ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION

The Elections Committee oversees both the AS Elections and the Campus Elections (CEC). They are supported by AS and Student Affairs staff, including Ruth Garcia Guevara, Aaron Jones, and Sean Lieberman. The committee is responsible for orienting candidates and making sure all proper procedures are followed to elect the AS executives and Senators, and determine the outcome of campus ballot measures. Allegations of improprieties are adjudicated by the AS Judicial Council.

THE ELECTIONS CYCLE

After they’ve been selected by their party or decided to run as an independent, candidates must submit a Declaration of Candidacy form to the Elections Committee, typically during the first week of March. Parties must submit a Party Registration Form by mid February. Once accepted the candidate is given access to the Applicant Portal and submits a Promissory Agreement.

With the Promissory Agreement completed, each candidate must attend the Declaration of Candidacy meeting. At the meeting candidates have their picture taken for the AS website and for use in their campaigns if they decide to do that. They then receive important information from the Elections Committee, campus administrators, and the current executive officers regarding the rules of campaigning, general conduct, and self-care during what can be a grueling two weeks of active campaigning.

There are strict rules regarding the amount campaigns can spend, signage on campus, and more.

Active campaigning is limited to two weeks and includes Candidate Forums held in the UCen Hub during the lunch hour. They are hosted by Elections Committee and provide an opportunity for candidates to state their priorities and distinguish themselves from the other candidates. Typically these forums are attended by the candidates’ supporters and whoever happens to be eating lunch in the Hub, plus any students interested in the candidates positions on key issues.

Voting takes place over four days and culminates on Thursday evening with election night announcement of winners and losers in the Hub. Election night is above all INTENSE! It’s also exhilarating for the winners, and, inevitably, deeply disappointing for those who aren’t elected or whose ballot measures don’t pass.

Fortunately, even those not elected often participate in AS in other capacities to pursue the causes they are most passionate about. AS is driven by this passion!

THE 2016 ELECTION

After the relative calm of last year’s election, this year proved a challenge to everyone involved in the elections process. It included the implementation of a new Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting system and a serious challenge to the integrity of the election precipitated by the revelation that the President of the Interfraternity Council (IFC), Brendan Gonzalez, offered incentive grants to Greek houses that had the highest number of members voting. More about this below .

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

The Elections Committee described the new STV process on its website:

“A bill was unanimously passed by our Associate Students Senate to implement the Single Transferable Vote (STV) which ensures a more proportional election through the ranking of candidate choices. With STV, you, the voter, have the opportunity to rank your candidates by preference. A mathematical formula known as the Droop quota will be used to calculate the minimum a candidate needs to get elected. If one candidate reaches the minimum, then all of their extra votes go to their second choice. If no candidate reaches the minimum, then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed amongst their second choices. If John Citizen is already elected, the vote shifts again. PLEASE rank the candidates fully to allow the new voting system to work in the most democratic way possible.”

Staff, in particular, Assistant Director for Technology Sean Lieberman, worked countless hours to implement and test the computer back end of the STV system to make absolutely sure that online voting was bulletproof and that the results were properly calculated. In fact, without Sean, the election would not happen each year.

NEW PARTIES

On the political front, the year saw the disbanding of the Open People’s Party (OPP). OPP has dominated student government for several years and, in fact, was the only party to field a full slate of candidates in 2015. Its dissolution led to the formation of three new parties Campus United, Peer Action Coalition (PAC), and The Response. There were also several candidates who ran as independents or write-in candidates. Surprisingly, the declared parties didn’t field candidates for all of the key executive positions.

THE ELECTION AND ITS AFTERMATH

The STV system performed flawlessly and the newly elected execs included both an independent and a write-in candidate. Otherwise, Campus United carried the day including gaining the AS presidency and a majority of the seats in the Senate.

Then, at the beginning of the week following the election, the Elections Committee issued a statement that essentially accused the Interfraternity Council of bribing its members for votes and called for redoing the entire election:

Dear UCSB Student Body,

It has come to the Elections Board’s attention through an unsolicited letter from the president of the Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC) stating “IFC decided to award philanthropy grants to chapters that achieved high voter turnout in AS elections.”

The Elections Board, as stated in Article VI of Legal Code in Section 16. A.S. Elections Committee “coordinates the mechanics of the A.S. Elections. The main functions of the Committee are to run the Spring General Election and any Special Election(s).”  As this was brought to the Board in relation to the Associated Students Spring Election, it was carried into discussion.  After hours of deliberation, the Elections Board believes IFC bribed its members with the promise of philanthropic grants to houses with high voter turnout in this Associated Students Spring Election. 

Due to the decision we made, we feel that we had no choice but to alert the student body about the monetary incentives given to members of this community that placed more value on certain students’ votes. The Elections Board feels that IFC’s monetary incentive skewed the results of the Spring Elections, which includes all candidates, fee initiatives, fee reaffirmations, constitutional amendments, and CEC initiatives. UCSB consists of over 900 organizations and not every organization has access to such funding to offer incentives to their members.  IFC’s actions posed a threat to the conduct of fair elections and if no action is taken in regards to this situation, it would be perpetuating the belief that votes can be bought and sold.

Elections Board’s decided to bring this to the student body because the Elections Code does not state what to do in this situation.  Members of the IFC decided that certain votes meant more than others and while we feel a moral and ethical obligation to take action, we feel that this issue should be considered by the entire student body, rather than a small group of students.  Elections Board did not want to unilaterally make a decision in this case because this situation was not put into motion by anyone affiliated with the elections.

It is essential for the student body to understand that we do not write this with any intent of ill will towards any candidate or voter.  The Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of California, Santa Barbara states in Article 2 The Student Bill of Rights Section C.1 “All students have the right to a vote in all ASUCSB elections.” Elections Board only seeks to honor all those who voted in this election without any incentive.  It is important to understand that no one should be bribed with extra money in order to carry out your civic duty and any bribes only violates the sanctity of the elections process. 

There is a certain mental and emotional toll that the elections process takes on candidates as well as an academic strain for people who are students first and we recognize that there is a great commitment required of student leaders throughout this process.  However, in order for the elections to be held fairly, we believe only a re-vote would treat every vote equally.  And so, Elections Board’s official recommendation to Senate for this situation is to hold a re-vote in which the entire Spring Election Ballot would be voted on again by the student body. Elections Board is only made up of six members and we do not feel we accurately represent this diverse UCSB community and so we urge the student population to voice their concerns and opinions to A.S. Senate regarding this issue as they are your elected representatives.  A.S. Senate meets Wednesday at 6:30 in the Flying A Room in the University Center.

Publication of this statement led to the Chancellor’s Office not immediately certifying the election, to lengthy debates in the Senate, and to a series of unprecedented actions that involved AS, Student Affairs, the Office of the Chancellor, and the UC Office of the General Counsel. After the allegations were discussed in the Senate, the Elections Committee sought advice from the UC Legal Counsel. It then recommended that the AS President and Executive Director seek an independent outside investigation of the allegations. This investigation was undertaken by the UCSB Audit and Advisory Services.

Due to the time required for the investigation, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Margaret Klawunn recommended that the swearing in of new officers and Senators, that is required by the AS Legal Code to occur during week eight of spring quarter, be postponed. This was indeed the case, since the Audit and Advisory Department’s investigation required more time.

Quoting from the first part of the department’s report, the investigation focused on three of the Election Board’s concerns:

• IFC may have “bribed” its members to vote with the promise of philanthropic grants to chapters with higher voter turnout in the Associated Students spring election.
• IFC monetary incentive skewed the results of the spring election
• Associated Students “Elections Code does not state what to do in this situation,” and that “only a re-vote would treat every vote equally.

The investigators found that the IFC was not guilty of bribery, which prompted a letter from the Elections Board:

“Dear Student Body, In light of the recent findings through the ongoing Audit and Advisory Services investigation,the A.S. Elections Board would like to issue an official apology to the Interfraternity Council (IFC), and to the President of IFC Brendan Gonzalez in regards to our accusation of bribery. When this complaint was brought to The Elections Board’s attention, we were sincerely concerned that IFC’s decision to provide grants to chapters with high turnout influenced the results of the election, and we stand by our decision to bring this issue to the public. However, in our attempt to inform the student body of our concerns in this unprecedented situation,we chose to classify these actions as “bribery”, which we realize now was the wrong word to use and a bold accusation to make. We are genuinely sorry for any damage we did to the reputations of any organizations or fellow students. The intention of our letter was not to vilify any student or group, but rather to inform the student body of our concerns. The A.S Elections Board is a group of students who work to hold the best interests of the student body in mind and strive to ensure that the election process is fair and equal for every single student on this campus. In attempting to achieve this goal, we unintentionally hurt a fellow student and his reputation, which is the last thing we wanted to do. Every member of Elections Board knows how difficult it is to be a student, so we apologize for the added pressure, scrutiny and unwanted attention our accusation has brought Brendan. The mental health of every student on this campus is incredibly important to the members of this board and we’re deeply sorry our actions have added stress to one of our fellow students. Thank you to everyone for their patience during this unique situation. We have all been waiting for answers and continue to patiently wait for Audit and Advisory Services to complete their thorough investigation. They are continuing to look into whether the IFC grant program resulted in a serious voting irregularity as a result of undue influence on student voting and if it violated any current Associated Students Elections Code, Campus Elections Commission Guidelines or Campus Regulations. In addition to apologizing to Brendan Gonzales and members of IFC, we would like to stress that we acted in a way we thought would be best and commend A.S. Senate for appropriately forwarding this issue to an outside investigative body. Good luck with finals everyone! Sincerely, Elections Board”

THE VILLAREAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Because the election results could not be certified before the end of the academic year, President Villarreal created the Villarreal Election Commission to provide a governing body for AS until the Audit and Advisory Services completed its investigation and Chancellor Yang certified the election. The committee included

LETTER 1:

LETTER 2:

LETTER 3:

LETTER 4 (not in PDF format):

Third Update from the President
News
Joint President Statement from Jimmy Villarreal and President-elect, Austin Hechler to UCSB Students.

Dear Student Body,
Apologies for not sending my weekly report per usual. As you know, this past Monday was a holiday and given that I have term papers due — like all of you— I didn’t have a chance to write to you till now.
However, I have a concrete update for you all. On May 26th, we received a partial report from the Audit and Advisory Services’ Director, Robert Tarsia. Their report is attached. Please read it thoroughly. You will find that this report is regarding 1/3 of the total scope of the investigation. I have no control over the timeline of the investigation. The commission will not take up any matter regarding their findings until the entire investigation is completed.
Given that this year’s Senate’s has concluded its term—and the next Senate will not be sworn in until this investigation is completed, and the commission has had an opportunity to render a decision regarding the Spring 2016 election, I invite all business of the association to be sent to villarrealcommission@gmail.com
Thank you for your patience on this matter and I am looking forward to getting this association back on track.
Jimmy Villarreal
ASUCSB President
president@as.ucsb.edu
Investigation Report re Spring Elections – Preliminary Findings

LETTER 5:

LETTER 6:

THE AUDIT AND ADVISORY SERVICES’ DECISION AND SWEARING IN OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND SENATE

Audit & Advisory Services ultimately recommended that Chancellor Yang certify the election, which he did. The executive officers were then sworn in in mid August. Most of the Senators elect were sworn in via Skype. Three were sworn in at the Senate’s first meeting of the year in September. Through it all AS continued to function and the 16/17 year began without incident.

Senators sworn in at first Senate meeting, L to R Unique Vance, Sabrina Divin, and Aaron Henizadeh Photo: Riley Esquerra Daily Nexus