CCSC Election Update: The Gloves Come Off, Sort of

Updated: 2:26 p.m.

(Full disclosure: I’m on friendly terms with George, Alidad, and Michelle.)

On the heels of last night’s CCSC Executive Board Debate comes this little tidbit from a round-up by Spectator news writer Lien Hoang:

In an interview beforehand, [Alidad] Damooei, the candidate for Connect Columbia, accused [Experience Columbia's George] Krebs of taking undue credit for the initiative after “dropping the ball” on his responsibilities, referring primarily to delays on a survey that asked which vendors students would like to see on Flex.

Now, it’s standard fare for supporters of Connect Columbia to argue that Krebs has exaggerated his involvement in the off-campus Flex program (which, mind you, hasn’t exactly gone swimmingly). So while it’s notable that Damooei uttered this in an interview with the campus rag, it’s not exactly a new charge. But the fun doesn’t end there.

Next, the administration’s point man chimes in on the subject:

Scott Wright, vice president of student and administrative services, said he “did get a little concerned in early December” when the survey was not ready.

“In all fairness, George came to meet with me in person on a regular basis, to check in,” Wright said. “He asked, ‘Is there anything I can do to help?’ The thing is, there wasn’t.”

Hoping to avoid the morass of student politics, I’m guessing, Wright delivers a pretty neutral response. He suggests that Krebs moved slowly on the off-campus Flex survey, but that he also kept close tabs on the project. Then comes the real bombshell — a quote from current CCSC president Michelle Diamond:

Michelle Diamond, CC ’08 and current CCSC president, told Spectator she was brought in to work with the administration after difficulties with Krebs.

“I think he’s exaggerating a lot of what he’s done,” Diamond said.

Whoa! Diamond, widely seen as a tacit supporter of Connect Columbia (which includes two members of her executive board), appears to announce her leanings publicly with this jab. I don’t have a sense of whether Diamond’s characterization of the project is completely fair, but I know that you don’t air dirty laundry about a potential successor two days before the election unless you’re pulling for his opponent. But is that even allowed, you ask? Let’s consult the CCSC election rules:

III.C. … Rules violations committed by supporters will be treated as if they were committed by candidates.

III.D. Candidates may not knowingly misrepresent any factual information about themselves, another candidate’s views, experience, or platform. Candidates may not attack the character of another candidate in any way.

III.F. No member of CCSC may use his or her position to campaign for any candidate. Actions considered inappropriate include, but are not limited to, the following: … expressing one’s support for a candidate while acting in his/her capacity as a member of CCSC.

If Krebs can prove his contention that Diamond and Damooei are purposely distorting his record (and they may well be 100% correct—I simply don’t know), he could have grounds to file a rules violation on points C and D. Likewise, if Damooei can make the case that Krebs’ characterizations of him are misleading or amount to character assassination, then he, too, could file on point D.

As for F, I’m not a member of the elections board, but I find it hard to believe that (rightly or wrongly) trying to publicly discredit the record of one presidential candidate in an interview with the Spectator amounts to anything other than Diamond “expressing [her] support for [the other] candidate while acting in [her] capacity as a member of CCSC.” Think of it this way: would the writer have quoted Diamond on the subject if not for her current position on the council? And are you left with any doubt as to whom she supports?

**Update: Apparently a paragraph that made it into the print edition of the article was accidentally omitted from the online version, and it’s an important one:

While denying that she was biased toward either candidate, Diamond recused herself from the Judicial Board, which decides on rules violations appeals, to avoid even the appearance of partiality. [Ed: good job with that.] She said, in fact, that it was not so much choosing between Damooei or Krebs, but that “Connect Columbia is a stronger ticket.”

Unless the elections board’s interpretation of “expressing one’s support for a candidate” is ludicrously narrow, it seems to me that Diamond has clearly violated III.F with that last quote.**

Krebs, for his part, fires back:

The first question [in the debate] addressed to Experience Columbia, Krebs’ party, asked whether Krebs demonstrated humility when he called the recent Flex Off-Campus initiative his “baby” in a Spectator article.

“I’m well-aware that people brought it [Flex Off-Campus] up before I was on council,” Krebs said. “I was lucky enough to come along when it was coming into fruition.”

….

But Krebs said Diamond only entered the Flex Off-Campus process to gain recognition for it.

“The chickens came home to roost, and now everybody wants to take credit for it,” Krebs said.

Yikes. Is Krebs channeling the Rev. Wright?

Note that this wouldn’t be the first time a sitting CCSC president has tried to subtly promote one candidate over another. In March 2007, CCSC president Seth Flaxman came into the Spectator office with Diamond (then a presidential candidate) to discuss a series of emails that her opponents claimed violated CCSC’s election rules. While the contents of that discussion remain off the record, the fact that Flaxman walked into the lair of the campus newspaper shortly before the election with someone vying for his job does not.

But the epitome of councilmanic political chicanery came in April 2005, when CCSC President Matthew Harrison was censured for expressing support of candidate and future CCSC president Michelle Oh in several blast emails that bore his council signature. It was believed by some (and later admitted by Harrison) that this had been an intentional move designed to confer support on Oh at the low, low cost of 200 fliers. In the end, Oh narrowly beat out two-time presidential contender Wayne Ting.

Why is it seen as problematic for a sitting council member to endorse a successor? First, it can be misconstrued as an official council endorsement. Second, in the case of the CCSC president, he/she sits on the board that receives appeals to Elections Board rulings — a potential conflict of interest that Diamond has drawn attention to with her recusal. Lastly, it’s impossible to tell whether the relationship is causal or coincidental, but it’s worth noting that in both of the above cases, the candidate with the underground support of the CCSC president ended up winning.

Finally, don’t miss this pair of whoppers in the article. First:

Damooei said the charges against Krebs were not timed to influence voters going into Wednesday’s and Thursday’s elections.

That seems, um, highly improbable. It continues:

He [Damooei] said he was tempted to mention earlier what he saw as Krebs’ irresponsibility, but wanted to keep his campaign positive, rather than give in to Experience Columbia’s “mudslinging.”

Damooei asserted that Krebs has been using negative tactics by criticizing Connect Columbia rather than strengthening Experience Columbia.

Krebs’ main criticisms cast Connect Columbia as the “status quo” ticket because two of its members—Damooei and Jennifer Choi, CC ’09 and vice president for funding candidate—are current CCSC executive board members.

Is that really what passes for mudslinging these days? And wouldn’t the best way to keep the campaign positive be, I don’t know, not to sling mud back? Just a thought.