[UPDATED] April Fools?

UPDATED: The official memo from the student court can be found here, though they could’ve made a cleaner scan of it.

The decision of the court being unanimous, we will not hold a hearing for these appeals. They will not be returned to the election board for consideration. That is the judgment of the court.

—Chief Justice Mike Burdman, 12:05 p.m. Thursday April 1, concluding a student court meeting to effectively decide the election.


Ayden Maher and Evan Konecky were in attendance on time, while Collene O’Reilly was four minutes late to the meeting — which was held only because of her ticket’s contestations. Chuck Forbes, her running mate, was not present at all.

What the Decision Means

O’Reilly still has one path left to her: to take the argument above all student leadership straight to the administrators in Student Affairs. She’ll have to prove that the process was not carried out fairly.

Complaints and Rebuttals

O’Reilly spoke and said that “it was really unethical” that Election Chair Fred Moldt, during Monday night’s election board meeting on the same contestations,  asked one of his election commissioners what evidence demonstrated they had been turned in by deadline. During deliberations specifically about whether they were turned in on time.

Moldt responded, “Was there enough evidence the form was turned in on time? Two voters said no. When [the other election board member] Alexandria said there was, I thought it was in the best interest of the election board to ask why she thought that, what facts supported that, so she could tell us something we didn’t know.”

One of O’Reilly’s supporters also spoke about how unfair it was that Moldt was following statutes.

“By not allowing or accepting these [contestations], you’re acting in the interest of the other party. For you to say you’re being nonbiased, I just don’t think that’s fair,” she said, arguing that Moldt had accepted Konecky’s VP application late in the original election but not accepted the contestations late in the run-off.

Moldt responded, explaining that while the rules allowed to him accept a declaration of candidacy late at his discretion, contestations must be turned in by deadline. I checked the statute language on this:

The Elections Board may disqualify candidates who fail to submit all forms correctly by publicized deadlines or fail to attend a Mandatory Candidacy Meeting. (309.400)

Italics mine. It’s not a requirement, and the rules don’t speak more on the subject. Conversely, they do set an absolute deadline for contestations:

The Election Complaint and Contestation Form must be submitted to the SG Advisors no later than five (5) p.m. on the Friday following posting of the unofficial results of the election who will then immediately forward it to the Chair of Elections. (318.200)

Italics mine, again. There’s a difference between “may” and “must,” and Moldt held to it. He also revealed that O’Reilly initially had Maher as a running mate, but dumped him at the last minute for Forbes.

“He was running with Collene and basically she dropped him. Ayden had about 3 to 4 hours to do this,” said Moldt, referring to picking a VP before the original election deadlines.

Maher also stepped forward to provide the “death certificate of Evan’s grandmother,” as evidence for why Konecky was unable to submit his application on time to Moldt.

To which O’Reilly said: but it was late. And you sent it to Moldt’s house instead of the SG office.

“I know he had a death and an excuse, but he did not try to send it into the SG office, he sent it to Freddy’s house. I don’t know why it was not brought to the student court at this time,” said O’Reilly.

If anyone were to bring that to the student court, of course, O’Reilly would have been the one responsible for doing so.

I haven’t heard Forbes call the election board lazy and incompetent this year, but it might be because he wasn’t at the meeting.


2 Responses to “[UPDATED] April Fools?”

  1. As always, great reporting Brandon. O’Reilly sure is classy!

  2. a Knowledgeable Student Leader Says:

    Here’s the thing. Ayden and Evan’s deadline date for handing in paperwork has nothing to do with this contestation or election. If O’Reilly and Forbes were smart, they would’ve brought that up during the last election of the 3 tickets.

    It technically doesn’t apply now because everyone accepted that the “United” party and “Ayden & Evan” party would go to a run-off. Therefore, that contestation made against them was invalid.

    Sorry guys. Better luck next year!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: