The Impact Party thinks Elevation got off easy Thursday when the Elections Committee dismissed one grievance against the party and levied a petty fine for the other.
Impact filed two grievances Thursday, one accused Elevation of violating U policy by sending out unsolicited bulk email, the other of violating residence hall policy when campaigning door to door in student apartments.
After a hearing Thursday afternoon, the Elections Committee decided to fine Elevation $60 for the email, but dismissed the residence hall grievance due to lack of evidence. Elevation was satisfied with both rulings, but Impact was not.
“We’re surprised,” said Bill Edwards, Impact presidential candidate. “[The ruling] is saying it was wrong, but just a little bit wrong,”
“I think we were dealt with fairly,” said AnnMarie Allen, Elevation presidential candidate. “We broke the rules and we paid our dues, I suppose.”
Wednesday morning, Elevation volunteers sent out bulk emails to 450 students, encouraging them to vote for Allen and vice presidential candidate Colter Hammer.
Impact Assistant Campaign Manager Marcie Bodell was one of the 450.
“I laughed at first,” she said. “Why would they send it to an Impact supporter? I questioned where they got [my email address] and who else it got sent to.”
Both Edwards and Impact vice presidential candidate Randall Lloyd received the email as well.
Bodell filed the grievance on the basis that sending unsolicited bulk emails was in violation of the U’s NetCom Policy and User agreement.
Elevation volunteers cut and pasted “upwards of 400” emails from the student directory, Hammer said.
“It’s a lot work,” he continued.
As U policy prohibits sending bulk email to addresses obtained in such a manner, the Elections Committee ruled in favor of Impact’s email grievance. The party, however, thinks the punishment was too mild.
“I think $60 doesn’t set a very strong precedent for what’s been done,” Lloyd said. He asked the Elections Committee to give Elevation a $200 fine at the hearing Thursday afternoon. To be able to send out the bulk email illegally and only get a $60 fine is a “good investment,” Lloyd said.
“I’m not sure I would phrase it that way,” Allen said. “I feel that it was something that was done by members of our party that we didn’t realize until voting was over.” As the presidential candidate, Allen accepted responsibility for her supporters’ misconduct.
Although Elections Committee Chairwoman Maryann Labrum appreciated hearing Impact’s suggestion for the fine, she felt $60 was more appropriate.
With the residence halls grievance, Impact said it was wrong for Elevation volunteers to campaign door to door in student apartments distributing fliers. Residence halls policy prohibits distributing fliers door to door unless the fliers are properly approved with a stamp, but the policy is usually ignored, according to Chapel Glenn resident adviser Ashley Thirkill, whom Elevation enlisted as an expert on residence halls policy for the hearing.
“If you wanted to go strict by the policy, it’s a violation,” Thirkill said, noting the matter was a question of precedence versus policy.
Because Thirkill wanted to motivate residents in her area to vote, she allowed Elevation to enter her Chapel Glenn building. She said she would have let Impact in as well. Thirkill herself did not vote, she said.
As Impact member Heidi Spilker was campaigning in Heritage Commons, she spoke with students who said, “‘Why would we vote for Impact when Elevation is at our door giving us donuts?'” she said. Spilker and others collected affidavits from six student who said Elevation solicited them in their residence.
The Elections Committee dismissed the grievance based on lack of evidence, according to Labrum. If Impact had brought unstamped fliers, the ruling might have been different, she continued.
Unsatisfied with the result, Edwards maintains the six affidavits were proof enough.
“There was evidence they were doing it,” Edwards said. “We knew that was a rule, which is why we weren’t up there.”
“We felt that there was a lot of discrepancy as far as the residence halls go and we were glad that it was thrown out,” Allen said. “We feel fine about it.”
The Elections Committee recommended the Residence Halls Association and Office of Residential Living coordinate their policies regarding door to-door solicitation to avoid future confusion.