The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

Elections Board: OSPIRG, Rousseau violate ASUO elections rules

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.

  1. memberofthaboard says:

    While it is easy to point out the perceived negativity surrounding the ASUO and the Elections Board, it is important to remember that we as a student body turned out to vote in record numbers last week. I think it is great that so many students (over 5000) turned out to vote, and it shows that we here at the UO really care about campus issues that affect us. I also want to take this time to thank all of the candidates for being a part of one of the most ethical elections in recent UO history. There has been a minimal amount of controversy surrounding these elections (for those of us who have been here in previous years we know this is usually not the case) and while some may disagree with the rulings of the Elections Board regarding these few instances, I can say that after spending a lot of time going over these grievances, I feel that as a Board we have made the right decisions regarding these issues, and I will stand behind our findings no matter what. My last thanks goes out to my fellow board members, it has been awesome working with all of you, and with our time together coming to an end, I can honestly say that working on these elections with you all has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life to date.

    To the OC: You guys have kept us on our heels to say the least, but I’m glad we have a campus media outlet like you guys to remind us that its ok to laugh at yourself sometimes. (And that its ok to laugh at others ALL the time haha) keep up the good work guys.


  2. C.T. Behemoth says:

    Does replacing Yes with No violate the same rule, only the other way around? Not that I think that wasn’t a great way to deal with the issue.

    For what it’s worth, I wrote a formal complaint to the ASUO about my chalkboard having been written on.

  3. JMB says:

    I replaced YES with NO every chance I got.

  4. Leslie says:

    OSPIRG did the same to our lab too. We’re not even in a busy hallway (the only people who see this board are the people who work in the lab). Seriously irritating. THEN they left harassing messages on it when we objected to having our work erased.

  5. Thom says:

    They erased a pair of whiteboards outside of our lab- nothing irreplaceable, but it was some seriously complex diagrams that took a few hours to redraw. Then they came by and did it again.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.