‘Shit-storm’ of a senate meeting delays decision on alleged election bribery

After a tense 7-hour meeting in the wake of alleged bribery in the Spring elections, the Associated Students Senate decided to seek legal council to determine what to do next.

The scandal came to light on Tuesday, when the Associated Students Election Board released a statement calling for a revote of the spring elections. The statement outlines the Boards belief that the “IFC [Intra-Fraternity Council] bribed its members with the promise of philanthropic grants to houses with high voter turnout.”

They recommended a re-vote of the spring election and called upon the Student Body to deliberate the issue in an open Senate meeting on Wednesday evening. The board admitted that there was nothing in the Elections Code that stated what to do in this situation.

The meeting attracted over 100 students, many of whom voiced strong opinions to the Senate which is made up of currently elected Associated Student representatives. Tensions ran high as students as well as previous senators and candidates who won positions in the Spring election, voiced their opinions.

The line for free pizza

First the Election Board presented their findings and recommendation to the Senators before the floor was opened up to students.

The senators were revealed to be equally impartial over the matter through their questioning of the Election Board and student speakers. Aaron Jones, chief executive officer of the Graduate Student Association, characterised the Senate’s attack on the Election Board as “cruel”, “unwarranted” and “not at all cool”. A fair number of the current senators appeared to be directly involved in the controversial Spring election and so their impartiality was somewhat questionable.

The beginning of a very, very long evening

The student speakers were split into two broad camps. Those who defended the IFC’s (Intra Fraternity Council) decision to grant funds for higher voter turnout within fraternities and those who questioned the legal and moral affects of such an action.

Jason Garshfield defended the IFC grants declaring that “no institution is more marginalized or persecuted than the Greek system.” He cited political motives for the scandal that had erupted.

Reilly Hobson, a current AS Senator who ran with Campus United in the Spring election declared that the Election Board had “pompously concluded” that Greek demographic would all vote one way. “I am insulted by your arrogance” he said to the Senate over these assumptions.

Jordan Mitchell in an impassioned speech, was one of several students who alluded to the AS’s chequered past: “Every time I come to a meeting, there is something that shouldn’t be happening going on”

Brandon Yadegari conversely characterized the grants as “bribery at best, collusion at worst,” before going on to directly ask: “what is the relationship between campus united and IFC.” Campus United, widely regarded as the ‘pro-Greek’ party, was also the only party advertising the IFC funding initiatives. He further suggested that those Senators that were involved with the IFC and Campus United should recuse themselves from any vote on the controversial election.

The IFC President, Brendan Gonzalez, defended the grants, reiterated his published statement and declared that he was transparent about the grant system. He admitted that IFC had endorsed Campus United and Natalie Jordan but reiterated that the grant money was given on the act of voting, and was not allocated depending on which candidates or parties members voted for.

On numerous occasions, the behavior of the AS Senators charing the meeting was called into question. Some of the senators were accused of sniggering, talking over students and creating a “hostile” environment.

The “cruel” senators

Benjamin Shin, Judicial Council Executive Chairman, took a deep inhale of breath before uttering that he had spent “four and a half hours watching this shit-show.” He was further dismayed about how he could tell how the Senators would vote just by looking at them: “It’s still so crazy how there can be political party agendas when we want the same thing”

The possibility of legal action was brought up by more than one of the students who spoke in the public forum. The use of a financial incentive to motivate higher voter turnout is illegal under California state law but it was ambiguous as to whether this applied to the AS elections.

At the end of a lengthy public forum at around 1:30 am and after most of the room had cleared, the senate voted to seek legal council before making any further moves.

The results of the AS spring election remain ambiguous.