Page 1 of 3

Notice of Formal Complaint-Filed Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 9:00PM by Andrea Sokolich, Candidate for SGA President ³It is essential to the proper conduct and operation of Student Government that its officials be independent and impartial. Student Government officers hold their positions for the benefit of the Student Body. Such officers are bound to observe in their official acts, the highest standards of ethics consistent with this code,´ (SGA Bylaws 102.1). y 102.2 Standards of Conduct 102.21 Conflict of interest: No officers of Student Government shall participate in any private business or professional activity or have any direct or indirect financial interest which would place that person in a position where there is a conflict between that private interest and the best interests of the Student Body. 102.22 Misuse of Student Government Property: No officer or employee shall use or allow the use of Student Government property, facilities, or title of any kind for other than official approved Student Government business. 102.23 Intentional Wrongful Harm: No officer of Student Government shall intentionally and wrongfully harm or threaten to intentionally and wrongfully harm any person by the performance or omission of any act. y 703.3 PROHIBITIONS: Candidates and others associated with their campaigns may not: (a) Campaign within the polling location; (b) Campaign within the SGA Office; (c) Remove or damage the materials of any other candidate, or condone such actions by others; (d) Provide a direct reward in cash or kind in exchange for votes; (e) Accept SGA allocated funds from any organization; (f) Engage in mass emailing; (g) Receive endorsements from any member of the Elections Committee; (h) Misrepresent any material fact in campaign material of any form; (i) Use any university funded copy machine or printer for the production of campaign materials 703.4 Any violations of the above rights, responsibilities and prohibitions shall subject the candidate to sanctions as to be determined by the Elections Committee. 703.5 Candidates who show actual injury to their campaigns or who can cite a deliberate violation of the chapters of this title can file an appeal.

y y

To the Elections Committee, SGA Advisor, Dean of Community Development, and the Superior of the Dean of Community Development: I hereby file this appeal of the 2010 Student Government Elections. It is with disappointment that I file this complaint. I expected a fair and unbiased election for Seton Hall Students but did not receive such an election. I ask the Elections Committee to note that my objections have persisted since the evening before elections began. I am no sore loser. As a Seton Hall student it is my responsibility to appeal any violation tainting the results of a free and fair election of the SGA. I

Page 2 of 3

ask that the Elections Committee, SGA Advisor, Dean of Community Development, and the Superior of the Dean of Community Development review this complaint objectively. Here is my account of the transpiration of events which compose my complaint: On the evening of Sunday March 28, 2010, I met with Senate Parliamentarian Strassman to clarify some elections guidelines and disclose the violation of the elections Prohibitions (B-SGA 703.3 f) by my opponent. My opponent engaged in three mass emails from the SGA ³Exec Cabinet´ email address during active campaigning on 3/19, 3/22, and 3/24. My opponent¶s name even appeared in the ³sender´ line of the emails. This would have provided ample opportunity to market herself to voters subliminally. This is when I learned that my opponent has a work study job with SGA Advisor, Sarah Clifford and the Community Development Department (See ³Conflict of Interest´ B-SGA 102.21). I was told that ³because it¶s her job´ that it was not in violation of the Prohibitions to engage in these particular mass emails. I continued to protest to Strassman, SGA Secretary Caitlin Giordano (who is chairing the Elections Committee because of the resignation of the former SGA Vice President), and SGA President Leonard Jones, citing the Conflict of Interest statute. On, Monday March 29, 2010, I was told that Giordano, Clifford, and Dean of Community Development, Karen Van Norman, had met and concluded that indeed the three emails did not violate SGA Bylaws ³because it is her job.´ I continued to protest. On the first day of voting, Monday March 29, at 2PM, I was informed that my opponent had been campaigning within the confines of the polling location (See ³Prohibitions´ B-SGA 703.3 a) which I had been told by Giordano meant the entire University Center- for two hours, underneath the awning of the University Center edifice. This provided ample time for my opponent to influence students to vote. Upon a consultation with my opponent, I found that she had asked Giordano and Clifford if she could campaign there. Giordano and Clifford obliged the request. I was not made privy to this information by Giordano, Clifford, or any of the other Elections Committee members. Jones also held the permission to stand underneath the awning in question. I protested to the Elections Committee, who met that night to find ³In accordance with the bylaws that were in the packets of information handed out at the information sessions, the only area off limits in which to campaign within is the polling location, which is the University Center. Any and all areas outside of this building are open to be campaigned within. There will be no restrictions placed upon this bylaw further than what is already stated.´ The irony of the literalist take on this particular bylaw as opposed to the subjectivist take on the former bylaw in question astounded me. How could the Elections Committee, SGA Advisor, and Dean of Community Development stand for such a double standard? Additionally, the omission (102.23) of the Chair of the Public Relations Committee (404.2), who is affiliated (703.3) with my opponent¶s ticket, the Elections Committee, and other interested parties to effectively publicize the SGA elections caused the voter turnout to be less than it would

Page 3 of 3

have been had the election been publicized. This act of omission has undoubtedly influenced the literal outcome of the election (in terms of voter turnout and, thus, votes). I entreat the Elections Committee, SGA Advisor, Dean of Community Development, and the Superior of the Dean of Community Development to review this formal appeal judiciously and without bias or prejudice. It is not my intention to cause harm to anyone. I do not believe my opponent acted maliciously in any way. Nor is it my intention to tarnish the name of my opponent (which is why I have not used it in this appeal). I also hope that this appeal will empower all future SGA officers, students, and advisors to more closely monitor and stand up for well-publicized, fair elections. Sincerely, Andrea Sokolich

Addendum: 404.2 The Public Relations Committee is responsible for the communication and liaison work of the Senate, including but not limited to the following duties: (a) Advertisement of all Senate and SGA functions, sessions, events, and forums; (b) Maintenance of all SGA bulletin boards; (c) Maintenance and development of the SGA website and online advertising;

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful