Elections Round-up

I saw posters go up and posters go down. I watched what seemed to be a bad variety show complete with actors, comedians and a ventriloquist who couldnıt quite get the dummy to work. I barricaded myself in the Suite 4 dungeon to watch--not participate, just watch--the ballots be counted. It wasnıt until too late that I realized I was locked in a small room with people in various stages of addiction: from an experimentation with huffing helium to the throes of nicotine withdrawal. I was told some interesting stories. My favorite was about Bill Washburn and Kelly Sunada getting a squirt of pure helium in their faces which made them feel "light headed" for a while. (You have to have a stronger stomach than that to make it in politics.)

Now Iım "rounding up" the triumphs, the scandals and the bruised egos of this yearıs election. Frankly, Iım not sure if itıs for your benefit or an attempt to preserve my sanity by convincing myself it wasnıt some crazy hallucination. Enjoy.

"Wait--how are we going to go to the bathroom now?² Overheard immediately after the ballot counting for the Primary began and Suite 4 was officially sealed.

Anyone involved in last yearıs elections--when serious improprieties called into question all the election results--would say this yearıs election didnıt have any problems more serious than an annoyance. Of course, thatıs definetely not the same as saying there were no problems at all.

The integrity of the final tally of votes in the Primary was called into question after the Kantrowitz-Bostic campaign requested a recount. Although the recount did not affect the outcome of any of the races, there were shifts in the number of votes candidates in several races recieved. In addition, the actual number of ballots--the physical Scantron sheets students pencilled their votes on--went up by over thirty. At least thirty ballot sheets were unaccounted for in the original tally.

Alvia Aguilar, chair of the Elections Board, explained that there were several factors that could have contributed to the discrepancy. The computer used to count the votes would not accept ballots that were in any way folded or wrinkled. Likewise, ballots with marks too light for the computer to detect were rejected. These ballots, of which there were many, had to be counted by hand.

The computer itself also froze up twice during the counting process. When this happened, everything recorded since the last time the results were saved was lost. Elections Board members had to make sure only the exact number of ballots whose results were lost were put through the computer again. This was complicated by the fact that ballots with write-in votes were first processed by the computer, then separated so that the write-in could be recorded by hand. Re-integrating those ballots after the computer crash was next to impossible.

Having learned from the Primary, the Elections Board immediately performed a recount on the General Election results. Although the first and second count were not exactly the same, the outcome was a negligible two ballot difference. Again, no race had a change in the outcome.

"Iıve been waking up at 3 AM with this dying urge to run around and rip up lawn stakes."-­Matt Scotten during the General Election Presidential Debate.

Scottenıs frustration was echoed by candidates in every race. Allocating spots for stakes around campus to increase candidate visibility, particularly in races that tend to go unnoticed, is a nifty idea. Unfortunately, itıs a nifty idea that doesnıt seem to work. Theoretically, a candidate goes to the EMU Scheduling Office and reserves a certain number of stakes for a set period of time. This should set up a rotation, giving as much time to as many of the candidates as possible. With every candidate in every race supposedly guaranteed "fair acces" to the stakes, the Scheduling Office found it to be a scheduling nightmare.

After being discontinued last year as too complicated and time consuming, the placement of stakes was reinstated for the ı96 election. Confusion immediately ensued. Fifty sites around campus were made available to the candidates. At first, ten stakes were allotted to each ticket for ASUO Executive, but when current ASUO President Jen Williamson and Vice President Zach Kelton pointed out that "fair access" was meant to apply to all candidates in every race, the rule was changed to first come, first serve.

At the root of this problem was a lack of communication. No mention of the availability of the stakes was included in the Elections Packet, the document outlining election rules and regulations put together by the Elections Board for the candidates. None of the candidates knew any of the details of applying for stakes, including when to apply for them. In addition, no feasible limits seem to be imposed on requests for stakes, as evidenced by the Washburn-Sunada campaign. They seem to have been in the right place at the right time: They got about forty of the fifty stakes.

How the stakes are handled, along with several other aspects of the elections by-laws, are "definitely in need of change" according to Alvia Aguilar. Aguilar, who will not be a member of the board next year, promises to work closely with her replacement. She hopes to pass on suggestions and some hard-won wisdom to help the new Elections Board, an advantage she never had. "There was no one to help us make the transition when we started," Aguilar said.

This doesnıt do much to ally the frustration Scotten and others felt. But newly elected Scotten and running-mate Glen Banfield have tried to keep it in perspective. "Lawn stakes are not what a campaignıs about, basically," said Banfield. Of course, winning an election certainly soothes campaign wounds. Unfortunately, there are those who canıt share that consolation.

"I have every fucking right to know who put up those posters."-­Kalpana Krishnamurthy, director of OSPIRG.

The controversy regarding fair play on the campaign field raged on as OSPIRG and USSA clashed with their detractors. When anonymous posters attacking the two organizations began appearing next to, surrounding and even covering OSPIRG and USSA posters, the Elections Board gave permission for the anonymous posters to be taken down. Some people objected to the decision, voicing concerns that it was an abridgment of free speech.

Aguilar and Brandon Smith, also a member of the Elections Board, defended the decision, stating that the anonymous posters violated at least two specific elections by-laws. First, the by-laws stipulate that all posters must indicate who paid for them, including an address or phone number so that the posterer may be contacted. The anonymous posters obviously did not adhere to this. Also, defacing or destroying another campaignıs materials is expressly forbidden. Many of OSPIRGıs and USSAıs were completely obscured by the anonymous posters. It was for these reasons, say Aguilar and Smith, that OSPIRG was allowed to remove any and all of the anonymous posters they could find.

The United States Supreme Court does not totally agree with this decision, however. While destroying an opposing campaignıs material is illegal, anonymous postering has been upheld by the court. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Board, the Supreme Court ruled that anonymous political postering is protected under the First Amendment. As it turns out, this is a lucky break for every campaign. Not one poster put up by any candidate during this election complied with the identification regulation. From the ASUO Executive and Senate races right down to the OSPIRG and USSA ballot measures, not one poster included contact information. "Basically, all the posters were flawed," said Smith.

ASUO President Williamson, who is also active in USSA, realized this when the group's posters came back from the printers. "I gave the Elections Board the information, so someone could find us," she said. The Elections Board could have directed inquirers to any group or candidate, but the fact remains that the law was universally violated. Aguilar admits this is another area of the elections process that needs to be examined, but stands by the Elections Boardıs decision.

And what about the charges of misconduct and deception that the anonymous posters raised? Krishnamurthy denies any misuse of student money by her organization. All $147,390 OSPIRG just received will be used to further student issues. Allegations that student PIRG money is funneled to the state PIRG where it is used in ways unassociated with studentıs concerns are completely untrue, she says. "There is no connection [between the state and student PIRGs]--we have different mission statements," said Krishnamurthy.

While Williamson acknowledges that USSA has had problems with misuse of funds in the past, she is confident that the group has cleaned up its act. When USSA's ballot measure for travel money was defeated two years ago, there were specific circumstances that no longer apply, Williamson says. In the year previous to USSAıs failed ballot measure numerous personal long distance phone calls were charged to the ASUO by the organization. In addition, University delegates to USSA's annual policy congress in Washington, DC were reported to have skipped out on some of the conferences they were supposed to have attended.

These sorts of abuses of student incidental fees no longer occur according to Williamson. At this point, the University's chapter of USSA is operating legally. It is also working for reforms to the overall structure of the organization that would ensure the problems the local USSA program faced two years ago won't reoccur. Allowing students to elect delegates to the USSA Congress is one such step Williamson is pushing for. "Weıre trying to make it as democratic as possible," she said.

"It's all letter bombs and Kool-Aid parties from here on."-­J. Pierson, General Manager of KWVA.

Student media took a hammering in the election as all three of KWVA's ballot measures and the proposed Longview magazine were defeated by wide margins. The Longview ballot measure would have created a new campus humor magazine. Certainly the Oregon Voice is spotty in its humor (not to mention regular publication) but trying to wring over $24,000 from students was bound to meet with failure. Whoever proposed this ballot measure should have just volunteered at the Voice and worked to improve the existing magazine rather than making a half-hearted attempt at starting a new campus publication. It would have saved everybody from filling in one more "no" on their ballot, too.

On the other hand, KWVA asked for a hell of a lot more money, but actually had a good reason for doing so. The station, which broadcasts 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, not only provides entertainment and a much-needed alternative source for news and opinion but extensive training for students in every aspect of broadcasting as well. Not only would the ballot measures have paid for operating costs and improvements to the station's hardware, the costs were divided among three separate measures instead of combined in one huge lump sum. This allowed students a choice of not only how much money KWVA would get, but where it would go. Unfortunately, the open-mindedness, trust and downright courtesy of this approach escaped the campus electorate.

In fact, the sole reason this hot potato landed in voters' laps is because the Programs Finance Committee referred KWVAıs budget to the ballot rather than take the responsibility for handing out that much money. Apparently nobody on the PFC wanted to face the potential third degree that went along with approving the large sum, regardless of the benefits to the campus community.

Now KWVA's budget has been wrecked once again. General Manager J. Pierson plans to go before the Senate with his budget, but first he needs to examine and revise the proposal. "Definitely some late nights coming up," he said. This is also the last chance the budget has; if it doesnıt pass the Senate, KWVAıs plans for improvement are sunk.

And now itıs all over. If you finished this whole account and felt it was near-incoherent, then I've succeeded: You now know exactly how it felt to actually live through the election.

Andrew Oberriter, a sophomore majoring in English, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator