Oregon Action Team Response
The Oregon Action Team just issued this press release:
The Oregon Action Team is shocked and astounded by the Election Board’s ruling.
Their ruling is based on hearsay. Literally, somebody (not even the minor allegedly furnished alcohol) told David Griffin that we furnished alcohol to minors and Griffin filed the grievance. Based on Oregon State law, you need to be caught in the act in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on these sorts of issues.
There is zero evidence that the Oregon Action Team was involved in giving alcohol to minors. Anybody could have put our OAT stickers on the liquor bottles; they were being handed out for three days on campus.
Anybody could have taken the pictures in question after affixing the stickers. Thus, there is absolutely no link between the OAT Executive Ticket and the fictional event in question.
Finally, the Election Board determined that handing out OAT stickers was in violation of rule 2.4, but that is classified as campaign paraphernalia, which is protected by rule 2.4.: “with the exception of campaign paraphernalia”. The Oregon Action Team believes that last bit illustrates how badly the Elections Board wants to hurt our campaign. It demonstrates once again how biased the Election Board has been against us.The Oregon Action Team also thinks that Emma and Getachew should be ashamed of themselves for sinking to an all-time low with this grievance. It is libelous and slanderous and functions as an attempt to sabotage our campaign. Unless they can prove we performed the act in question, which is impossible because it never happened, then their grievance, quotations, and verbal accusations are all grounds for a civil suit against them.
Additionally, they are in violation of rule 2.3 for sabotage, which is grounds for removal from the ballot. We will be pursuing legal recourses.
Also, the Oregon Action Team believes this is an example of the worst kind of politics: shifting the focus away from the issues and towards these outright lies in hopes of defeating a superior opponent. We call upon our opponents to reevaluate their campaign tactics so that the student electorate can elect their student leaders absent of these shameless grievances.
Because you were too much of a nice guy.
How come elections wasn’t this fun when I was the elections czar?
You know you miss the fun Dallas 😉
That was the first thing I said, Dallas.
Aww…this brings back memories…
“Conspiracy to commit slander”? Are you serious?
@Dan:
The elections rules can be found on the Elections Board website, in the 2009 packet. It can be found here. Enjoy!
Wow, allegations of sabotage, grievances upon grievances, what an orgy of absurdity. Does anyone know where the elections bylaws exist? I’d really like to see how sabotage is defined.
If this grievance and the ensuing removal from the ballot is reversed, there should be demand for a re-election, or at the very least for a re-vote. Emma and Getachew have lost my trust with this, and I doubt I am the only one appauled by this. Even IF the allegations were true, minors drinking at a party is hardly worth removal from the ballot. An elected politican should run on their merits, and let the skeletons in the enemy’s closet come out as they may. OAT should pursue legal action against the filer, the ASUO Elections Board, and the minor in question for conspiracy to comit elections fraud, slander, and any punitive damages which can be pursued.