Monday, April 10, 2000 Members of the Undergraduate Association, The Undergraduate Association Judicial Board responded to the appeal to the removal of the Smith/Kane ticket for Undergraduate Association President and Vice President (UAP/UAVP) in its response early Friday morning. The following was that response: April 7, 2000 The Judicial Board has formally received an appeal regarding the recent decision by the Election Commission to take Chris Smith and Patrick Kane, candidates for UAP/UAVP, off the official election ballot. After much deliberation, we have reached the following decision: 1) The class council and FinBoard elections will continue and proceed without interruptions. 2) UAP/UAVP elections shall be suspended, effective immediately. The election shall be re-run after the completion of the class council and Undergraduate Association Financial Board elections. 3) All UAP/UAVP candidates will be reinstated on the new official ballot. 4) Sanctions for the upcoming UAP/UAVP elections will be levied on Smith/Kane and possibly other candidates. 5) ALL campaigning for UAP/UAVP elections shall cease until further notice. (This includes verbal, electronic, and written campaigning.) A formal statement will be released at the latest: Monday, April 10. Sincerely, UA Judicial Board We would now like to give a more detailed explanation for the reasoning behind our decision, as well as describe the implications of this decision for the upcoming election. Our decision was based on thorough investigation of the UA Election Commission's implementation of the election code with regard to the violations of the Smith/Kane ticket, through interviews with the Election Commission and Chris Smith and Patrick Kane. First and foremost, we would like to commend the Election Commission for their valiant efforts in this election season. We feel that they have dutifully fulfilled their roles as the law-enforcement officials of the UA in an effort to uphold the spirit of the election process as well as the integrity of the Undergraduate Association. We believe that the reasoning behind their decision to remove Smith/Kane from the ballot, and other actions they have taken, have been well-intentioned and at all times the commission has done a competent job in enforcing the code. However, we feel that effective regulation and implementation of the election process calls for ongoing improvement and refinement. The current system is vulnerable in that its current policies make fair and consistent enforcement of rules and the election code difficult in controversial situations or "gray areas" in campaigning. Specifically, in this year's UAP/UAVP elections, the following were trying situations for the Election Commission: deciding how many points to assign for individual posters versus several posters found in one illegal area, differentiating between appropriate and inappropriate posters, as well as identifying calculated attempts to campaign illegally versus accidental actions. The Judicial Board justifies its aforementioned decisions with the following reasoning: 1. Given these difficult situations, the current system for assigning points was inconsistent. In certain instances, each poster in an illegal area would receive a single violation whereas in other instances, a group of posters would receive a single violation as well. Because a large number of points were assigned on a case-by-case basis, it was difficult to maintain the same standards for all candidates. In the case of Smith/Kane, upon comparison of the Commission's allocation of points to other candidate teams, there were some differences in numbers of points assigned for offenses equal in severity. 2. Additionally, the timeliness of the notification of point violations to candidates was inconsistent. The Election Commission did a reasonable job of notifying candidates of violations; however, the response time left for candidates to contest points was not always sufficient. This is crucial because, in many instances, candidates need this time to contest violations in the case of accidents or sabotage. In the case of Smith/Kane, notification for only three points was given prior to their removal from the ballot. This occurred because they received a large number of points almost simultaneously. Several email notices of violations were sent, concluding with a notice of their removal from the ballot, spanning a few hours [from late Tuesday night (April 4) to early Wednesday morning (April 5)]. In effect, all of these emails were received at one time, preventing adequate response time for Smith/Kane. This response time was crucial because their campaign was in jeopardy without their knowledge. 3. A major contention of the Election Commission in deciding to remove the Smith/Kane ticket from the ballot was their view that the Smith/Kane campaign generally violated the spirit (or integrity) of the election process. The Judicial Board agrees with the Commission to the extent that Smith/Kane committed some grievous errors; however, we did not feel that these warranted the removal of Smith/Kane from the ballot. The most problematic violation incurred by Smith/Kane was their use of certain propaganda for US Congressman John Linder for the Undergraduate Association study break at Delta Tau Delta. While these 11" X 17" posters did not explicitly advertise Chris Smith's candidacy for UA President, they were easily interpreted as Smith/Kane campaign posters due to the placement and high visibility of Chris Smith's name on the advertisements. Not only were they placed in illegal areas for campaigning, but they raised much suspicion as to their motive. We saw them as a clear and serious violation of the spirit of the election. The Election Commission also received a few complaints from residents in dormitories about the Smith/Kane team's highly aggressive campaigning style, claiming that Smith/Kane posters were placed "every five feet" and were invading their personal space, without their consent. We felt that the points the Smith/Kane team received for these violations were warranted since their actions raised doubt as to the extent of their respect for the elections. However, in this instance, we believe that Smith/Kane's actions, though bordering on inappropriate, were not severe in their violation of the election spirit. According to both the Smith/Kane ticket, as well as the Election Commission, many dormitories do not have postering policies. Consequently, the Smith/Kane team felt their actions were within the rules of the election. Also, they disagreed that they had violated the personal space of the residents, since they did not poster the doors (clearly personal space) of residents without their permission. Due to the lack of clarity in expectations by the Commission as well as the ambiguity of dorm postering policies, we found these violations to be deserving of violation points, but not clearly in violation of the election spirit. We felt the violation regarding the Linder poster, was the only action by Smith/Kane that clearly and unarguably violated the spirit of the election. As the first of their violations, the Election Commission did not explicitly reprimand Chris Smith nor give him a warning for the underhanded nature of his posters. This occurred very early in the campaign, and we saw no other violations of this severity up to their removal from the ballot (i.e. the rest of the violations, aside from those resulting from resident complaints, were strictly poster placement violations). Therefore, we detail the sanction that the Smith/Kane ticket will receive in the upcoming election for their actions in disregarding the spirit of the election process, but we have reinstated them on the ballot. Upon their reinstatement, we have re-evaluated the points assigned to each violation, with the severity of the aforementioned Congressman Linder poster violation reflected in the sanction they are receiving, not in the point count. The differences are: for the 3 points previously allocated for each of the two Athena cluster violations, we are now giving 1 point and they no longer have a point for the poster found outside of MacGregor (Linder poster). The first changes attempt to make the points assignments more consistent, and the latter ruling is due to our belief that the poster outside of MacGregor was placed there without the permission of the Smith/Kane team. These changes alter their point status from 11 points to 6 points. For the detailed point allocations from the previous election, please refer to the UA web site regarding Smith/Kane. Their sanction consists of a limit of 25 posters, where non-sanctioned teams are allowed a maximum of one hundred posters. In response to the appeal, and with reference to the stipulations we have given above, we have made the following improvements and refinements in the election rules, effective for the spring 2000 election for UAP/UAVP. Rules and Sanctions, Spring 2000 UAP/UAVP Elections Declared by the Judicial Board, in cooperation with the Undergraduate Association Election Commission Timeline: 1). Campaigning will begin at 12:00 a.m. Monday, April 10 and continue through 12:00 p.m. (noon) Tuesday, April 11. Electronic voting will be held beginning 8:00 p.m., Tuesday April 11 and continue through 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, April 14. Paper balloting will occur on Friday, April 15 from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Election results will be announced no later than Tuesday, April 17 at 12:00 noon. 2.) Points accumulated from the previous election still apply; however, in the Smith/Kane and Shulman/Chuang tickets, point allocations have been adjusted as agreed by the Judicial Board and the Election Commission. 3.) Candidates will be notified of their current point status prior to the first day of campaigning (prior to Monday, April 10.) Postering and Campaigning Regulations: 1.) All posters must be approved and marked with an official Undergraduate Association stamp by either a member of the Election Commission or the Judicial Board. The approval process will take place in the UA office on both Sunday, April 9 and Monday, April 10. 2.) All posters must be put up before official campaigning ends. Individual posters must be approved, not just the poster type. 3.) No handouts will be allowed. 4.) There will be a maximum of one hundred posters for non-sanctioned teams. 5.) Only emails directly from the candidates to lists of which they are members will be permitted. Emailing using blind carbon copy (bcc) is not allowed. Also, emails after Tuesday, April 11 at noon can only be from people other than the candidates, and may not endorse any one team of candidates. They must list all candidates, if any, and have the purpose of advertising the election. The purpose of this is to halt campaigning. Though this is difficult to enforce, we ask that the MIT community respect the election process, the candidates, and the need for an expeditious final election. 6.) Each candidate will be notified for every point they receive per violation as it is being assigned. 7.) A warning of removal from the ballot will be given at 8 points, and 24 hours prior to physical removal from the ballot. This period will allow candidates a chance to contest their points if needed. 8.) Sanctions not specified will be assigned on a case by case basis, and may be appealed to the Judicial Board. Official Point System for Sanctions: One point will be given per illegal poster found in Association of Student Activities (ASA) regulated areas (main campus, student center, etc. (NON-RESIDENTIAL areas.)) One half of a point will be assigned to illegal posters found in residential areas. Each violation point results in a loss of 20 posters. What Constitutes Illegal Posters: More than one poster per board Postering over previously hung posters Postering on trees, walls, bridges, bathroom stalls, etc. Postering on non-ASA boards Any posters of a questionable nature will be deemed so by the Election Commission and/or the Judicial Board in the poster approval process. The UA Judicial Board recognizes that this has been a difficult situation for everyone, and we appreciate your patience and understanding. Sincerely, UA Judicial Board