|
Presidential
election fight moves to Judiciary
By
Daniel Linck Savino
Online Forty-Niner
Assistant Opinion Editor
Jamie Pollock and Uduak-Joe Ntuk took their
fight for the Associated Students, Inc.
presidency to the AS Judiciary last Thursday.
At issue is a recent Elections Commission
ruling that disqualified Pollock from the
presidency, even though she won the election
by 155 votes.
The Commission found Pollock guilty of several
minor violations and one major violation
of the election rules. Ntuk, who filed complaints
against Pollock, had petitioned the Judiciary
to affirm her guilt.
Pollock, however, counter-filed and asked
to be reinstated as president-elect. Estee
Sepulveda, who unsuccessfully ran for treasurer
in mutual endorsement of Pollock, was also
named in the cases.
Her involvement was of secondary interest
to both sides. Regardless of any ruling
handed down by the Judiciary against Sepulveda,
Zaira Tinoco’s position as treasurer-elect
will not change.
The Judiciary combined the two cases into
a single hearing and heard arguments in
the University Student Union ballroom Thursday.
A ruling may be issued as early as today.
The hearing ran in three parts: half-hour
opening statements by each side, rebuttals
and closing statements.
Ntuk’s case, both in front of the
Judiciary and the Commission, focused on
what he calls “massive improper campaigning”
by Pollock.
He accused her of using unapproved campaign
materials and workers and not properly reporting
campaign expenses. Entered into evidence
were lists of campaign workers for Ntuk,
Pollock and Sepulveda.
Guido Piotti, who has been closely affiliated
with Pollock’s campaign, spoke on
her behalf. In response to Ntuk’s
accusations, Piotti argued that those actions
were both a longstanding part of previous
elections and that Pollock’s campaign
worker lists, though not refiled, were regularly
updated.
The Commission and elections rules, he said,
never specified the time frame in which
refiling needed to happen. In years past,
he said, such information was allowed to
be filed at the end of the campaign.
From the standpoint of the Commission’s
ruling, the most serious offense by Pollock
was tearing down signs, which constituted
a major violation. This point was argued
strongly by Ntuk.
As reported by Piotti, two signs advertising
a Black Business Students Association (BBSA)
meeting were torn down by Rebekah Smith.
She later admitted having torn them down,
Piotti said.
She had also been posting flyers produced
by the “Save CSULB Coalition.”
Those flyers promoted Pollock and Sepulveda
and listed a number of groups and individuals
who had endorsed their campaigns.
Jon Fortson, president of the BBSA confronted
Piotti, who apologized for the flyers being
removed, and offered to reimburse him. Fortson
declined the offer.
At the time, Smith was not listed as a campaign
worker for Pollock. Her actions, Piotti
argued, were therefore entirely beyond Pollock’s
control. The flyers, which he said were
not produced by her campaign, were also
outside of her control.
The following day, Smith was registered
to Pollock’s campaign.
Questions remain as to whether the violation
that came from the incident is valid. The
Elections Commission has no authority to
control postings by campus clubs such as
the BBSA, which are under the jurisdiction
of Student Life and Development.
By ruling that Pollock was guilty of tearing
down “special events” flyers,
the Commission has opened the door to the
possibility that those fliers legally qualify
as campaign material for Ntuk. They prominently
featured his picture and name.
If they were campaign material, Ntuk could
be guilty of a major violation, according
to the elections rules. Flyers of a nearly
identical design, promoting a Hispanic Students
Business Association event, had been previously
posted on campus.
Those flyers were up during a period of
time when Ntuk had been banned from posting
any campaign material.
The inconsistency has yet to be addressed.
It is also unknown if either batch of flyers
was approved by the Commission.
Ntuk also accused the Long Beach Union of
campaigning for Pollock, stemming from the
April 18 edition of the paper, which contained
four articles about him. These articles,
he said, were all negative. Many copies
of that edition were stolen in stacks from
newsstands the day it was released.
The Judiciary, in an earlier case filed
by the Union, found Ntuk guilty of one of
the thefts.
Union staffers passed out numerous copies
of the paper during that week, specifically
during the two days of voting in the runoff
election.
“By default, they were urging students
to vote [for Pollock],” he said. He
also accused them of deliberately passing
out the papers near polling stations.
He named a long list of Union staffers he
said were involved.
Ryan Holliday, managing editor of the paper,
defended their actions. He began by pointing
out that Ntuk had simply copied an old list
of staffers. He also said that some of those
staffers were not even with the paper at
the time.
As far as passing out the papers, he said,
Union staffers were at a number of high-traffic
areas, including the McIntosh Humanities
Building, the bell tower and the polling
locations.
Holliday argued that the Union was forced
into alternate means of distribution, because
stacks of that edition were being stolen
from stands. There was no campaign effort
on their part.
“We did not mutter Jamie Pollock or
Uduak’s name [while passing out the
papers],” Holliday said.
There was also no particular bias, he said.
The Union had previously lampooned both
Pollock and Sepulveda, portraying Pollock
as an “airhead,” and running
a satirical version of one of Sepulveda’s
handbills.
Holliday also said the paper was rejecting
an apology letter from Ntuk. He had been
required to write the letter as part of
the Judiciary’s earlier ruling holding
him guilty of stealing papers.
In a statement made earlier in the case,
Piotti noted that the paper was not affiliated
with Pollock’s campaign.
Another key part of Pollock’s case
was the argument that the Elections Commission
had deviated wildly from proper procedure
by overturning Pollock’s victory.
The rules state that the Commission shall,
after several violations, begin dismissal
proceedings for the candidate.
Piotti described two problems. First, he
said, Pollock was no longer a candidate
when the Commission removed her, but rather,
the tentative president-elect.
When the Commission announced the elections
results, Elections Commissioner Heather
Benton described them as tentative. It is
unknown what official effect that qualifier
has on the status of the candidates.
Second, he said, the Commission never started
any “proceedings.” The Commission
held a special session that was meant to
hear complaints against her. After lengthy
deliberation, the Commission both found
her guilty of multiple charges and stripped
her of the presidency.
An official press release gave no explanation
except to say she had been found guilty
of four major violations, and that she was,
therefore, to lose her position as president-elect.
Kim Hinckson, AS government adviser, later
said that Pollock was actually guilty of
three violations, and that the “four”
was a typo. No official correction has been
issued, though.
An official letter to Pollock from Benton
said she was guilty of six minor violations
and one major violation. Sets of three minor
violations can be counted as one major violation.
Piotti told the court that minutes from
the Commission’s meeting, however,
showed Pollock being found guilty of five,
not six, minor violations.
The Commission has not resolved the inconsistency.
Piotti noted that based on the minutes,
Pollock would have two major violations
against her.
Based on the wording of the letter and press
release, he said, that would put her below
an apparent threshold of three major violations
needed for disqualification.
That threshold does not have any specific
basis in the elections rules or AS Bylaws,
and the Comission has not explained the
origin.
Ntuk, however, argued that Pollock and her
campaign workers should have known better
than to run afoul of the rules in the first
place.
“You know the rules just as much as
anyone else,” he said. “She
cheated. She cheated at the end to get back
in the race.”
“[Pollock] used dirty campaigning
and hate politics to get elected,”
he after the meeting.
Despite Ntuk’s efforts, Bobby Godina,
campaign manager for Pollock, feels confident
about the impending decision.
“We spent a considerable amount of
time putting [our case] together,”
he said in an interview. “I think
[Ntuk] probably felt the case he made to
the Elections Commission was sufficient...so
he tried it again. I feel this time, they
got the full version.”
|
