On Oct. 11, former Senate members Steven Castillo and Steven Morin petitioned the SGA’s Elections Commission and Senate Speaker Aaron Saunders over illegalities of this year’s Senate Elections.
The Judiciary case filed was a direct photocopy of last fall’s Judiciary Case against the Elections Commission and former Senate Speaker Jim Eltringham.
Castillo and Morin both claim that this year’s Elections were once again a direct violation of Title 8, Chapter 4 of the SGA Constitution and that one Elections Commissioner was not present at every polling station at all times.
A similar case was brought forth last year, in which members of the SGA accused the Elections Commission as well as Eltringham of violating Title 8, Chapter 4 of the SGA Constitution. It claimed that one Elections Commissioner was not present at each polling station at all times as well, thus resulting in the termination of last year’s Senate Elections, in which the SGA Judiciary declared them unconstutional.
Chancellor of Elections Sam Balasiak, SGA President John Sheehan and Saunders admitted to the lack of commissioners prior to the elections, but continued with the scheduled date.
The Senate Elections passed with the seven percent of the student vote and were ratified by the Senate on Sept. 26, where members of the SGA Coordinating Council once again questioned them.
Elected Senator Bryan Thompson and Michael Taugher were two members who abstained their votes for the ratification of the elections, by explaining that they could not consciously vote “yes.”
Saunders responded to the questions surrounding the legalities of this year’s election by stating that the SGA was coming off a rough year, and things needed to change.
“To deny students who have been working hard on an election based on one’s title is wrong,” Saunders said. “Everyone is running at 110 percent, and we need to look at the reality of the situation and not dwell on what we can’t change.”
A month into this year’s SGA Senate, members however are taking a lighter approach to the case at hand. Senate members have claimed to be surprised as well as doubtful of the future of the case.
“It’s really nothing but revenge and the fact that people have nothing better to do than file frivolous charges against this year’s Elections Commission,” Saunders said. “Last year tons of things happened which affected the outcome of the elections, whereas this year, they did not.”
Former Chair and Senator Jeff Bazydlo and former Senator Chris Carlozzi, both witnesses on behalf of the petitioner’s case explained that they want the SGA to know that the same rules should apply every year.
“This case was brought forth due to the fact that there wasn’t an Elections Commissioner present at every polling sight,” Bazydlo said. “Last year they claimed it was the Senate’s fault, and then this year nothing is said about the same situation. The same rules apply, and they can’t pick and choose when they play a role in the SGA.”
Bazydlo continued by explaining that the SGA is not taking action based on politics within the Executive Cabinet as well as within the Senate.
“Last year, the fact was that the Senate was not in the Executive Cabinet’s favor, and this year it is,” Bazydlo said. “We just hope that someone will finally step up and take responsibility for these violations.”
Senate members responded to the allegations by stating that they view the case as a joke.
“The Judiciary Case is the same case as last year with a little bit more added, and any case it may be thrown out,” Chair of Public Policy and Relations Michael Whitehouse said. “But it’s basically being viewed as a joke by a lot of people.”
Taugher expressed a different view however, by expressing that he feels that the petitioners are addressing a valid point.
“It kind of begs a question to the SGA leadership by bringing up a valid point, and I’ll be interested to see what they do,” Taugher said.
Attorney General Mike Marin, who was a former witness on last year’s judiciary hearing, and a main respondent to the case, explained the need to review the case before making any final decisions.
“I think they have a point, but I want to do what is in the best interest for the student body,” Marin said. “And to be honest I just received the case and it’s something that I’m really going to have to review before any further decisions are made.”
The SGA Judiciary has seven days to review the case in which they must notify the petitioners as to whether or not the case is moving to trial. If the Judiciary committee fails to respond, the case is therefore dropped.
Members of the Senate will be meeting tonight in room 168C in the Campus Center.
