Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Actually
Stuff about Shams:
Kozak's original charges asked that Shams receive one censure for every organization listed in the Facebook group verified as endorsing Shams, one censure for every group that did not endorse Shams, and two censures for every group not taking a side.
If the requested censures had been issued, Shams would have been disqualified from his position, as the bylaws state that five censures or more warrant a candidate’s disqualification.
However, a maximum of only two to three censures can be given for the violation of using ASUC authority to campaign, the bylaws state. The way this is written, with the word 'however,' it suggests that Kozak screwed up and requested more censures than the By-Laws allow. He didn't, of course, since he was claiming that each endorsement was a violation.
"I felt the original charge sheet I filed was less fair than the settlement," Kozak said. "I most likely would have asked for lesser charges ... I don't know that disqualification would have been constructive in any sense." Amazingly untrue. A disqualification that stuck would have been hugely effective in discouraging student groups from endorsing candidates in the future. As things stand, with no real consequences, I won't be surprised when these very groups endorse a candidate next year.
. . .
|
. . .
|
