Request to SC to investigate election

[Kaseido_Quandry]

Dear SC Members:

I request that the SC investigate a breach of our law: In a forum post dated May 13 (http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 069#p15069), Sonja Strom announced:

I have given all of the candidates the ability to send notices to the CDS group, with the one exception of Joaquin Gustav, who is not a member of the CDS group. I have sent an IM to Joaquin asking him if he would like to join the group in order to also have this ability.

.

This action, in the context of the elections, seems intended to encourage candidates to violate both the election law passed by the RA and the election procedures promulgated by the SC. Two candidates took advantage of this provision: whether they did so in good faith reliance on an act by the Chancellor is at least arguable, and I do not call for an investigation of a breach of election laws by them.

However, the Chancellor's action seemed intended to, and in fact did, result in breaches of the election law. This action would seem to demonstrate a contempt for the laws the Chancellor took an affirmation to uphold, and a contempt especially shameful in the context of laws designed to ensure a free and fair election, the cornerstone of any democracy.

I request an SC investigation, and suggest that Sonja Strom be banned from holding public office in the CDS for a time no less than one year from the date of the SC's decision.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Quoting from SC procedures :

In order for the SC to begin action on an item, a CDS citizen must file a petition with the Dean.

Any CDS citizen may file a petition

...

B. A petition alleging fault in the actions of a CDS citizen or government official. Absent written consent of both the petitioner and respondent, the SC lacks standing to address disputes between individuals which do not stem from existing CDS code or covenants.

....
A Petition of type B must include
* The identity (avatar) of the alleged transgressor(s)
* The code or covenant that is alleged to have been violated.
* The remedy sought
.... When a Petition of type B is filed, a copy shall immediately be forwarded to the alleged transgressor(s). They shall have 5 days to submit a written response to the petition. At the end of the five day period, the petition and any response(s) shall be published.

I'm sure the Dean will inform us when the petition has been forwarded.

[Ranma Tardis]

Excuse me, but how did this prevent a "fair" election? I find the CDS laws even more confusing than US Federal code! Of course was it a law or constitution change? There is no one place to see what the current law happens to be. I find this to be much more of a problem then letting them make statements using group notices. They all had the same chance to do this action. So again how did it make the election unfair?

[Kaseido_Quandry]

I'm sure the Dean will inform us when the petition has been forwarded.

Thank you for informing me of the correct procedures. I am sending notecards containing compliant language to the members of the SC and to the accused now.

[Kaseido_Quandry]

Excuse me, but how did this prevent a "fair" election? I find the CDS laws even more confusing than US Federal code! Of course was it a law or constitution change? There is no one place to see what the current law happens to be. I find this to be much more of a problem then letting them make statements using group notices. They all had the same chance to do this action. So again how did it make the election unfair?

Ranma:

Every candidate received a note from the Dean of the SC informing them in very clear and direct language what campaigning activities were and weren't permitted. Sonja took it on herself in a forum thread to give candidates the *ability* to violate the new election law if they wanted. Two did, 13 didn't. The two who did had an unfair advantage given to them by the Chancellor in clear violation of the law.

How can I say it was in clear violation of the law? Sonja did it *in a thread by the SC Dean* that *announced the new procedures based on the law.* (http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 069#p15069) It doesn't get much clearer than that. Only those candidates who saw her forum post, or were notified by her personally, knew they had this ability. I was not one of those people: I had no knowledge of her action until two candidates posted group notices.

It's to the credit of the other 13 candidates that they chose to respect the *law* over an illegal action of the Chancellor.

You'll note that both the candidates who used this ability won, with fairly large margins, while two of the 13 who obeyed the law did not. Now there's no way to prove that their posts gave them a margin to push law-abiding candidates out. Still, that's exactly what an "unfair advantage" looks like.

And, whether it did in fact or not is beside the point. The point is, the Chancellor knew what the law was, and publicly violated it. End of story.

[Cindy Ecksol]

You'll note that both the candidates who used this ability won, with fairly large margins, while two of the 13 who obeyed the law did not. Now there's no way to prove that their posts gave them a margin to push law-abiding candidates out. Still, that's exactly what an "unfair advantage" looks like.

This is quite a bold statement, and one that contains at least one inherent fallacy despite its surface "truth." You've just taken two facts ("Candidates A and B won with large margins" and "Candidates A and B posted notices") and tagged them together as effect and cause respectively with no data to show any such relationship.

But following along on this fallacious trail you're leading us down, I'm interested to know how you view the fact that two OTHER candidates who had notice posting privileges when the rest of us did not (and used them) also won by wide margins. And of course each of them posted twice, not just once. Seems to me that THAT was the "unfair advantage" that prompted Sonja to equalize the playing field by granting similar privileges to all candidates. The fact that you and others chose not to exercise the privilege that was granted does not mean that those of us who did so choose were in any way out of line. And I'd laud Sonja for realizing that the RA's unreasonable interference in the campaign was blocking appropriate campaign communications and creating an unfair situation rather than bringing her up on charges of interfering with the RA's authority.

Cindy