Allegations of bias and improper procedure ended in the dismissal of three members of Student Senate's Board of Election two weeks before elections were set to start today.
The six-member Board of Elections appeals committee met March 30 and decided to replace the board based on an appeal Academic Affairs Commissioner Patrick Heery filed March 22.
Heery, a candidate for Student Senate president, received a written warning March 21 for violating a Senate rule prohibiting communicating with the express purpose of soliciting votes or support prior to 30 days before the election. Heery also was cited for violating a ban on negative campaigning.
The controversy began Nov. 23 when Heery e-mailed a senator informing her he was planning to run for senate president and asking for help in campaigning.
In the e-mail, Heery also referenced Tim Vonville, Senate's Off-Campus Life Commissioner and one of Heery's opponents in the race.
I believe that if you compare what Tim has actually accomplished on Senate and what I have accomplished
you will see that I am the most able to make things happen and to implement change he wrote.
The senator who received the e-mail sent it to then-Board of Election Chairwoman Betsy Shonebarger on March 5, according to Heery's appeal. Shonebarger's report to Senate President Morgan Allen said she met with Heery March 13 and found his violations to be accidental. Shonebarger issued a written warning, the most lenient punishment.
Heery then submitted his March 22 appeal to Allen, saying the Board of Elections passed a five-day window for responding to complaints, rendering its decision void.
Shonebarger said the elections board hadn't received the updated version of rules establishing the five-day restriction.
I was going by the rules that were online for the general public. They had not been updated yet she said. I thought everything was being handled correctly.
The appeal board's decision came as a surprise to Shonebarger because she had talked to Allen throughout the process and was unaware of any procedural problems. She said that after reading the changes, she was perfectly fine with Heery's appeal.
Heery said he intentionally kept his appeal strictly factual, though the appeals board sensed a perceived bias after receiving the complaint.
Allen said there also was a perceived bias about the original board because three members previously worked at the University Programming Council, a body Vonville also worked for.
We just wanted to make sure that this election . . . is fair and that no biases existed
Allen said. I do believe [Heery] thinks it might be biased.
Heery was reluctant to allege bias,saying instead that he didn't know the previous board's motivations for making their decision. He added he doesn't know of any problems with the new board.
Shonebarger, who was chairwoman of the Board of Elections last year and a board member the year before, said bias never came into question until after Heery's appeal when the appeals board thought it might become an issue in the future.
It did come as a surprise
but with the sensitivity of this election . . . it's understandable
she said. Obviously I want nothing more than the best for the election . . . and I've remained unbiased.
17
Archives
Emily Grannis
