In decisions handed down today, the ASUO Elections Board has decided that the OSPIRG and Amelie Rousseau campaigns have violated some–but not all–of the highlighted rules filed in grievances by Tony Mecum last week.
In the case of OSPIRG, it was decided that the only rule they violated was Rule 6.8 which states, “No individual may disrupt University class time to promote or oppose a candidacy or ballot measure.” Their messages on classroom chalkboards violated this rule. The final decision, according to the Elections Board, was as such:
The Respondent’s actions were designed to influence the students in the classroom after Respondent had left. While the Respondent was not present, the Elections Board feels that the Respondent’s actions disrupted the class in order to promote a ballot measure and finds Respondent in violation of Election Rule 6.8
The Elections Board finds the Respondent in violation of Election Rule 6.8 and, pursuant to Election Rule 7.6, the Respondent shall issue a formal statement of apology to campus media.
As for the Rousseau campaign and Amelie’s personal use of the ASUO office copier for campaign purposes. The Elections Board decided that Rousseau violated Rule 6.10, but had taken proper steps to rectify the situation, and a lighter punishment was given:
The Elections Board finds that the Respondent’s actions are in violation of Election Rule 6.10. Due to limited scope and impact of the violation on elections, as well as the actions taken to rectify the situation before the grievance was filed, the Respondent shall not be removed from the Elections ballot. As the Elections Board feels that a formal letter of apology is a necessary part of any resolution to this violation, the Respondent shall issue a formal statement of apology to campus media, which shall include the apology and any steps taken to resolve the matter.
For OSPIRG, I find it hard to believe that the Elections Board did not find them in violation of Rule 2.2 (“The educational atmosphere of the University shall not be compromised by anyone involved in the election process.”) It almost seems that if they violated Rule 6.8 in that specific way, that 2.2 is therefore implied.
Rousseau’s punishment, however, I wholeheatedly disagree with. I find it despicable and downright ill-willed for her to have used those copiers. Rousseau works in the ASUO office, and since winter term those pink signs that say “Campaign Free Zone” have been on the outside of her office. Every single day she went to work and saw those signs, and yet she still decided to blatantly violate rules she was fully aware of.
It’s not like the ASUO, or their elections process, has ever had any integrity. But you couldn’t ask for it to get any lower. I’ll be expecting those apologies in my inbox shortly.