Sr. Class Board defends moves

Members of the Senior Class Board said yesterday they believe they were "fair and just" in their application of the rules during last week's Class of 1994 board elections. In a letter to The Daily Pennsylvanian, which appears in today's paper, the board states that they "stand firmly" behind their decisions about disqualifications. Last week, during closed-door grievance hearings, one candidate, Liz Goldman, was ruled ineligible after being pictured in the DP, while another, Laura Lieberman, was allowed to remain in the election despite also being pictured in the DP. The Senior Class Board claims that Goldman's account to the board "differs from her story in the DP, in that she acknowldeged that she had an idea her picture was taken by a DP photographer." Senior Class President Michael Rosenband, a College senior, said Goldman was disqualified because "there was some knowledge in some way, shape or form of the DP photographer having taken her picture." Goldman said last night that she was "amazed" that the board decided to distinguish her case from Lieberman's case, and added that what she told the DP was the same as what she told the board. "The final line remains the same," Goldman said. "I did not know my picture had been taken. I did not see a photographer. It was suggested to me by the two guys with whom I had been pictured that they wanted to put me in the DP, but I told these guys that all candidates are not allowed to be in the DP voluntarily." Goldman said she was upset by the whole ordeal and said she wonders why the board did not ask her about their concerns in more detail during her grievance hearing. "I feel as though I was victimized and the board is trying to justify it on irrelevant, stupid grounds just to save their face," Goldman added. The Senior Class Board's letter states the three questions they ask themselves while deliberating over each grievance. The questions include whether the candidate was aware of the photograph, whether she made efforts to prevent the photo from appearing and whether the candidate had an unfair advantage. Senior Class Board Advisor Fran Walker said last night she was not present at last week's grievance hearings, but did not want to comment on the alleged discrepancies. Walker said that there were problems with this year's election rules, but added that each time cases like those of Goldman and Lieberman arise, the election rules are reviewed. "There are certainly problems with the code," Walker said. "On the several occassions in which candidates have been disqualified for talking or appearing in the press, the Senior Class Board has reconsidered the code and each time, the board has decided that the alternative of free access to the press leads to greater unfairness." Walker added that the issue of closed-door grievance hearings -- which is currently the status quo -- has not been an issue "until now." On Thursday, Nominations and Elections Committee Chairman Michael Monson said he disapproves of closed door meetings in general. "There is no reason for [grievance hearings] to be behind closed doors. If they are . . . you have to kind of do a little wondering," Monson said. Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson and College sophomore Seth Hamlin said last night that he thinks the Senior Class Board will be directly funded by the UA, instead of by the Student Activities Council, next year. "Once they become a branch of government underneath the UA, then we will sit down and discuss election procedures with all the class board presidents," Hamlin said. Hamlin said he is still interested in fulfilling his campaign promise of election reform. "I'm sure we will look into a variety of ways to make the elections more issue-oriented and bring the students more into the process," Hamlin said.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.