Burnt Orange Report

SG Campaign Misconduct?

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Say it ain't so!

Part of the annual tradition of Student Government campaigns is to try to one-up your opponent when it comes to legal charges, which can result in opposing campaigns losing the right to campaign or at worst, removing candidates from the election. Ignite has UDems Vice President Ali Puente as their legal point person (who learned a heck of a lot last year when she worked for RepreZent). I don't know who Connect's legal person is, but Ali is formidable.

Last year the Focus ticket did a fairly good job at disgracing the RepreZent campaign in the Daily Texan thanks to the actions of our very own Andrew Dobbs, which of course were blown out of proportion but such is the nature of the beast. But it was effective in lining up internal SG support at the time and killing the little momentum that RepreZent had.

This year, it seems that the first wave of effective 'misconduct' charges are against the CONNECT ticket according to today's Texan coverage. My commentary is in between...

Ignite is accusing Connect of violating election rules regarding vandalism. According to Ignite, Connect members illegally advertised themselves in chalk on bathroom and room signs in the business school.

"The fact that the University has vandalism in the same section as violent crime shows that this is obviously something the University takes very seriously," said Ali Puente, the legal advisor for Ignite and government junior.

At a hearing Monday night, Connect confirmed the allegations, and the ESB has prohibited Connect from campaigning in the business building on the first day of elections, March 2.

Ok, names on chalkboards are pretty silly, but it is important to note that the first day of elections is March 1, not March 2 as well as the fact that not being able to campaign in a building on election day is significant. Since campaigns usually set up mobile voting centers in building on election days (online voting on laptops), giving turf to the other campaign gives a point to Ignite in this case.

In another complaint, Ignite notes significant damages to their West Campus A-frames. A hammer was left at one site.

Angela Rose Courtney, security officer at the Kappa Delta and Sigma Delta Tau sorority houses, personally witnessed one act of vandalism.

"You see these signs being vandalized and everything, but you don't see Connect signs being vandalized," she said. "You don't see nothing happening to Connect."

Connect filed a complaint that what Ignite calls A-frames are in fact billboards, since they are clearly professionally designed and are not made of wood. Ignite replied that there aren't actually any requirements in the ESB code that the A-frames be either hand-painted or wooden.

Besides the use of a double negative in that quote, this is the kind of actions that turns people off. And as far as I know, no one is using true "A-frames" but rather big boards that lean, as you can see from Connect's pictures or Ignite's pictures. I can only guess that this is an Election Code wording argument.

Regardless, having any of your supporters destroy large scale campaign signs in West Campus should not be acceptable, I don't care what campaign you are. If I was CONNECT I wouldn't be arguing about the definition of "is" when I should be condemning any such destructive actions. I believe this is the most visible and potentially damaging of the allegations in this article to regular Daily Texan readers because it's not something that could be accidental like chalkboards or signs on kiosks or something, which can be forgiven.

Connect also accused Ignite of failing to properly report the cost of their Web site, citing that it was credited to a professional company entitled Astonish Designs. Dilen Kumar, Plan II senior and campaign manager of Ignite said Astonish Designs is run by business school student Tim Hamilton, economics junior, who designed the Web site as a personal favor to Ignite vice presidential candidate Colby Hanks, a finance senior.

The Ignite Web site had been riddled with attacks, according to Ignite. Before campaigning began, an unidentified hacker altered profiles, putting in several profane and slanderous remarks about Ignite candidates.

I happen to believe in proper and honest reporting of campaign expenditures. After digging around in Texas Ethics Commission data last fall, I believe that if you are going to go ahead and allow in-kind gifts of any kind, they should at least be made clear and reported. So if Ignite was trying to cover anything here, shame. Chris Kennedy has some thoughts on that.

At the same time, hacking someone's website, if true, is petty and shows bad taste. And so I will take this opportunity to comment on their websites. Ignite's is very professional, like their signs, and many of their candidates in my opinion. It would help if they could have duplicated their campaign logo online as well. CONNECT's has gotten better over the past week, but when first launched was more reminiscent of a student council campaign quality operation. And that Lime Green and Blue color scheme, ouch. I'll agree with Chris Kennedy on that one in saying it hurts my eyes. And Chris has website recommendations you can read!

I'll skip the Texan's comments on whisper campaigns because unless someone's going to say what's being whispered, I've got nothing to say.

Ignite has been campaigning illegally in the Jester dormitory, according to Connect's final accusation. Ochoa said that only dorm residents are allowed to campaign in dorms, and even then only on their own floor. Ignite said that one of the campaigners resides on the 12th floor of Jester, so their actions were acceptable. However, Dan Paschal, campaign manager for Connect, was quick to point out that the campaigning, in fact, occurred on the 4th floor, making it illegal.

If this is the best charge that Connect can lob at Ignite (other than the website reporting) then Ignite is either running a clean campaign or Connect is lacking the legal or public relations team to put charges forward. Since I doubt it is the latter, I'll argue the first until proven otherwise.

But if we are going to make an issue out of campaign signs in dorms (which I wouldn't have had a clue about had it not been for this article) then it makes me wonder about the legality of the three CONNECT signs that are posted on boards in hallways here in the Honors Dorms (two of which are not even close to being near actual student living quarters). So I took pictures, which you can see here, here, and here.

In short, I would agree with Chris Kennedy that coming into this, Connect has the advantage from an organizational standpoint. With the support of FLO (Freshman Leadership Organization), the production line for SG candidates and volunteers in past elections, Connect does have an advantage in visibility. But today’s Texan article takes some wind out of their sails, giving Ignite their first ‘real’ opening, since neither side won any points with the Texan coverage of the platforms yesterday. I agree that the platforms are not going to move many votes, and this election will be won on personality, turnout, endorsements, and social networks.