced in the Memphis Commercial Appeal; it reads: “Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied
.”
I believe that you, the Election Committee, are now squarely situated within such a “halfway moment,” and I urge you in the strongest manner to use your common judgment to recall the great mistake that will have been made if the two candidates are not allowed to appear on the GUSA presidential election ballot this evening.
If either of the candidates had done anything that appeared even remotely malicious, or if they had pursued an improper strategy to gain substantial competitive advantage, I might feel differently. But as we all know, the offenses these two tickets have committed are not grave. It is a regrettable that the dilemma of choosing between what is just according to the laws, but absurd according to all measures of common sense, has been thrust upon you. If you are at all concerned that the minor trangressions committed by either of these two tickets represent a lack of character that would prevent them from serving the student body honorably, let me assure you in no uncertain terms that they do not. Peter Dagher, Elias Ibrahim, Jeff Lamb, and Molly Breen are individuals of extremely high character, and I vouch for their trustworthiness and leadership potential without any reservations whatsoever.
My advice, for what it is worth, is to make the decision that truly serves the greater good of the Georgetown community. I would argue that reinstating both tickets on the ballot would be the just choice. Both tickets have done their upmost to run professional and honorable campaigns. They have not been juvenile in the slightest. Rather, they have both put forward common sense, highly feasible, and unique platform proposals. Our student body deserves the opportunity to express the direction they would like to be led in over the next year as represented by what each ticket in the presidential race has to offer. It would be a great shame and profound outrage, if students were not given the opportunity to choose the ticket with the best ideas because of a few, very minor, and by all accounts innocently naïve mistakes.
It has been the unfortunate case that over the past several years the image of GUSA has at times been sullied by the perception of farcical management of the elections. My administration and the GUSA Senate have worked extremely hard over the past year to elevate the image of student government at Georgetown by working tirelessly to promote student interests in an innovative and effective manner. On behalf of all those who have worked to improve the image and effectiveness of GUSA over the past year, I ask that you recognize that in expelling the candidates from the race you would be doing a great disservice to our legacy. Please, for the sake of GUSA’s legitimacy, out of respect for the hard work that the candidates have devoted to running upstanding campaigns, with the best interests of the student body and the university community at heart, and with a view towards avoiding to collosal headache that we will all be forced to endure if you do not reconsider your decision — please, recondiser your decision.
With Respect,
Pat
Entries (RSS)
Jason Kluger ratted them out.
Do go on. So much for elections going smoothly this year…
A commenter on the Hoya article said, “GUSA is now absolutely irrelevant; its only purpose is for entertainment in the Vox Populi blog.”
Much obliged. We’re glad they do all that talking for something—Lillian Kaiser’s snark, odometers, etc—and that you’re entertained.
I’m posting the full text of my email I sent to Reggie and others, as it was quoted (somehow) in the Hoya article. As the original author of the elections by-laws, I think I have some idea of how it was meant to be applied…
* * *
Hi guys,
I just wanted to email you to see if I can provide any clarify on the election rules. I’ve heard in brief from Wagner and Nick what’s been going on and want to offer my two cents as the original author of the election rules (and one of the original ‘Bros’)
The question presented, at least from what I’ve been told, is whether the Election Commission may disqualify a candidate for violating ResLife/Housing rules on posting locations. I actually brought this issue up on the Speech & Expression Committee last year with Housing, because I found their rule in general to be very troubling from a free speech perspective.
The bottom line is this: Only those rules specifically laid out in the election rules are DQ’able. The EC may not enforce Housing regulations as disqualifiers. The current rules allow for 7 (10? It’s been a while) campaign posters and have no restrictions on where they may be posted. This is further compounded by the by-law I explicitly put to combat situations like this that stated that no other restrictions may apply. None. Period.
Housing posting policy violations may be enforced by Housing. They may choose to sanction the the students, just like any other student or group that posts them in restricted areas. But the Election Commission may not disqualify them for this fact.
This was widely understood in the Senate when it was passed and was the intention of its author, me.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Matt
Just a quick follow-up:
As an analogy that was discussed when writing and passing this, ResLife’s posting rule is analogous to a candidate caught by their RA for violating the alcohol policy. The Election Commission has no power to disqualify the candidate for alcohol policy violations any more than it does for ResLife policy violations. The candidates may be sanctioned like any other student for their conduct by Student Affairs in the former case, or ResLife in the latter, but it won’t affect their candidacy.
* * *
Thanks Matt, v. helpful info. Y’hear, EC?
So it seems, based on these posts, that there is some serious irony here. In order to enforce the “rules,” the EC did not even follow them, or more appropriately, followed someone else’s rules. So it’s like the rules weren’t followed by the very people who supposedly discovered that the dq’d tickets weren’t following the rules. Confusing? That’s because it IS! The EC was enforcing ResLife’s rules!
It’s kind of like if a DC Police Officer arrested you for catching a fish in the Potomac with a lasso simply because the state of Tennessee bans it (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/tennessee).
IT’S NOT YOUR RULE TO ENFORCE, EC! LET THEM FACE THE RJC (arguably worse than being kicked out of the election…the RJC is about the most ineffective guilty until proven innocent group on campus…). Put them on the ticket and let the students decide.
meow
Everybody knows that Lamb/Breen is Pat Dowd’s personal choice to succeed him. He’s good friends with them and has given them all sorts of support throughout this campaign. So, with all due respect, it seems like he’s just intervening to save his preferred candidates.
This should be left to the Senate to decide independently, as it was last year.
We’ve heard that twice now about two different tickets. Even if that’s true, he pleaded on behalf of both disq’ed tickets (see email) equally.
Pat has been and continues to be a reference for all tickets on the Ballot. Molly and I would strive to run GUSA as efficiently as possible, and certainly in an informed manner. A major part of this “informed manner,” is understanding the experiences, struggles, and successes of past GUSA executives… including Pat Dowd. It would be unwise to ignore his comments for the future success of GUSA, regardless of whether we choose to act on them.
That being said, our platforms and campaign have been representative of both Molly and my passion for Georgetown. We have put in multiple hours a day for over two weeks to prepare ourselves, and the student body for a successful election. I will not comment on the character of the election commission, however they have made a mistake in this case. We were disqualified for a violation that is not enforceable by the EC. This is made by Mr. Stoller’s previous email, and I have read the by-laws and am in concurrence. Other tickets have been supportive, as have the GUSA senate, and Pat Dowd. We appreciate their help in reversing this decision, and hope that the outcome which is produced is done so in order to create a stronger Georgetown.
Regards,
Jeffrey Lamb
Sophia Behnia is a TOTAL JOKE. Her legacy will be not only making SAC less transparent and more unaccountable than ever, but giving us the second sham GUSA election in two years. Nice work, Sophia!
Dear “With All Due Respect,”
I have not endorsed any candidate in this election and I have offered my candid advice to every candidate that has asked me for input.
Sincerely,
Pat Dowd (SFS ‘09)
How did Sophia Behnia gain so much power in her college career? She should write the Georgetown edition of The Prince. Mandatory reading in PST, naturally.
Hahaha I would love to read that—well, she became Election Commissioner more or less incidentally because of her position on the Senior Class Council, not because she’s SAC Queen.
Also, Jason Kluger accused above of ratting out Lamb/Breen just sent me an email vehemently denying the accusation. Inclined to believe him, and I’m sure he’ll speak for himself in his own comment shortly.
Is he a candidate? There’s a similar comment on the Hoya’s thread blaming him. Stop snitching!
Subplot to this election: the success of Pat surrogates (I’m told) Lamb-Breen demonstrates that Pat is actually a pretty good president. I’ll say it again: best GUSA president in recent memory.
[...] about this year’s election fiasco but unsure what you can do about it besides leaving angry comments on Vox posts? Well, in [...]
Does this really have to be so serious?
Who is the Election Commission, anyway?
How long’s your memory, Will Sommer? Pat’s definitely been a very solid president, but Twister Murchison and Ben Shaw were also pretty good. Mr. Murchison’s administration beat the keg ban, got the university to allow students into Riggs for study days, created weekend GUTS bus services on Saturday and Sunday, and got more than half of the student body to vote for student government reform that led to a lot of financial clout in GUSA and discovering of like a million bucks of wasted funds not to mention opened up the Student Senate and made it relevant again for the first time ever. Ben, meanwhile, was a really good caretaker president who led the school through some tough times on LGBTQ and race issues and instituted the readership program that gives us all those lovely free newspapers.
We’ve been very lucky the last few years from a GUSA perspective! If only these elections didn’t keep getting screwed up.
– Class of 09 Hoya
Although Ben was a great guy, he didn’t “lead the school through… LGBTQ and race issues.”
This is part of why GUSA is worthless.. it’s a bunch of (mostly) dudes trying to take credit and cast blame for a bunch of random stuff. There was a highly motivated, independently organized group of students who pushed for those changes on the LGBT issues without any “leadership” from GUSA. They got the university to make changes well before GUSA got involved.
Was Ben there banging down DeGioia’s door when he refused to meet with the Out for Change coalition? Nope. Nothing against Ben, again he’s a great guy, but GUSA was by no means out leading the charge on those changes. Current VP Kelley actually wrote a letter to the Hoya against those students.
Hold on, “Hold on partner”.
I agree with you completely, Ben didn’t do it all himself. I never claimed he did, and I’d never try to take away any credit for the dozens of other people who worked on this issue. They’re all leaders.
I think perhaps your bias against GUSA causes you to see me (who is not actually in GUSA) taking more credit for something than I mean to, on behalf of an organization I’m not in, though I have friends in.
Yes you’re right that a lot of people participated, but Ben and Matt both helped lead the effort whether it was in meetings with DeGioia, in Viewpoints they published in the Hoya, in working with Dr. Porterfield to outline the scope and breadth of the LGBTQ working groups, in appointing students to those working groups, in being on the working groups themselves and going to all of their meetings, in organizing multiple town hall style events over the course of the year to address the LGBTQ and race issues that came up, et cetera et cetera.
They weren’t the only leaders, but they were leaders, and their voices (by virtue of their positions) were probably the best heard and best articulated in the student body in general on these issues, both LGBTQ and race. They wrote about it ( http://www.thehoya.com/node/13809 ), spoke often about it, and did a lot to bring the movement that had already built up within the school into the mainstream, serving as the bridge, I think, between the “highly motivated, independently organized” but tiny group of people you mention and the broader community that could have easily dismissed that minority’s concerns as none of their concerns. They gave it their unflagging support and spent hundreds of hours over their two semesters in office working on the issue, especially through the LGBTQ working groups which they served on, and in organizing a lot of discussions about race.
So, just because Ben wasn’t “banging down DeGioia’s door” during that protest doesn’t mean he and Matt didn’t help lead the student body through an unprecedented rough patch.
And Kelley is one person in the Student Association, you can’t anymore say that because one person in the Association disagrees with those students that the whole organization is against it, especially when I know that dozens of students in GUSA worked hours and hours and hours on these issues whether it was on the Disciplinary Review Committee of the university, the Diversity Action Council, the Speech & Expression Board of the university or the LGBTQ Working Groups — all of which had strong GUSA participation and make policy for the entire university. I know, because I was involved in that broader movement.
But congratulations for disagreeing with one item out of my long list and ignoring the rest of it.
[...] to GUSA Senator Nick Troiano, as of 6:30 p.m. today the questionable GUSA elections are officially suspended. There will be a special emergency GUSA meeting tonight at 9:30 where [...]
I’ve exchanged emails with Peter Dagher today, who’s upset that we posted his email, which Pat Dowd provided us with.
Vox has a policy not to pull parts of posts unless they’re inaccurate—in which case we run a retraction rather than actually deleting the post—or unless the information we’ve posted poses a threat to someone (In the comments following one post, Will Sommer once deleted contact information for someone that somebody else posted in the hopes that they’d be harassed)
In this case, we posted information that was highly relevant to and enlightening about an issue that our comments sections reveal students really care about. One of the email’s intended recipients forwarded it to us with the clear understanding that it would edify or appear in our coverage of this issue.
While I understand why Peter is concerned that his email remains public as he’s dealing with this clusterfuck of an election, I think he makes an excellent point about the issues of controlling flyering. It tempered my initial reaction to the news of their disqualification, which was, “well, didn’t you break the rules?” In fact, I expect it put the issues at hand into perspective for a lot of students.
if Pat Dowd want the Voice blog to know it, then i want to know about it too! And yeah, he made a really good point, I worked on a Senator campaign in the fall and I had to make sure that the other volunteers weren’t idiots.
Facepalm.
[...] that time the GUSA Election Commission brought chaos to this year’s presidential election by [...]
[...] better. GUSA ditched IRV, but the election still devolved into chaos when the Election Commission disqualified two candidates hours before voting started. GUSA largely objected to the Election Commissions [...]