Gavel graphic. SoIeiI de Zwart // AS Review
Editorial Note: This story is an accumulation of statements from the Elections Appeals Panel and statements from the parties involved. We obtained documents to begin writing the story on Tuesday, June 9 and ended our jobs on Friday, June 12. We typically spend two to three weeks on each story we put out. As journalists, we at the AS Review prefer to get the story right than to get it first. Here is what we have.
By Stella Harvey
The Associated Students Elections Appeals Panel overturned the Elections Board’s decision to disqualify AS President-elect Nate Jo, VP for Governmental Affairs-elect Nicole Ballard and VP for Sustainability-elect Nora Harren. According to their decision, which was released on June 12, Jo, Ballard and Harren are reinstated as members for the 2020-2021 Executive Board.
The Elections Appeals Panel convened on June 10 to review the Elections Board’s decision to disqualify Jo, Ballard and Harren. The Elections Board, which is made up of members of the student body, held a grievance hearing on June 4 after Abdul-Malik Ford, who ran for AS president, filed grievances alleging that the aforementioned candidates each reposted an unapproved endorsement from Shred the Contract, a student club.
Ford’s grievance, which is included in the Election Board’s grievance decision documents, alleges that when each candidate reposted the endorsement they violated Section IV, E, of the AS Elections Code.
Section IV, E, of the Elections Code, which explains how student organizations can properly endorse candidates, states that AS clubs and hall councils “may sponsor events where all candidates for a particular position are invited to participate.”
In his grievance, Ford states that Shred the Contract did not hold a meeting before making their endorsements, and by posting the endorsement on their campaign’s social media, Jo, Ballard and Harren broke the code. The Elections Board ruled that Jo, Ballard and Harren broke the elections code by reposting the endorsement, and disqualified all three candidates, according to the Election Board’s grievance decision documents.
All three candidates appealed the Election Board’s decision. In individual interviews with The AS Review, Jo, Ballard and Harren all stated that the code does not specify that clubs must hold meetings before making an endorsement, only that if they hold an event, all candidates must be invited. Jo, Ballard and Harren said they appealed the Election Board’s decision because they feel they did not break the AS Elections Code.
In an email to the AS Review, Elections Board Chair Nathalie Wagler said that Ford’s grievances were initially dismissed. Wagler said after the board dismissed the grievances, she learned new information regarding Ford’s claims, and she discussed the situation with Eric Alexander, who is the associate dean for student engagement, director of the viking union and Wagler’s advisor as the Elections Board Chair. Wagler said together, they decided to move forward with a formal grievance hearing.
The Appeals Panel Hearing
Per the election code, the AS Elections Appeals Panel consisted of the current 2019-2020 Executive Board members, unless specific members had conflicts of interest. AS VP for Student Life Emily Gerhardt chaired the panel, while Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services Melynda Huskey and Assistant Attorney General Melissa Nelson advised the panel.
On June 11, the Elections Appeals Panel and their advisors held a closed-door meeting to discuss the hearings and make a final decision regarding if the Elections Board followed the correct procedure in their grievance hearing, and if their decision is supported by the record.
In each of the hearings, Jo, Ballard and Harren gave a 10-minute verbal testimony where they each presented a document outlining why they appealed the Election Board’s decision. Ford also gave a statement during each hearing. Each party’s statements are attached below with a list of the general statements they made during the hearing. Western’s community can view a recording of the Appeals Panel hearing from June 10 here.
Abdul-Malik Ford’s statement and documents sent to the Elections Appeals Panel, and additional statements he sent to the AS Review after the Appeals Panel hearing on June 10.
- During the hearing, Ford provided a screenshot of a text exchange between himself and AS Elections Coordinator Ina LaGrandeur asking if student organizations needed to hold a meeting before endorsing a candidate, to which LaGrandeur replied that they did.
- Ford stated that as the AS Elections Coordinator, LaGrandeur’s interpretation of the code is the final ruling. Ford said therefore, Jo, Harren and Ballard broke the code when they reposted Shred the Contract’s endorsement, because the group did not hold a meeting prior to making their endorsement.
- Ford stated that Jo, Ballard and Harren did not reach out to LaGrandeur regarding the vague language in Section IV, E of the Elections Code. Ford said if the candidates had any reservations regarding the code, they should have reached out to LaGrandeur before reposting the endorsement.
- Ford stated that the AS President race was decided by 18 votes, and the VP for Sustainability race was decided by 13 votes. Ford also stated that because Shred the Contract had a following of over 900 students at the time, their endorsement could have decided both elections.
- Ford stated that he filed his grievances on May 9 because LaGrandeur and Program Coordinator Annie Byers did not send him the grievance forms in time. Ford included a screenshot in his appeals documents of an email he sent to Byers on May 9 with six documents attached. Jo, Ballard and Harren stated that Ford filed his grievance on May 6 and 7. Ford said that these forms and the process of filing grievances were not available to the candidates. Ford said he did not receive the grievance forms until May 9.
- Ford stated that the Elections Board decided to hold a formal grievance hearing after they initially made a decision to dismiss Ford’s grievances because they received all of the information from Annie Byers and LaGrandeur. Ford cited an email from Elections Board Chair Nathalie Wagler, which states that in order to be fair to Ford, the Elections Board decided to hold a formal hearing to address Ford’s grievances.
- Ford stated that according to Section IV of the Elections Code, LaGrandeur could have submitted a grievance herself regarding the concerns he brought up to her about Shred the Contract’s endorsement.
- Ford stated that members of the Elections Board were biased in favor of Jo, Ballard and Harren, and should have recused themselves from the decision-making process.
AS Elections Coordinator Ina LaGrandeur declined to comment.
Nate Jo’s statement and documents sent to the Elections Appeals Panel.
- In their statement, Jo stated that Section IV, E, of the Election Code does not state that clubs must hold an event in order to endorse a candidate, only that they may hold an event, and if they do host an event, they must invite all candidates running for a specific position.
- Jo stated that it is impossible to establish that the Shred the Contract endorsement was the only reason why particular students voted in favor of endorsed candidates.
- Jo stated that multiple members of the Elections Board were biased in favor of Ford, and they should have recused themselves. Jo also stated that these members were added to the Elections Board after Ford filed his grievance.
- Jo stated that LaGrandeur was incorrect when she told Ford that clubs had to hold an event before endorsing a candidate. Jo also stated that LaGrandeur’s interpretation of the code is not the final rule. Jo stated that themself, Ballard and Harren cannot be held responsible for a private text message that was sent to one candidate, and not shared with any other.
- Jo stated that the Elections Board violated the grievance process outlined in Section VI of the Elections Code, which states that a grievance must be filed a day after a candidate is aware of a potential violation. According to Jo, since Shred the Contract posted their endorsement on May 5, Ford needed to file a grievance by May 6. While Ford provided a screenshot of his email submitting his grievances to Byers on May 9, Jo claimed that Ford’s grievance was not filed until May 11. Jo stated that because Ford’s grievance against them was filed late, it should not have been considered.
- Jo stated that since the Elections Board initially dismissed the grievance according to an email between LaGrandeur and Wagler, there should have never been a formal hearing regarding Ford’s grievances.
- Jo stated that Eric Alexander, who is the Associate Dean for Student Engagement, Director of the Viking Union and advisor to the Elections Board Chair, did not properly assist the board. Jo stated that Alexander should have advised Wagler to properly follow the procedures outlined in the Election Code.
Nora Harren’s statement and documents sent to the Elections Appeals Panel.
- Harren stated that Section IV, E, of the Election Code does not state that clubs must hold an event in order to endorse a candidate, only that they may hold an event, and if they do host an event, they must invite all candidates running for a specific position. Harren stated that she did not break the Elections Code.
- Harren also stated that LaGrandeur was incorrect when she told Ford that clubs had to hold an event before endorsing a candidate.
- Harren stated that the grievance process was stated in the Elections Code, and therefore, Ford had access to the processes and deadlines.
- Harren also stated that multiple members of the Elections Board were biased in favor of Ford, and they should have recused themselves. Harren also stated that these members were added to the Elections Board after Ford filed his grievance.
- Harren also stated that the Election Code states in Section VI that a grievance must be filed a day after a candidate is aware of a potential violation. Harren said that since she reposted Shred the Contract’s May 5 endorsement on her Instagram story, which would have expired May 6, Ford needed to file a grievance by May 7.
- Harren also cited the Elections Code, which states that grievances will only be accepted through May 12 at 5 p.m. While Ford cited a screenshot showing that he sent Byers his grievances on May 9, Harren cited a screenshot from an email where Byers states that she did not receive Ford’s grievance until after 5 p.m. on May 12. Harren claimed that the Elections Board violated the grievance process by considering Ford’s grievance against her because he sent it in late.
- Harren stated that Ford’s grievance against her is not legitimate because the Elections Board initially dismissed the grievance, according to an email between LaGrandeur and Wagler. Harren said there should not have been a formal hearing because Ford’s grievance was not filed on time.
- Harren stated that herself, Jo and Ballard did not receive Ford’s grievance until after the grievance hearing, so they were not able to prepare for the hearing on June 4.
- Harren also stated that Alexander, the advisor to the Elections Board Chair, did not properly assist the board. Harren stated that Alexander should have advised Wagler to properly follow the procedures outlined in the Election Code.
Associate Dean for Student Engagement, Director of the Viking Union and the advisor to the Elections Board Chair, Eric Alexander, declined to comment.
Nicole Ballard’s statement and documents sent to the Elections Appeals Panel
- Ballard stated that she did not break the Elections Code because Section IV, E, does not state that clubs must hold an event in order to endorse a candidate. Ballard said the code only specifies that if a club does host an event, they must invite all candidates running for a specific position.
- Ballard said that at a mandatory meeting where LaGrandeur reviewed the Elections Code with all of the candidates, Ballard did not recall the code requiring clubs to host an event before making an endorsement.
- Ballard stated that the Elections Board violated the grievance process outlined in Section VI of the Elections Code, which states that a grievance must be filed a day after a candidate is aware of a potential violation. Ballard stated that since Shred the Contract posted their endorsement on May 5, Ford needed to file a grievance by May 6. While Ford provided a screenshot of his email submitting the grievance to Byers on May 9, Ballard claimed that Ford’s grievance was not filed until May 11. Ballard stated that because Ford’s grievance against her was filed late, it should not have been considered.
- Ballard stated that since the Elections Board initially dismissed the grievance according to an email between LaGrandeur and Wagler, there should not have been a formal hearing regarding Ford’s grievances.
- Ballard stated that the Election Code states that a formal grievance hearing should take place within four days after the grievance is filed. Ballard said the Elections Board did not follow this rule.
- Ballard also stated that several members of the Elections Board were biased because they had publicly stated their support for Ford’s campaign. Ballard stated that these members were added to the Elections Board after Ford filed his grievance.
- Ballard stated that herself, Jo and Harren were not able to prepare for the hearing on June 4 because they did not receive Ford’s grievance until after the grievance hearing.
- Ballard said that she won the election for VP for Governmental Affairs by more than 600 votes. Ballard said even if Shred the Contract’s endorsement impacted the results of her election, it would not have changed the election results.
Statement Abdul-Malik Ford sent to the AS Review
“I would like to acknowledge that my attempts to reach out to the AS Review organization were silenced, and believed to not warrant a story based on my accounts as a Black student who is facing this system. My story was made invisible when your Chief Editor decided that it did not warrant a story. The email by SoIeiI deZwart turned my story into a conditional situation where I would only be heard if the grievance board made a decision out of accordance to her opinions. This is a failure of the AS Review, who are supposed to be “objective.” If I were a white student, my voice would be heard, amplified, and published, not reduced to the recommendation of an opinion piece. I am a current student senator that is a part of the Associated Students Organization and I deserve to be heard. Your primarily white organization is playing at the helm of institutional racism. The executive board released a statement committing to dismantling anti-Blackness. This picture below is not in accordance to that commitment.
This is my statement. If you are to use my name in any of your publications, I request that you include it. ”
Response from the AS Review Editor-in-Chief
Ford reached out to The AS Review regarding a story on the grievance hearings. During the time of correspondence Ford said the AS Elections Board decided that no rule was broken in the grievances that Ford filed. After reaching out to the AS Elections Coordinator for more information on the Elections Code, the AS Communications office responded, rerouting the AS Review to file a public records request for any information on the Elections Board and the grievance hearings. At this point there were less than two weeks before the end of the quarter and records requests can take up to two or three weeks to be filled. This was not a story we could cover without those key documents and without a hearing taking place.
Our reasoning for moving forward with this story after responding to Ford to say we wouldn’t be covering it, was that we were able to obtain key documents from a different source on Tuesday, June 9. Without those documents originally, we as journalists could not move forward with the story. After receiving the necessary documents we began work on the story, during finals week.
We offered the opinion piece to Ford to give him a platform to speak on, since we as journalists could not cover the story without the proper documents.
We have a staff of six people, we’re all students and we are restricted from working more than 19 hours per week. We performed our jobs to the best of our abilities under a major time constraint while we were all taking finals.
Logistics aside, I am very sorry to Ford for making his situation feel conditional, that was not my intention. I am sorry for silencing and dismissing his voice on this matter. I will be more transparent about our reasons for not having the capacity to cover a story and use more conscientious language in the future.