Two weeks after the 10-member group known as P.E.D.R.O. was disqualified from the Associated Student Inc. (ASI) elections, seven candidates saw the ruling overturned on Wednesday.
Dr. Paul Oliaro, vice president of student affairs, stated in a memorandum that he looked at the individual allegations made against candidates.
In total there were six brought to the table in regards to P.E.D.R.O. violations.
Allegation one was in regards to Tom Boroujeni, a candidate for president, placing a poster within 100 feet of a polling station. The group of P.E.D.R.O. chose not to protest this first one.
The second allegation was filed by the group Students Who Deserve More, which claimed that Jonathan Thompson, running for a senate position, was campaigning within 100 feet of a polling station, located in front of the Kennel Bookstore.
However, the P.E.D.R.O. group measured the distance to which Thompson stood from the polling station and found to be 133 feet.
After protesting, the ruling was overturned by Oliaro.
The only other appeal that was sustained was allegation six, which was an Election Code violation, Election Code 3.9, that prohibited “a rally referencing a candidate on an election day.â€Â
Oliaro, in the same memorandum, said that upon reviewing his decision, he did not find “any definition what ‘rally’ wasâ€Â and concluded that “the action described in the allegation would more likely fall under the category of formal and informal campaigning in section 3.2 of the Election Code,â€Â and therefore the allegation was sustained.
Oliaro went on to say that because the Election Code does not sufficiently clarify how to address these types of issues and because not all candidates disqualified were directly related to the incidents, he has decided to uphold his decision to disqualify those who were directly connected to the violations.
For this reasoning, as well, he stated that he has overturned the decision of disqualification for those that were not involved.
Oliaro said that he will be sending out a separate memorandum to the ASI senate and to the Election Commission “urging them to review the Election Code and Student Court by-laws,â€Â so that any future challenging decisions might be avoided.
As for those candidates who took the disqualified students̢۪ positions, Oliaro said that he does feel bad.
“In reality they didn’t lose their postion,â€Â Oliaro said.
“The results don’t become official until two weeks after elections.â€Â
Although the violations were overturned, Oliaro said that he didn̢۪t come to the decision easily.
“It was a very difficult decision,â€Â Oliaro said.
“We hold in high regard student votes and voices. It’s hard even to get students out to vote, so when you overturn that vote, there needs to be some very, very compelling reasons as to why.â€Â
By Megan Poindexter and Melissa Knopp / The Collegian
No to student fees • May 11, 2009 at 12:07 am
student of 09 you should have read what alumni of 88 posted. Just by the structure of the words you used, you are part of the useless leftover mess that the slow death of fresno state suffers from. Its too bad you probably never have read that book.
No to student fees • May 11, 2009 at 7:07 am
student of 09 you should have read what alumni of 88 posted. Just by the structure of the words you used, you are part of the useless leftover mess that the slow death of fresno state suffers from. Its too bad you probably never have read that book.
Student of '09 • May 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm
As this situation comes to a close, I am very sad to see how it has ended up. I have watched these elections very closely, and have noticed some odd occurrences. One was that The Students Who Deserve More campaign was very strategically savvy, almost textbook; it looked like they had a pro running their campaign. The PEDRO slate did a well job campaigning as well but found to have a few glitches; first it is suicide to run with ten people, you are bound to have some loose cannons especially in the leadership. Deserve More ran with three which is about the most you can run together to achieve anything. The election code is not to the standards it should be, but you still should run as close to them as possible. A slate should be held accountable as a whole for the violations. Each candidate where or not he/she participated gained an unfair advantage by having their posters up in unlawful areas. PEDRO’s argument was that the opposing campaign put them up. I think this is the most ridiculous statement I have heard, why would the opposition help the other campaign. The Students Who Deserve More campaign got one violation for having ONE poster in a wrong area, while PEDRO had 10+ posters up in unlawful areas, yet now they were not penalized for all of them. Looking into the future of ASI I believe that the PEDRO candidates will cause nothing but trouble for ASI and hopefully they will not ruin the program. Dr. Oliaro only over turned the results so these nut jobs wouldn’t sue the school, so he gave them some crappy positions on the Senate. Heck Tom who ran for president is still friends with these people and Tom’s wife already sued ASI once. What’s the future look like for ASI…..nothing but hassles with PEDRO in the offices!!
Student of '09 • May 10, 2009 at 10:03 pm
As this situation comes to a close, I am very sad to see how it has ended up. I have watched these elections very closely, and have noticed some odd occurrences. One was that The Students Who Deserve More campaign was very strategically savvy, almost textbook; it looked like they had a pro running their campaign. The PEDRO slate did a well job campaigning as well but found to have a few glitches; first it is suicide to run with ten people, you are bound to have some loose cannons especially in the leadership. Deserve More ran with three which is about the most you can run together to achieve anything. The election code is not to the standards it should be, but you still should run as close to them as possible. A slate should be held accountable as a whole for the violations. Each candidate where or not he/she participated gained an unfair advantage by having their posters up in unlawful areas. PEDRO’s argument was that the opposing campaign put them up. I think this is the most ridiculous statement I have heard, why would the opposition help the other campaign. The Students Who Deserve More campaign got one violation for having ONE poster in a wrong area, while PEDRO had 10+ posters up in unlawful areas, yet now they were not penalized for all of them. Looking into the future of ASI I believe that the PEDRO candidates will cause nothing but trouble for ASI and hopefully they will not ruin the program. Dr. Oliaro only over turned the results so these nut jobs wouldn’t sue the school, so he gave them some crappy positions on the Senate. Heck Tom who ran for president is still friends with these people and Tom’s wife already sued ASI once. What’s the future look like for ASI…..nothing but hassles with PEDRO in the offices!!
Alumni of 88 • May 9, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I agree, even when i was a student over many years ago, there was so much controversy over the student codes and how they are written. Not to add other administratve “rules” Your voice is slowly being kept silent even with the library construction. Do all students have access to the 4th floor? Will your concerns to the President really reach that high? Students never really bother to look at them or challenge them and i commend these students for having the audacity to take on such a task. They are doing what other students are incapable or otherwise too afraid too step up and do. If anyone is reading this get the book “The Slow Death of Fresno State by Kenneth Seib (1979) You will understand how the University was constructed to keep students such as this PEDRO slate, outside the University gates. Belive me students the community is watching, so are us old Alumni, but its up to you currently enrolled to make a difference.
Alumni of 88 • May 9, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I agree, even when i was a student over many years ago, there was so much controversy over the student codes and how they are written. Not to add other administratve “rules” Your voice is slowly being kept silent even with the library construction. Do all students have access to the 4th floor? Will your concerns to the President really reach that high? Students never really bother to look at them or challenge them and i commend these students for having the audacity to take on such a task. They are doing what other students are incapable or otherwise too afraid too step up and do. If anyone is reading this get the book “The Slow Death of Fresno State by Kenneth Seib (1979) You will understand how the University was constructed to keep students such as this PEDRO slate, outside the University gates. Belive me students the community is watching, so are us old Alumni, but its up to you currently enrolled to make a difference.
dw • May 8, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The Election Code has been an embarrassment to this campus for too many years. It has been used and abused to disenfranchise students for over 20 years. I agree with Dr. Oliaro–it’s time to overhaul the code and that joke called Student Court. I’d go one step further–Long Beach needs to send the auditors in and investigate the current crew in power.
dw • May 8, 2009 at 11:55 pm
The Election Code has been an embarrassment to this campus for too many years. It has been used and abused to disenfranchise students for over 20 years. I agree with Dr. Oliaro–it’s time to overhaul the code and that joke called Student Court. I’d go one step further–Long Beach needs to send the auditors in and investigate the current crew in power.
Jared Harper • May 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm
poor Julianne….. your bias clearly shows in your comments. Did you not read?
those students did all the proper things necessary to have thier rightful seat in the ASI student government and yet persons such as yourself feel its ok to overpower progressive intelligent students, you should read the By-laws. Read the story again and read the last paragrpah that Dr. Oliaro recommends….ASI NEEDS to re-evaluate its bylaws and regulations. You cannot hold those students accountable for rules that do not exist on paper. Another note, its is not ok to punish an entire group for a violation if it is not written in the bylaws, and it should be that way.
Jared Harper • May 8, 2009 at 9:49 pm
poor Julianne….. your bias clearly shows in your comments. Did you not read?
those students did all the proper things necessary to have thier rightful seat in the ASI student government and yet persons such as yourself feel its ok to overpower progressive intelligent students, you should read the By-laws. Read the story again and read the last paragrpah that Dr. Oliaro recommends….ASI NEEDS to re-evaluate its bylaws and regulations. You cannot hold those students accountable for rules that do not exist on paper. Another note, its is not ok to punish an entire group for a violation if it is not written in the bylaws, and it should be that way.
Julianne Phillips • May 8, 2009 at 2:12 pm
The truth is, the decision to disqualify the entire group was one that should have been upheld. All of their names and all of their pictures were used in their campaign, and they all deserved to be punished.With so much publicity in this campaign surrounding the fact that students had organized and decided to run together it is only logical to believe that when any member of the group acts on behalf of that group they will all be penalized. They should have been more careful and given more thought to who lined up behind. Poor jusdgemnet and lack of decision making skills should not be rewarded, nor are those the people who should be leading our student body.
Julianne Phillips • May 8, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The truth is, the decision to disqualify the entire group was one that should have been upheld. All of their names and all of their pictures were used in their campaign, and they all deserved to be punished.With so much publicity in this campaign surrounding the fact that students had organized and decided to run together it is only logical to believe that when any member of the group acts on behalf of that group they will all be penalized. They should have been more careful and given more thought to who lined up behind. Poor jusdgemnet and lack of decision making skills should not be rewarded, nor are those the people who should be leading our student body.