Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
The following are the thoughts and opinions of Eric D. Nimmer:
1.
 
The Election Supervisory Board did not err in their decision on the grounds that thecomplaint in question was improperly considered.a.
 
A petitioner’s complaint is not absolute.
i.
 
The standards, as required by the election code, are explicitly drawn to erron the side of granting a hearing. Title II Section 4.02 of the election code
lists the grounds for the dismissal of a complaint as being twofold: “(a)
The complaint was not filed within a reasonable amount of time; (b) The
complaint fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted.”
1.
 
This means that a petitioner only has to substantiate a reasonablepossibility that an infraction has occurred (not produce anexhaustive list or even file a brief).2.
 
This system is logically designed to provide a forum in whichcomplaints can be brought up and defended against. Title IIsection 4.09 expresses that the purpose of a hearing is as follows:
“The purpose of the hearing is
to gather the information necessaryto make a decision, order, or ruling that will resolve an election
dispute.”
a.
 
Information being gathered implies that the informationwas not previously known definitively or else there wouldliterally be no point and everyone would just be expected tobrief.
 
3.
 
This compensates for a petitioner’s lack of “discovery” power (in
the legal sense of the term) and for a presumed lack of expertise inelection matters by the average student.4.
 
To warrant the above, you can look to ESB past rulings in whichthe decisions are not held to the restrictive language that may beissued before a hearing is ever had.ii.
 
The complications of a turnaround time administratively to admitsomething to an absolute public domain does not make a documentprivate.1.
 
Much like the decisions, advisory opinions and every otherissuance of any student judiciary body
 – 
the functional idea of 
something being “public” has to be judged by relative accessibility.
Meaning that distribution is not entirely in the control of said body;therefore, as with most information released by this Board, publicinformation is information that is reasonably assessable.a.
 
Just like in decisions public information is not denied toanyone who requests it. The financial disclosure deadlineswere also made publicly known therefore any rationalperson would have access to the forms.b.
 
All financial disclosures by their very existence are open tothe public in accordance with the election code.
 
b.
 
The ESB can review previous rulings.i.
 
Tit
le II Section 4.15 states, “If, after a hearing, the Election Board finds
that provisions of either this Code or decisions, opinions, orders, or rulingsof the Election Board have been violated by a candidate, or a can
didate’s
agents or workers, has committed a Class D violation, the Election Board
may disqualify the candidate.”
 1.
 
The Board can follow up on the carrying out of its own decisions,opinions, orders or rulings.a.
 
The “hearing” that this current ruling was in reference to
was
 In Res Madison Gardener/ Antonio Guevara (ESB / SG2012
 – 
003).
 i.
 
This hearing also is a direct example of the Boardbeing able to rule on information acquired during ahearing.c.
 
No ESB member filed a complaint.i.
 
The issue in question was uncovered during the course of a hearing.ii.
 
The “complaint” process is formalized and even has a form. This formwas never submitted nor was a “complaint” filed in that regard.
iii.
 
A complaint filed by an ESB member would have to be submitted to theESB in writing.1.
 
I did not write myself a complaint and admit it to the process of  judging the merits of said fictional complaint.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more