Last week, I told you I would review the processes employed in the recent student election, which resulted in the disqualification of two Revolution Party Tri-Executive candidates. I trust that the CU Student Government is able to administer its own election processes. However, allegations of bribery surfaced shortly after voting ended, which set in motion judicial and executive reviews to ensure the integrity of the student election.
In situations demanding further review, CU Board of Regents laws, specifically Regent Policy 7B, states that student government is "responsible to the chancellor of that campus."
Hence, I decided to review this year's election process and completed the review this week in conjunction with the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the university's legal counsel. As I promised, I conducted this review without giving preference to any of the candidates. My goal was to ensure we have a transparent and reliable process that conforms to university policies and procedures, and that campus elections are open and fair.
After reviewing the evidence at hand, I have decided to reinstate the original election results in which the Revolution Party candidates garnered the most votes. I therefore determine that Madalena DeAndrea, Marcus Fotenos and Colton Lyons will serve as Tri-Executives. This morning, campus administrators informed the current academic year tri-executives and the CUSG chief justice of this decision. They are in support of this decision.
I am guided by the presumption that election results accurately reflect the will of voters, in this case the students who participated in the election. Any decision to disqualify a candidate who has prevailed in an election negates votes cast by thousands of students.
I am also guided by the principle that CUSG has the ability to define standards of conduct for candidates and administer its election processes in accordance with those standards. Nothing in my decision should be read as negating those standards of conduct or the expectation that candidates will comply with them. Nor should my decision be read as a determination that any of the student leaders who participated in the election process or the subsequent proceedings acted inappropriately. All of the evidence before me is that those students acted in good faith and to the best of their abilities to reach their determinations.
However, the student government's election code provides rights to candidates who are accused of misconduct, and I believe it is imperative that the Election Commission and the CUSG Appellate Court must adhere to the processes and guarantee the rights of the candidates.
In this case, the processes were not administered in a manner that meets the high standards necessary to disqualify a prevailing candidate. For example, the election code guarantees a candidate accused of misconduct the right of cross examination, but that right was not consistently available in the proceedings before the Election Commission.
The election code also required the Election Commission to make individual findings on each element of an alleged offense against each candidate, but the Election Commission did not make these findings.
Because of these uncertainties, I cannot confirm that the evidence meets the clear and convincing standard required for a finding of misconduct. Although the CUSG Appellate Court attempted to remedy these deficiencies, an appellate process cannot cure a pre-existing infirmity.
Consequently, rather than upholding the results of the Election Commission and the CUSG Appellate Court, I must instead restore the result of the election as expressed through the votes of the students. None of the errors that I have identified should call into question the integrity of those who participated in the processes, as there is no evidence that they were biased or intentionally disregarded any requirement of the election code.
While those errors lead me to conclude that the election results must stand, I commend everyone who participated in these processes and served their fellow students. The CUSG, the Election Commission and the CUSG Appellate Court deserve our respect and appreciation.
Lastly, I do believe that the CUSG election procedures merit review. I will ask the CUSG representatives, prior to the next election, to collaborate with the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs to review and revise their governing documents as appropriate, both to clearly define the expectations of conduct for candidates and to ensure that the electoral process produces fair and equitable results.
Sincerely,
Philip P. DiStefano
Chancellor
University of Colorado Boulder
