By Staff
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but eight wrongs together are an exception. That was the case for the four tickets of presidential and vice-presidential candidates for last spring’s Student Government Association elections.
Recent allegations brought forth by SGA members against current president Peter DiSilvio have led to numerous other complaints that other candidates in the 2006 election also violated campaign rules.
The infractions mainly concern the maximum spending limit of $500 set forth in the SGA’s Election Rules and Regulations and whether the value of items donated by campaign supporters must be included in the final total. Such donated items would include flyers printed by other clubs, as well as T-shirts, buttons, Web sites and other promotional material that candidates did not have to pay for out of their pockets thanks to generous supporters. According to SGA election rules, “financial endorsements are subject to said spending limits,” but it is unclear on whether this refers strictly to cash donations or whether the value of donated items should be included. Another section of the rules reads that, “the featured market value of ALL items given or sold to perspective voters shall be included in the said spending limit.” This is where the candidates run into some trouble.
Take the flyers that were plastered throughout campus. According to sources, presidential candidate and current SGA comptroller Joseph Napoli ran off more than 100 campaign flyers using the photocopy machine at the Office of Computer Students, an organization that chose to endorse him and his running mate. When news of Napoli’s stunt reached other members of SGA, the candidates rushed to the election commission, which deemed Napoli’s actions permissible. Naturally, what followed was other candidates found organizations and departments on campus to help them print additional flyers for free, including president DiSilvio who ran off an extra 1,600 photocopies without having to report the receipts to the elections commission.
This bending of the rules led to other creative ways of bypassing the written rules in hopes of gaining an edge over their opponents.
The election commission is supposed to make sure the election is fair in that no one candidate, because of their access to resources or a large budget, gains a major advantage over any of the other candidates. In the end, the DiSilvio-Duncanson ticket did not have any greater advantage over any of the other candidates. The elections commission did their job of keep the playing field level and fair. Virtually all the candidates were equally given “get out of jail” cards and when one candidate’s questionable behavior was allowed, it basically opened the door for the rest of them to do the same. It was a case of monkey see, monkey do, that probably would’ve continued indefinitely if a winner had not been chosen.
So while the commission upheld the essence of the rules by making sure no candidate has an unfair edge over the rest, they failed at enforcing the rules. Even DiSilvio admitted that, “if you follow the letter of the law we’d all be disqualified and Ben and Grant would have another turn.”
A major source of contention in SGA, and any government for that matter has been in how written rules are interpreted. This election showed that the rules are too vague. How can candidates be sure they do no violate if the rules if they do not fully understand their meaning or if the meaning changes depending on who sits on the elections commission? Reforms should be made. Maybe donations should be allowed, but also limited to a certain amount, separate from the main line of spending.
So what about our president? Is he guilty of breaking the rules and if so, is that worthy of demanding his ouster? Depending on who is interpreting the rules, the answer to the first question can vary greatly. However, like all the candidates, DiSilvio became caught up in the moment, was inspired by his supporters and followed the spirit instead of the letter of the law. This past election was the most successful in the history of Hofstra, generating the greatest turnout. All the candidates are to thank for this. Their efforts, whether legal or not, according to SGA law, accomplished a very difficult feat at Hofstra. They got students to care, mainly because they showed they truly care for students. Maybe rules are made to be broken, or at least fudged a little.
