COLUMN: Unfair interpretation of FPC

From Eric Goldstein's, "Upon Further Review," Fall '97 From Eric Goldstein's, "Upon Further Review," Fall '97 Those who argue that "rules are made to be broken" are usually the ones breaking the rules, not the ones making the rules. But in the case of the Nominations and Elections Committee, the opposite seems to be the case. The purpose of the FPC is to assure no candidates have unfair advantages during the campaigning process. Included among the regulations are restrictions on postering tactics, campaign spending maximums and limits on campaigning at polling sites. The problem with the FPC is that it is rarely enforced and, when it is enforced, it is enforced with reckless subjectivity. This year's FPC hearings were particularly exhaustive, with 44 of the 56 UA candidates being charged with at least one violation. Of course, as has become tradition, the overwhelming majority of the charges were dropped. The annual FPC violation of choice seems to be failing to turn in spending forms. This year was no different, with six candidates being charged for breaking the rule. However, charges were dropped for four of the offenders after they appeared before the NEC and offered their forgiveness. Luv Shah was the only candidate disqualified under the rule, but, had he not failed to attend his own hearing, he would likely have gotten off too. The sixth candidate charged for not turning in his receipts was disqualified for breaking a different rule, so the NEC never ruled on his other violations. An apology and a sob story should not be enough to get charges dropped. The lowlight of the FPC hearings was the disqualification of incumbent UA vice chairperson Larry Kamin. Kamin had sent out an e-mail to various student leaders campaigning for a slate of incumbents. He was charged with violating a FPC rule stating that candidates cannot place posters in places where all candidates do not have access. In disqualifying Kamin, the NEC made a number of unfortunate interpretations of their own rules. First and foremost, the NEC decided that its regulations governing posters also apply to e-mail messages. This decision is a huge jump in logic. The theory behind the poster regulations is some candidates do not have access to certain buildings and should not be disadvantaged due to that. Therefore, fraternity and sorority houses are off limits for campaign posters. However, anyone with access to e-mail has access to the e-mail boxes of the various student leaders contacted by Kamin. Where Kamin went wrong was when he decided to use the official UA e-mail account for his campaigning instead of his personal account. Kamin was clearly wrong for abusing his incumbent status by using UA resources to campaign for his reelection. However, the NEC has no rule against what he did. Kamin violated UA rules, not NEC rules. So it should have been the UA that punished Kamin, not the NEC. The hypocrisy of the NEC's rulings was evident when no candidates were disqualified for sending out e-mails over fraternity listservs campaigning for Greek candidates. Whereas Kamin admitted to sending out the pro-incumbent e-mail, the originator of the pro-Greek e-mail never came forward. It is quite likely that the e-mail didn't even come directly from a candidate, but from a third party, thereby circumventing the FPC. It seems Kamin's biggest mistake was admitting he sent the e-mail. Had he denied his role in it, he too would likely have been cleared. The NEC's role in the election process is a necessary one. But, unless extenuating circumstances arise, the body should allow the students to decide the outcome of the elections. Realistically, Kamin's e-mail had no effect on the election. Are we to believe that students really put any faith in an "official" UA e-mail? Anti-UA sentiment is so prevalent on campus it is just as likely that Kamin's e-mail would backfire. In fact, the harmlessness of the e-mail is demonstrated by the fact that had Kamin not been disqualified, he would have still lost by the will of the student body. Part of the problem with FPC rules is they are determined internally by the self-selecting NEC. There is no place in the process for the student body to determine what is and is not appropriate campaigning tactics. The NEC's role in the election process should be overseeing that external rules are being followed by candidates. As it stands now, the NEC is the judge, jury and executioner.