Bwog has it from Alidad Damooei that, on Robert Taylor’s instructions, the Elections Board has declined to hear Experience Columbia’s elections violation complaint. If that’s true, I’m disappointed. Much has been said about the inefficacy of student council and the absurdity of the CCSC elections process, but I doubt that either of those problems will be alleviated by an acquiescent elections board giving uneven treatment to possible rules violations, especially given the gravity of Experience Columbia’s latest charges. (A guilty finding could, in fact, have led to the disqualification of Connect Columbia.)
Damooei’s comments to Spec last night refer to a deal reached on Tuesday between the two campaigns: Experience Columbia agreed not file a charge over Michelle Diamond’s comments to the Spectator if Connect Columbia would agree to withdraw its claim that Experience had illegally flyered on a glass surface. (Does anyone else think those are slightly uneven offenses?) It seems that this deal is the basis for the board’s decision, which is troubling. According to Krebs, the agreement was reached informally between him and Damooei with the knowledge — but not the official sanction — of the board. If it wasn’t a formal settlement, it shouldn’t be treated as such.
Krebs has also argued that the deal should no longer apply, as his ticket hadn’t originally seen the most objectionable portion of Michelle Diamond’s comments (“Connect Columbia is a stronger ticket”) that was omitted from the online version of the Spec article. (I made the same mistake at first.) I think there’s merit to that claim, but even if Damooei doesn’t buy Krebs’ logic, he’s still free to go back on his end of the deal and refile the withdrawn postering charge. The board shouldn’t be stepping in to moderate two-party agreements when a perfectly valid form of recourse is available to Damooei. (I can’t find anything in the elections rules that grants the board the power to do as much, either.)
In short, if the board is going to take up every minor accusation about poster violations or early campaign slips, it seems like it should also address the major ones rather than duck them on a (probably false) technicality. As ridiculous as they can be, the agreed-upon rules ought to be enforced, but instead of giving Experience Columbia’s filing due consideration and coming to an informed decision, it looks like the board (or Robert Taylor — hard to say which) won’t even let the issue in the door.
(Of course, this might all become moot in three hours if Experience Columbia walks away with a win, but my point about the process stands.)