Appeal to 2012-007
1. The Election Supervisory Board erred in their ruling In Res Gardner Guevara 2012-007, in that the complaint in question was improperly considered as cited below 2012-007:
In regard to the uncontested failure to report a punishment, as levied by this Board, and the petitioner’s request to view financial violations in the aggregate, the Board has deemed the request suitable and the respondent admittedly culpable. Despite the submission of a “corrected financial disclosure” after the scheduled hearing
In that the Financial Disclosure form had not been made public knowledge or distributed to any candidates. The information that the Election Supervisory Board cited to disqualify Gardner Guevara, was filed/ the complaint was originated by the Chair of the Election Supervisory Board, Eric Nimmer. Which violations the Campus Wide Election Code:
4.01 Members of the Election Board are prohibited from filing complaints. Any other student may file a complaint with the Election Board. All complaints must be filed under the name of the student filing the complaint. The Election Board shall act on all complaints within two days after they are received by either dismissing the complaint or calling a hearing under the provisions of this subchapter. If after the two days, the Election Board fails to act, the Chair of the Election Board shall have original jurisdiction over the matter.
2. Further, not only was the complaint filed by a member of the ESB, but the Election Supervisory Board failed to abide by the election code:
4.03 If a complaint is not dismissed, then a hearing must be held. The Election Board shall inform, in writing or via email, the complaining party and all individuals or groups named in the complaint of the time and place of the hearing. The parties are not considered notified until they have received a copy of the complaint.
4.04 The hearing shall be held at the earliest possible time, but not within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of the notice described in the previous section, unless all parties agree to waive the 24-hour time constraint. This 24-hour time constraint is waived if the complaint is filed during the voting period.
Therefore, the election board failed to provide the complaint in question in writing, schedule a hearing for the complaints in question or provide the 24-hour time constraint. In that the hearing for which the decision was made and complainant whose case was being heard was not ESB Chair Eric Nimmer’s but instead Austin Carlson’s.
3. The Election supervisory further erred in their ruling, in that the ESB cited:
4.15 If, after a hearing, the Election Board finds that provisions of either this Code or decisions, opinions, orders, or rulings of the Election Board have been violated by a candidate, or a candidate’s agents or workers, has committed a Class D violation, the Election Board may disqualify the candidate.
As hearing is defined and as the procedures mandate, the ESB erred in that the actions they have taken are explicitly granted to the ESB only after a hearing. Thereby the actions taken by the ESB were not procedurally valid by acting without a hearing.
4. The ESB erred in their ruling in that they did not act within the election code 4.10
4.10 Decisions, orders, and rulings of the Election Board must be concurred to by a majority of the Election Board present and shall be announced as soon as possible after the hearing. Such decisions may be delivered orally or in writing. The Election Board shall issue a written opinion of the ruling within twenty-four (24) hours of announcement of the decision. The written opinion must set forth the findings of fact by the Election Board and the conclusions of law in support of it. Written opinions shall set a precedent for a time period of three election cycles for Election Board rulings and shall guide the Election Board in its proceedings. Upon consideration of prior written opinions, the Board may negate the decision but must provide written documentation of reasons for doing
Particularly the following: ESB 2011-009
it was not shown that the responding party acted in a willful and blatant manner that would justify disqualification from the election
Also, particularly the following statement as cited in 2012-001, 2012-003
*denotes all evidence submitted and distributed at the time of filing before the commencement of the hearing.
The Election Supervisory Board did not follow precedent set by not only previous rulings but by this year’s ESB, in that they considered evidence that was not submitted and distributed at the time of filing before the commencement of the hearing. Instead, they ruled on evidence improperly submitted, not distributed, and by a member of the ESB.
5. Further, ESB erred in they failed to follow or consider the following as established by the election code in 4.12:
4.12 Violations of the Code shall be divided into four classifications:
(a) Class A violation shall result in a fine.
(b) Class B violation shall result in a moratorium of campaigning. (c) Class C violation shall result in a combination of moratorium of campaigning and a fine.
(d) Class D violation shall result in a disqualification from the election.
Within the ranges established by the Election Board, the Election Board shall select the amount of the fine or length of the suspension most appropriate to both the severity of the infraction and the intent of the violator as determined by the Election Board. At the candidate seminar, the Election Board shall clearly define what would constitute each class of a violation.
Use your Facebook login and see what your friends are reading and sharing.
Now bringing you back...