We, an amalgamation of concerned voters of the Missouri Students Association, as dictated by the MSA constitution and bylaws, raise to your attention several occurrences of inconsistency of the activities of the Board of Elections Commissioners. These aforementioned concerns reference recent infractions and their subsequent dismissal by amendment of bylaws during the course of Missouri Students Association 2013 elections.
In an interview with the Board of Elections Commissioners chairman, David Wettroth, on Aug. 30, in regards to a violation of MSA bylaws occurred [unrelated to this year’s election], Wettroth stated, “ . . . we need to make everything consistent. We need to make sure our views of different positions take the same form under the law.”
As students of the University of Missouri, we expect the Missouri Students Association to remain consistent in their constitution and the bylaws. We feel, as members of MSA, that this precedent has been violated in light of recent events concerning this year’s MSA election.
It has come to the attention of the student body of the University of Missouri, a campaign worker, as defined in the Missouri Student Association bylaws (Chapter V, Section H, _“(H) CAMPAIGN WORKERS — Campaign workers shall be defined as any person working towards an active goal of promoting a candidate or slate”_), Kelci Dampf, actively sent a mass email to promote the Schara-Haberberger slate.
This action, although already decided on by the BEC, is in clear violation of the MSA bylaws. If there ever was any question of intent by the slate, we respectfully point you to their quote by their presidential candidate, Mason Schara: “We really wanted to give people something that wasn’t a throwaway item after this election is over.” Haberberger, the slate’s vice-presidential candidate, is quoted saying, “Giving gifts, the point is to give something that is bigger than yourself . . . that’s what Mason and I attempted to do.”
Wettroth responded by saying there was nothing wrong in the slate’s utilization of social media and went on to commend the slate with their ingenuity.
We can break this situation into its constituent parts and show the illegality of the slate’s actions and the inappropriate response of the BEC. First, we raise into question the use of mass emails. As defined in Senate Bill #51-23, _“Mass emails are defined by the University of Missouri . . . If the same message, or close to, is sent to more than 250 recipients, it does not matter if it was done through multiple email and shall be considered a mass email. Use of any list serve system or any other mass email program shall be forbidden and will result in a major infraction.”_
The previous excerpt from Senate Bill #51-23 does not explicitly state who or what can or cannot send mass emails. Even if the bylaws did state that campaign workers were forbidden from sending mass emails, Ms. Dampf falls under the definition of campaign worker according to Chapter V, section H of the Missouri Students Association bylaws, as quoted above. This would lead to a clear violation by the Schara-Haberberger campaign because of the use of mass emails from a campaign worker as defined above.
Before bringing another argument to the attention of the BEC chair, we wish to provide an excerpt from the bylaws as stated in Chapter V, section I, subheading 2, subheading i, in regards to the Election Advisory Session: _“The purpose of this session will be to inform all candidates, at-once, of general election rules and to clarify question that candidates may have in an open setting among all slates.”_ Also, in subheading iii: _“Candidates may continue to contact the BEC with questions and requests for clarification prior to this session.”_
This makes it clear that the BEC has provided to all slates multiple opportunities to dispel ambiguity in regards to any of the election governing bylaws. This brings us to our next point regarding “clarity” of the bylaws.
As of Nov. 1, an inquiry into a possible violation of said bylaws by the Schara-Haberberger slate was brought to the attention of the BEC for review. The Schara-Haberberger campaign used an MSA auxiliary, the Craft Studio, for campaign materials. Referencing the BEC handbook: _“MSA Auxiliaries: in NO WAY may an MSA auxiliary be used for campaigning purposes.”_
The bylaws continue to explain how any auxiliary cannot endorse any given slate. What we are calling into question is not the argument of endorsement, but the use of an MSA auxiliary for campaigning purposes, which is clearly and explicitly forbidden as stated in the MSA bylaws quoted above. If there was any doubt about this bylaw being unclear, the Schara-Haberberger slate had ample opportunity during the Election Advisory Session and prior to raise their concerns or questions about the use of an MSA auxiliary for campaign purposes.
Haberberger can be quoted in The Maneater as having doubt about the clarity of the bylaws regarding the use of MSA auxiliaries. “The BEC made a decision and the handbook was changed because it was unclear.” There was no ambiguity in the MSA bylaws dictating the use of auxiliaries by slates.
Current MSA President Nick Droege said that the complaint revealed a loophole in the BEC handbook; no such loophole can be found as the language of the bylaw is quite clear in its meaning that auxiliaries “in NO WAY” can be used for campaigning purposes, this includes any fashion that a given auxiliary may be utilized.
Furthermore, The Maneater quotes Haberberger as saying, “everybody should have a good grasp of what is okay and is not okay.” All other slates seemed to be in accordance with this, but regardless, endorsement or no endorsement, the Schara-Haberberger slate used an MSA auxiliary, another clear campaigning infraction.
It is of note that instead of acting in accordance with the precedent set by past chairs of the BEC, Wettroth tabled the complaint raised against Schara-Haberberger and moved to amend the bylaws. In accordance to Robert’s Rules of Order, the chair should have acted upon the complaint before moving to amend the bylaws. Instead, Wettroth acted either simultaneously or out of order by proposing a new amendment before acting upon the initial complaint.
In agreement with what BEC chairman Wettroth said Aug. 30, “We need to keep everything consistent.” As members of MSA, it is our belief that there have been inconsistencies within the BEC.
It is important to note that the BEC handbook being used is one that Wettroth created, reviewed, and had approved by the Senate. Since his appointment in spring of 2013, he has had innumerable opportunities to reevaluate any parts of the handbook he found inappropriate. Also, it is of our viewpoint that bylaws should be kept consistent throughout the duration of the election. If want is present to change the bylaws after an election has concluded, discretion lies with the legislative body of the Missouri Student Association.
Amending governing constraints of election regulations during the course of the election does a disservice to the slates and to the student body. Changing the bylaws in response to a violation especially shows inconsistencies and brings into question the credibility of the Board of Elections Commissioners and MSA as a whole, as per the ratification of the aforementioned amendment by the chief justice, speaker of the house and president of MSA.
Instead of Chairman Wettroth asking himself the question, “Was the rule broken?” He asked, “Is the rule necessary?” Wettroth has created a precedent of calling into question rules rather than weighing the illegality of slates’ actions. The future ramifications of the chair’s actions are ambiguous, unlike the MSA bylaws.
_— Alyssa Chassman, on behalf of concerned students of MSA_