News

So, that interesting case with Nadir Shams and the endorsement of student groups will not be heard, as they have settled for three censures. The terms are:

The maximum of three (3) censures to be issued to the defendant for a violation of Section 12.3.6, with the remedy specified in Section 12.10.4.

Presentation of a letter signed by every ASUC sponsored student group listed in the charge sheet acknowledging endorsements for Nadir Shams in the '07-08 election. These letters are to be presented to next year's Senate and a present Executive ASUC office for review.

Acknowledgment by Nadir Shams that he has the obligation to help inform candidates and student groups of their election restrictions in Title II for the next year's election season.

I'm not sure why those letters are being presented to next year's senate, since I don't think the budget is final yet for this year. I have no clue why a present Executive ASUC office would need to get them.

Shams still has one more case, and I think he'll be making a one-censure settlement for that one, which means that no one will be disqualified for the Senate race.

(Other settlements seem to have similar language about informing folks about violations to, I assume, avoid them in the future)

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/23/2007 08:28:00 AM #
Comments (8)

. . .

Comments:

from my understanding the ECC will be droping the 1 censure against Shams

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:48 AM, April 23, 2007

 

Great move for a budding politician: get elected by selling out your constituency.

Any group that signs that letter will not be eligible for any student funding. Isn't that the primary point of having a senator represent you? If I were part of one of these student groups, I'd tell Nadir exactly where he can put his letter.

It's too bad the guy, who is pretty nice, broke such an inordinate number of by-laws in this election.

# posted by  Ben N. : 11:52 AM, April 23, 2007

 

How are they not eligible for funding?

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:13 PM, April 23, 2007

 

Student funded groups are forbidden from using any of their resources to support ASUC candidates.

I doubt the senate will actually put the hammer down, but if they followed some past precedents, these groups could all lose funding for at least a year.

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:23 PM, April 23, 2007

 

do you think the same will happen to groups who had members endorse candidates who did not fully put "titles for identification purposes only" on their campaign literature?

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:28 PM, April 23, 2007

 

First off, I agree with Simon that the Senate won't actually care that they sign those letters, so they'll be eligible for funding. It's bullshit, of course, for all those groups that carefully made sure to follow the rules which prevent them from endorsing candidates, since the rule-breakers are going to get off without any consequences at all. If the Senate was principled, they'd codify consequences for breaking that rule.

When candidates fail to put "titles for ID purposes only," that's a failure on the part of the candidates, not the groups. They did not endorse the candidate, so they won't suffer consequences.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 12:39 PM, April 23, 2007

 

Just wondering why the elections have bylaws if people continue to break them and then receive little more than a slap on the wrist for their actions.

# posted by  Anonymous : 3:12 PM, April 23, 2007

 

In this case, the issue isn't election by-laws, but obligations of ASUC sponsored student groups. But yeah, right idea.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 3:37 PM, April 23, 2007

 

Post a Comment