Even more charges

Keep a count...

Maurice Seaty, Danielle Duong, Roxanne Winston, and Dan Galeon are being charges for not writing "Titles for identification purposes only" on their Facebook group, instead only writing "for identification purposes only," I think. One censure each.

Chad Kunert has the same problem, and a censure is being sought against him.

Chris Wong and Lisa Patel, similar thing, same single censure.

Jessica Parra-Fitch and Gabriela Urena are accused of not putting any disclaimer for their Facebook groups. One censure each, according to Jessica Wren's charge sheet. However, Alex Kozak has also filed a charge sheet for both of these, seeking one censure for each endorsement, which would DQ them both. I guess they'll have to come up with some kind of agreement as to how to proceed.

Nadir Shams is charged by Alex Kozak for two violations for his claiming endorsements from various student organizations. The first is that he is using ASUC authority to campaign, and the second is claiming the endorsement without those groups' consent. This, I guess, means that either each student group will admit endorsing him (the first violation) or will claim not to have endorsed him (the second violation). If they refuse to make a claim, Alex will push for both violations. Alex is seeking one censure per group, which will be enough to DQ him.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/17/2007 02:55:00 PM #
Comments (12)

. . .

Comments:

Considering that all it took was one Daily Cal article full of Suken lies to get the whole slate of SA exec kiddos disqualified, I can't imagine we don't see some people DQ-ed this year, if not for stacking up enough censures, then for lying to try to get out of it.
-andy

# posted by  Anonymous : 3:26 PM, April 17, 2007

 

Well, they may be smart and not lie. They don't need to for any of these. Nadir, Jessica, and Gabriela need to convince the Judicial Council or Alex Kozak to go with fewer censures, and they'll be okay just pleading guilty.

The Student Action Executive Slate is the only group in danger of disqualification, I believe, but I don't know how complete the evidence against them is, or whether they can be consolidated.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 3:28 PM, April 17, 2007

 

how does the 'dq' work?

will they be dqed so that the voters who put them #1 will go to their #2 vote, or will it be after the fact, etc. W?E?>

# posted by  Anonymous : 3:52 PM, April 17, 2007

 

I believe that if you're DQed, they retabulate the elections with you dropped, so whoever voted for you will go right to their #2 vote.

It's a little more confusing this year since they're doing the election results on schedule Wednesday before all this stuff will be decided. I'm not really sure how they'll handle it because parties drop certain candidates depending on what's going on with the tabulation (ie, you drop a senior or someone who doesn't really want to win in the hope their votes transfer and you get someone else in). So if someone got disqualified and they retabulated, it could potentially (I think, I'm not sure), effect the way people would've dropped candidates.

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:22 PM, April 17, 2007

 

It's also worth noting that I could be completely wrong about how DQing works. I like talking about things I don't understand.

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:24 PM, April 17, 2007

 

why would parties arbitrarily drop candidates--wont candidates who dont have a chance of winning get dropped eventually anyway?

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:27 PM, April 17, 2007

 

Are there any more charge sheets? The good faith deadline passed at 4pm...

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:40 PM, April 17, 2007

 

anonymous, candidates who don't have a chance of winning, might have a chance of winning if votes transfer to them from other candidates who drop earlier than they're supposed to. The order of dropping matters.

For example, say 250 people vote Candidate A first choice and the same 250 vote Candidate B second choice, but no one else has voted for Candidate A -- while Candidate B has 100 first-choice votes and his second-choice votes are scattered.

If the election ran its course, Candidate B would be eliminated early, then Candidate A would be eliminated later.

However, if Candidate A dropped himself immediately, Candidate B would have 350 votes and probably make it into the Senate.

# posted by  jimf : 4:54 PM, April 17, 2007

 

There are sometimes candidates who don't want the job, too. Ben Narodick had to be dropped last year to prevent him from winning and taking David Wasserman's spot.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 5:01 PM, April 17, 2007

 

Is that all of the charges?

Another censure-free year for SQUELCH! If we can do it, it means we're better than the rest of you.

# posted by  Ben N. : 7:56 PM, April 17, 2007

 

I think you folks may have gotten away with a few false endorsements...

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 8:31 PM, April 17, 2007

 

I didn't say we didn't break any rules - I said we didn't get any censures. Another clean year of campaigning: DONE

# posted by  Ben N. : 8:52 PM, April 17, 2007

 

Post a Comment