GW Joint Elections Committee

FINDINGS OF FACT

Complaint #49A - JEC v. Marc Abanto, Part II
Per the Student Court’s ruling in SC-S07-001 Sherr v. JEC, the JEC reconsiders the finding of fact for Complaint #49. In this case, there has not been a change of facts. The Committee continues to feel that disqualification is an extreme punishment for an incident where there was not primary action taken by Mr. Marc Abanto. The previous assessment of one penalty is vacated and no penalty shall be levied against Mr. Abanto.
Complaint #74 - JEC v. Matt Cohen
Mr. Chris Rotella alleges in Complaint 74 that Mr. Cohen overspent on campaign finances due to an improper claim of a jointly reported expenditure. Mr. Matt Cohen claims in his report to be jointly filing with Mr. Brand Kroeger, Mr. David Wilkinson, Mr. Mohit Shah, and Mr. Francis Murray. In Mr. Cohen's Financial Statement, he asserts to have jointly reported an expenditure concerning the rental of a School Bus costing $360 along with the four other individuals above mentioned. Mr. Cohen reports to have spent only $72 dollars after dividing the cost amongst five individuals.

Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Wilkinson did jointly report all their costs, but only divided the costs for this particular school bus rental in half between themselves. On the Financial Statement of Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Wilkinson, it is explicitly stated that there are no other individuals jointly reporting this specific expenditure. This is in direct conflict with Mr. Cohen's Financial Statement, as Mr. Cohen claims to have shared the expenditure. In only claiming $72 of the total cost, Mr. Cohen receives an aggregate, unreported benefit of $288. This additional, unreported $288 places Mr. Cohen's total campaign expenditures over the accepted limit. Specifically, in reporting a total of $478.50 in campaign expenditures and failing to report $288, Mr. Cohen spent $766.50 on his campaign. According to the Section 121 in the JEC Charter, senatorial candidates are permitted to spend $500 on their campaigns. Mr. Cohen has spent an excess of $266.50 over this limit and so, under additional rule #5 he is subject to an assessment of six penalties.

Ultimately, candidates, including Mr. Cohen, may have had a lack of communication between each other before submitting their forms, which resulted in inconsistencies mainly on the part of Mr. Cohen's Statement. What may have happened regarding confusion between candidates in completing the forms is not, however, relevant. Mr. Cohen's Financial From was completed incorrectly and no evidence was presented substantiating that the candidates split the payment. The receipt submitted by Mr. Cohen shows only one payment of $360, not five separate installments of $72.

Therefore, the Committee finds that Mr. Cohen in violation of Section 121 and assesses him six (6) penalties in accordance with Additional Rule #5.

-L. Bentele, M. Corr, R. Parikh, A. Scott

Dissenting Opinion:

In Christopher Rotella's allegation that Matt Cohen both surpassed his spending limit and falsely represented himself to the Committee, it is this Committee member's opinion to find the accused in violation of neither alleged complaint.

Several components come into play when considering whether or not Mr. Cohen surpassed his spending limit. First and foremost, while it was contested that Mr. Cohen might not be liable to split the charges at all, it is this Committee member's opinion that Mr. Cohen's actions were within the bounds of section 122. This provision clearly states that any number of "candidates may equally divide the cost of any joint campaign expenditures on their finance reports." There is no mention of slates, races, or the like to inhibit any candidate from splitting costs with any other candidate.

The next question then becomes one of what is actually written on the financial statements. In this point this Committee member concedes that there exist noticeable irregularities in the filing of the forms presented as evidence. However, these irregularities come on the part of the forms filed by Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Wilkinson, as they run in direct contradiction to the testimony provided at the hearing. To elaborate, during the proceedings Mr. Kroeger, Mr. Wilkinson, and Mr. Cohen all openly acknowledged that they each contributed $72 to the cost of the bus with the intention of splitting the cost of the bus five ways - between themselves, Mr. Shah, and Mr. Murray. This is exactly what is shown in the financial form of Mr. Cohen, and is thus supported by the testimony given by three of the five members that Cohen reported shared in the expense of the bus. It would then be safe to assume that if there is an anomaly, it exists in the paperwork of Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Wilkinson.

In looking at the filed financial form of the two aforementioned individuals, one should note that they did indeed file jointly for the cost of the bus, yet excluded Mr. Cohen. However, is it not reasonable to assume that Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Wilkinson misfiled, not taking into account joint expenditures? It certainly would not seem a lofty assumption, as it is directly corroborated by the evidence provided in testimony. If this were to be the case, it would not, then, be Mr. Cohen who would be at fault in this situation, but rather Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Wilkinson for improperly filing. Following this line of reasoning, this Committee member cannot find probable cause to assess a penalty for overspending to Mr. Cohen.

Thusly, if it is decided that Mr. Cohen did not, in fact, overspend, then there is no support to the claim that he falsified his financial statement to cover up such.
-M. Tarantino
Complaint #75 - JEC v. Matt Cohen
The Committee finds that while the documents are errorneous, Mr. Cohen did not knowingly falsify the documents. Therefore, no penalties have been assessed.

Complaint #51 - JEC v. Nicole Capp
This complaint, filed by Investigator Goodman, alleges that Ms. Nicole Capp failed to submit campaign material that was distributed in the law school (a violation of Rule 15) and that the material was distributed within 50 feet of a polling location (a violation of Rule 23). The material was found within only a few feet of the polling location itself and encourages that individuals vote for Ms. Capp.
It is clear from testimony and evidence provided that the palm cards were distributed by the candidate and/or her authorized agents. Thus, since Ms. Capp failed to submit the material to the JEC, she is in violation of Additional Rule 15 and will receive one (1) penalty.

However, there has been no indication that Ms. Capp or any authorized agent was specifically distributing the material within 50 feet of the polling location. While the materials were found near the polling location, there was no evidence to suggest it was being distributed there. The material could, for instance, have been distributed to students outside the area and brought there and left behind. Lacking sufficient evidence, the Committee does not find that Ms. Capp violated rule 23.
Complaint #65/66 - JEC v. Nicole Capp
Mr. Andrew Blackwell alleges in Complaint 65 that he received an unsolicited campaign email from Ms. Capp and attaches the email itself, dated February 20, 2007, at 6:46 p.m. The email contains specific references to Ms. Capp's candidacy for Student Association President and therefore the Committee finds that the contents are clearly campaign-related. Mr. Blackwell testified that he did not solicit the email and there was no rebuttal to this testimony. Therefore, the Committee is forced to conclude that Mr. Capp violated the prohibition on unsolicited campaign emails and therefore shall be assessed one (1) penalty.
Because the text in the email in question in complaint 66 is identical to complaint 65 and within a very close time-frame, the Committee finds it hard to conclude that this is actually a separate incident and therefore finds no additional penalty.

Complaint #68 - JEC v. Marc Abanto & Nick D'Addario
The facts of this case may be condensed as follows: Mr. Abanto and Mr. D'Addario sought and received the endorsement of the reigstered student organization GWNORML, the registered president of which is Mr. Greg Hersh. Subsequently, Mr. Hersh, in his capacity as an officer of GWNORML, sought and receieved the approval of both Mr. Abanto and Mr. D'Addario to post and distribute posters announcing the endorsement of the above mentioned candidates. At this point, Mr. Hersh became an authorized agent of the campaigns of Mr. Abanto and Mr. D'Addario and proceeded to post and distribute the posters. The Complaintant found posters in JBKO Hall, a residence hall where campaign material is prohibited from being posted and filed this complaint alleging so and noting that the material was not submitted to the Committee.
Mr. Hersh, in his testimony, noted that he had come before the Committee at an earlier time (2/1/2007) to inquire about procedures for endorsing candidates. While the exact language of the conversation is contested, it is clear that the Committee and staff members of the Student Activities Center both advised any endorsing organization to take care to clear all campaign material (including posters) with endorsed candidates. Mr. Hersh, by inquiring of the Committee and seeking the approval of the candidates acted in good faith in his distribution of campaign material, despite conflicts with the Charter and Additional Rules. Furthermore, no evidence has been submitted to suggest that the candidates (Abanto and D'Addario) encouraged Mr. Hersh and GWNORML to post in restricted areas such as Residence Halls or had any prior knowledge of his intetion to do so. Therefore the Committee will not find the candidates in violation of postering rules (Section 117/132).

However, because Mr. Hersh sought the approval of the candidates before posting or distributing, it is clear that they had knowledge of the posters prior to the distribution. It is the responsibility of candidates to be aware of guideliens and rules in the Charter as well as the additional published rules of the JEC. Mr. Abanto and Mr. D'Addario both submitted their other posters for approval, indicating that they were well aware of the provision requiring posters to be submitted to the JEC prior to posting or distribution. Therefore, Mr. Abanto and Mr. D'Addario each shall receieve one (1) penalty for failing to submit campaign material.
Complaint #52 - JEC v. Brand Kroeger
Mr. Kroeger has stated that he does not contest this complaint and therefore is assessed 1 penalty.

Complaint #70 - JEC v. Brand Kroeger
Mr. Kroeger has stated that he does not contest this complaint and therefore is assessed 1 penalty.

Complaint #49 - JEC v. Marc Abanto
The complaint alleges that candidate Mr. Marc Abanto, through an authorized agent, Mr. Dan Pollock, threatened other students and candidates during the initial postering period and thus violated section 135 of the Joint Elections Committee Charter prohibiting threatening or intimidating remarks. All parties have agreed that Mr. Pollock made a statement to the effect of "I will take off my gloves and fucking punch you in the face," to Mr. Tim Swenson and other candidates. Investigator Goodman asserts that this language is inherently violent and threatening and this Committee agrees. Despite the testimony of Mr. Swenson and others that they do not currently feel threatened or endangered, a "threat" is an action taken by an individual, and is not merely determined by the impression of the second or recipient party. Since there is no dispute regarding Mr. Pollock's statement, the Committee finds it impossible to find that the statement does not constitute a threat.

The next issue is whether or not Mr. Pollock was indeed an authorized agent. The Defense, in statements made during the hearing, commented that Mr. Pollock was repeatedly reprimanded for his actions by Mr. Abanto (including on the date of the event in question and immediately preceding the hearing) and also that he was on a list of authorized agents in the possession of the Defense. It is disputed whether or not Mr. Pollock was an authorized agent of Mr. Abanto, however it is not disputed that he was an authorized agent of the "Student Union" slate. While any one candidate on a slate cannot, in all instances, be held accountable for the actions of another candidate or another candidate's authorized agent affiliated with their slate, this case presents unique circumstances. At the time of the incident posters were being hung for the first time and, as entered in testimony, "Student Union" posters were taped together with multiple slate-affiliated candidates posters "blocked" together ahead of time. Thus each candidate or authorized agent that was holding space and/or postering with these blocked posters was, in effect, doing so for the entire slate and not individual candidates. Given this, and Mr. Abanto's reprimand of Mr. Pollock, it is difficult to conclude that Mr. Pollock was not an authorized agent. While the Committee recognizes that this opens the entire "Student Union" slate to possible violation of the JEC Charter, we may only deal with the complaint at hand, which only makes allegations against Mr. Abanto

The Defendant further asserts that section 135 only applies to those who intimidate voters on election day, insinuating that intimidation at other times is appropriate. The Committee disagrees. Section 135 explicitly applies to

"Any candidate who intimidates, threatens, coerces, or promises monetary compensation
to other persons for the purpose of interfering with or influencing the right of such other persons to vote or to vote as they may choose"

The Committee relies on the Charter and long standing precedent upheld by former Committees as well as the Student Court, that candidates are held responsible for the actions of authorized agents and thus this section may apply to Mr. Abanto through Mr. Pollock. The Committee points to the section prohibiting threats that interfere with voters (all students) to "vote as they may choose". The act of postering and participating in any campaign activity is clearly to influence how a student (voter) may choose to vote. While postering and campaigning are clearly within the rights of a candidate or authorized agent, doing so violently or with threatening words or action is improper and prohibited by this section of the charter.

Furthermore, as this is the only provision of the charter governing threatening or violent behavior, and every previous version of the JEC Charter known to the members of the Committee has prohibited violent and threatening actions, and recognizing that securing the safety of voters is a paramount concern in running a free and fair election, it can be reasonably inferred that the legislative intent of this provision was to cover such actions as those cited in this case.

In assessing a penalty to Mr. Abanto, the Committee took into consideration several points. First, that threatening and violent actions are serious matters that must be dealth with seriously. To allow such conduct to continue unsanctioned would jeopardize the sanctity of the entire electoral process. However, since the action was taken by Mr. Pollock and not Mr. Abanto, the Committee does not feel that an overly-zealous punishment of the candidate is in order.

Asserting the discretion of the Committee to assess penalties fitting to the circumstances of each individual case, while recognizing the maximum sanction limitation outlined in the Charter, we assess Mr. Abanto one (1) penalty in this case.

Complaint #4
The Committee did not find there to be sufficient cause for a penalty assessment. The Committee decided unanimously that there was a distinction between this case and the previous Facebook violations to which penalties had been assessed. This distinction was such that, in this matter, there was no text box accompanying the invitation and it was thus not a blatant form of unsolicited campaign material. Rather, it was decided that the invitation sans additional text was more of a way of letting people know of the existence of the Facebook group, instead of outright campaigning. Furthermore, the Committee did not deign to attempt to regulate Facebook, and acted thusly in addition to the aforementioned reasoning.

Complaint #43
The Committee decided unanimously that there was a distinction between this case and the previous Facebook violations to which penalties had been assessed. This distinction was such that, in this matter, there was no text box accompanying the invitation and it was thus not a blatant form of unsolicited campaign material. Rather, it was decided that the invitation sans additional text was more of a way of letting people know of the existence of the Facebook group, instead of outright campaigning. Furthermore, the Committee did not deign to attempt to regulate Facebook, and acted thusly in addition to the aforementioned reasoning.

Complaint #32
The Committee decided unanimously that as a result of a breach in due process, the complaint against candidate Nicole Capp would be dismissed. The Committee also decided unanimously that, the text written by candidate Mohit Shah on behalf of Nicole Capp is not considered to be campaigning and is therefore permissable. Thus, no penalty was assessed.

Complaint #22
The Committee decided unanimously that as a result of a breach in due process, the complaint against Nicole Capp is dismissed.

Complaint #37
The Committee decided unanimously that as a result of a breach in due process, the complaint against Tim Shea is dismissed.

Complaint #15
The Committee decided unanimously that as a result of a breach in due process, the complaint against Tim Swenson is dismissed.

Complaint #44
The Committee found sufficient cause for a penalty assessment as the complaint was not contested by the defendant, David "Tito" Wilkonson.

Complaint #49
The Committee found sufficient cause for a penalty assessment. The Committee decided unanimously that Nina Pedrad was in violation of the JEC Charter section 132 (b). This was due to the fact that a message containing campaign material was added to a Facebook Group Invitation at the time Nina Pedrad sent the Group Invitation to the complainant. The committee found a distinction between sending a Group Invitation to a friend on Facebook, and then going the additional step of writing a message expressly for the reason that the message would be received by the complainant via email. In finding one penalty against the defendant in this matter, the Committee did not deign to attempt to regulate Facebook, simply to ensure section 132 (b) was observed by the defendant as well as to protect students from unsolicited emails containing campaign messages.

Complaint #36
The Committee found sufficient cause for a penalty assessment. The Committee decided unanimously that Mohit Shah was in violation of the JEC Charter section 132 (b). This was due to the fact that a message containing campaign material was added to a Facebook Group Invitation at the time Mohit Shah sent the Group Invitation to the complainant. The committee found a distinction between sending a Group Invitation to a friend on Facebook, and then going the additional step of writing a message expressly for the reason that the message would be received by the complainant via email. In finding one penalty against the defendant in this matter, the Committee did not deign to attempt to regulate Facebook, simply to ensure section 132 (b) was observed by the defendant as well as to protect students from unsolicited emails containing campaign messages.

Complaint #34
The Committee found sufficient cause for a penalty assessment. The Committee decided unanimously that Meghan Cassin was in violation of the JEC Charter section 132 (b). This was due to the fact that a message containing campaign material was added to a Facebook Group Invitation at the time Meghan Cassin sent the Group Invitation to the complainant. The committee found a distinction between sending a Group Invitation to a friend on Facebook, and then going the additional step of writing a message expressly for the purpose that the message would be received by the complainant via email. In finding one penalty against the defendant in this matter, the Committee did not deign to attempt to regulate Facebook, simply to ensure section 132 (b) was observed by the defendant as well as to protect students from unsolicited emails containing campaign messages.

Complaint #30
The Committee found sufficient cause for a penalty assessment against OG Oyiborhoro and all candidates listed on the 2007 ballot as members of the Student Union. The Committee decided unanimously that the defendants were in violation of the JEC Charter section 132 (b). This was due to the fact that a message containing campaign material was added to a Facebook Group Invitation at the time Mohit Shah, on the behalf of the Student Union slate and himself, sent the Group Invitation to complainant Jeffrey Goodman. The committee found a distinction between sending a Group Invitation to a friend on Facebook, and then going the additional step of writing a message expressly for the reason that the message would be received by the complainant via email. In finding one penalty against each of the defendants in this matter, the Committee did not deign to attempt to regulate Facebook, simply to ensure section 132 (b) was observed by the defendant as well as to protect students from unsolicited emails containing campaign messages.

Complaint #8
The Committee found sufficient cause for a penalty assessment against OG Oyiborhoro. The Committee decided unanimously that there OG Oyiborhoro was in violation of the JEC Charter section 132 (b). This was due to the fact that a message campaign material was added to a Facebook Group Invitation at the time OG Oyiborhoro sent the Group Invitation to the complainant. The committee found a distinction between sending a Group Invitation to a friend on Facebook, and then going the additional step of writing a message solely for the purpose that the message would be received by the complainant via email. In finding one penalty against the defendant in this matter, the Committee did not deign to attempt to regulate Facebook, simply to ensure section 132 (b) was observed by the defendant as well as to protect students from unsolicited emails containing campaign messages.