Students filled the A.S. Senate meeting on Wednesday amid allegations of bribery made against the Inter-Fraternity Council
Miles Ashlock, the assistant dean and director of the Office of Student Life, speaks to A.S. Senators during public comment Wednesday. Kenneth Song/Daily Nexus
After the Associated Students Elections Board called for a “re-vote” of the entire Spring Election ballot on Tuesday, pointing to alleged bribery by the Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC), a packed room of students at Wednesday’s A.S. Senate meeting presented contrasting opinions.
In an “unsolicited letter” from the IFC president, the board said it found information that the IFC gave “monetary incentives” to students who voted in the Spring Elections by awarding philanthropy grants to chapters that received high voter turnout. The board released a statement regarding the allegations on Tuesday morning.
Brendan Gonzalez, IFC president, submitted a letter to the Nexus Wednesday in which he said that the IFC consulted with the Office of Student Life prior to developing the grant program. In the letter, Gonzalez said, “The IFC has been unequivocally transparent about these grants,” and said he received information from administration that “many other UCSB campus organizations have used similar programs.”
“We made this clear … this grant was not based on who you vote for,” Gonzalez said on Wednesday evening. “I encourage people to look at both sides.”
As of Wednesday’s Senate meeting, the Elections Board is still recommending that all executive and Senate positions, fee initiatives, fee reaffirmations, constitutional amendments and Campus Elections Committee initiatives once again go through the voting process, potentially modifying the results of last week’s election.
According to Kimia Hashemian, A.S. internal vice president and fourth-year sociology major, the senate does not currently have the power to call for a “re-vote.” If they choose to pass such an amendment, the senate would have to draft a new policy within a week to create guidelines for future use.
“I personally don’t see that the constitution has been broken. It does say in the constitution that all students have the right to vote in the election,” Hashemian said. “There is no precedent to this, and there’s no policy at all; in a sense it could be argued that it comes down to whatever the senate decides.”
However, Hashemian said students could separately present the issue to A.S. Judicial Affairs and the A.S. Elections Committee. If a student petition were to be created, Hashemian said the Elections Board would have “full jurisdiction” in taking further action.
Inter-Fraternity Council president and UCSB second-year student Brendan Gonzalez listens to questions from A.S. off-campus senator Akshaya Natarajan during public comment at the A.S. Senate meeting in Corwin Pavilion. Kenneth Song/Daily Nexus
Miles Ashlock, assistant dean and director of the Office of Student Life, received a copy of the letter Gonzalez sent to the Elections Board.
“Personally, if I thought that what they were discussing were a bribe, that’s something I would have intervened upon,” Ashlock said on Wednesday.
During a Senate meeting on Wednesday evening, Avery Chamberlain, chair of Elections Board, said the IFC’s plans were unethical, because they created measures to hold students accountable for submitting votes.
“These frats were asking people to bring their voter receipts … everyone’s vote should be anonymous,” Chamberlain said.
Speaking to the senate on Wednesday, Joseline Garcia, current A.S. student advocate general, said the governing body was not in a position to make further decisions about the allegations.
“I don’t think Senate should be the one making this decision right now,” Garcia said. “I don’t think Senate can be unbiased right now.”
The A.S. Elections Board believes the alleged bribery “skewed the results” of the A.S. elections and demonstrated that “members of the IFC decided that certain votes meant more than others.”
“UCSB consists of over 900 organizations, and not every organization has access to such funding to offer incentives to their members,” the board’s initial document states. “IFC’s actions posed a threat to the conduct of fair elections and if no action is taken in regards to this situation, it would be perpetuating the belief that votes can be bought and sold.”
University News Editor Maura Fox contributed reporting.
A version of this story appeared on p. 1 of the Thursday, April 28, 2016 print edition of the Daily Nexus.
I can see both sides of this one. I don’t know if bribe is necessarily the right word since I fully believe that there was no emphasis placed on who votes were cast for. But, demographics play a key role in any election, no matter how small the voting population. Incentivizing one demographic to vote and not others would give specific candidates an unfair advantage.
Then again, though, when voting is as easy as logging in and clicking a few buttons… how can you say some people were disenfranchised when they choose not to vote?
I never said they were disenfranchised? I said one group was incentivized while others weren’t. Those are entirely different.
So what? There are always groups that are more incentivized than others to go vote. The teachers union goes and votes because a candidate says she will put an emphasis on education if elected. The NRA goes and votes because a candidate says he will protect the 2nd amendment if elected. If the side that lost wants to complain that this is unfair, maybe they should spend more time campaigning and winning people over than hoping voter apathy will be on their side…
If you look at the people who actually won, you’ll realize that they’re not even qualified. Neha Nayak never set foot into AS before this election and she won against Stevan Abdamalik, who has worked his butt off on the state level with UCSA for years. Stevan campaigned his ass off too. I spoke to him myself, he did 18 class raps and 8 org meetings in one day. The next day he did 7 org meetings only for the sake of self-care. Don’t talk like the people who didn’t win didn’t campaign hard and didn’t work on communicating with… Read more »
maybe, just maybe, people don’t care about how hard you worked, and care more about your views. believe it or not, most people here are moderates, and don’t care about batshit crazy social justice warriors that are the response who walk around and flaunt their ethnicity or genderfluidness or whatever. yes these groups might be the loudest, most active, constantly protesting and getting in your face, and in some cases, shutting down opposition by being crybullies, but they do not represent the majority of student population, and they didn’t get elected because of that. they are so delusional and butt… Read more »
UGH, your first two paragraphs are irrelevant and also show you don’t care about democracy at all. The person with the most votes wins. That’s it. I am tired of people and their sense of entitlement when it comes to positions in A.S. It also doesn’t matter if you work your ass off when no one one knows what you do–and actually that’s a general problem in A.S. The truth is campaigning doesn’t start at election season… Not saying you go around and say vote for me starting in September… but you go out and get to know people and… Read more »
The difference is that Stevan is actually an asshole and is not a likable guy at all. CU ran a better campaign. Period. Their literature is better, their shirts are better, their logo just look more professional, events such as the concert and the geofilter are the final nails in the coffin. At the end, they’re just the ones who looked the most competent
They also happen to have more funding to be able to have better materials…
The philanthropic grants in question would be put into Fraternity chapter accounts, administered by OSL, and their checks receipts to make sure the purchases are within campus regulations. Fraternities hold events such as SigEp’s Surf and Turf that offer food and entertainment (such as a band) and requires a ticket or wrist band. They don’t have to be open to the public, but since it’s a philantrophy, most events are open to anyone to generate more ticket sales. These philanthropy grants would be (since the alleged ‘bribery’ has not even taken place in terms of a transfer of funds) transferred… Read more »
Bye Jerel
Nope, you’re about three years late. Jerel’s been doing a good job at exposing these petty attempts for a scandal and finally unraveling Marisela’s bias. Taught him well.
In my opinion any material or tangible object donated by a third party with clear connections to a running party given to potential voters is a form of voter buyout. You have to remember who is giving the material. Politicians accept payments from organizations to form policies all the time. this is just a step earlier in that. CU slates are almost all greek. Of course it is in the interest of the IFC to provide higher voter turnouts to the party with the most GREEK SLATE which is CU in this case. The president elect is in Greek. The… Read more »
Doesn’t matter. It is not in the election code. If you want to make that a policy moving forward, that is another matter. Otherwise it is incredibly unfair to invalidate the election just because someone else merely feels it was unfair. You can’t make up the rules as you go along.
Well, I’m sure the people who created elections didn’t think we’d end up as corrupt as Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. We’re only in college and look how we’re throwing money around for votes. No one thought it would come to this.
I’m scared to see what’ll happen if these people end up in REAL offices someday if they’re already this manipulative at such a young age.
lol way to blow things out of proportion comparing ifc giving people incentive to vote to watergate scandal
can the response be anymore of a sore loser?
Are you serious?! Did you just compare this to Nixon?! Guess what the difference is AND THE EASIEST REBUTTAL TO MAKE… the stuff that happened at Watergate WAS illegal! The people who made the laws and elections did anticipate that and that is why Nixon and his people went down for it! The stuff with IFC is not in the rule book. You don’t like it, push a bill at Senate for next year!
A member of IFC ran, Pres had close connections to candidates. Harmless but when something like this happens you really can’t ignore it.
But you can’t actually do anything because there is no code for it. Invalidating the election might actually be what is against the rules here…
*ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Beautiful
how is this any different from IV Drip giving out free cookies for showing your “I Voted” sticker on election day? IFC did nothing wrong
People want a revote, give them a revote.
No, The 50 people who showed up against this, 40 of them Response members, want a revote.
I don’t want a revote.
butthurt loser want a revote, not people
SJW kooks who lost, didn’t like it, now whining. There’s nothing in Elections Code saying this is illegal. This is no big fucking deal.
I don’t want a revote either. It’d set a horrible precedent