After an hour of often heated discussion, GUSA voted at its weekly meeting Wednesday to table the certification of the GUSA freshman representative election results pending further investigation of alleged derogatory events that occurred during the campaign.

The motion not to formally approve the victories of Mike Barrett (COL ’06), Octavio Gonzalez (COL ’06), Mariana Kihuen (COL ’06) and Dan Monico (COL ’06) in the Oct. 8 elections passed unanimously with one abstention. In an extended period of debate beforehand, GUSA representatives and students in attendance expressed concerns that some candidates had been unfairly and maliciously targeted during the campaign and that further investigation was needed to ensure that none of the elected candidates had been involved. According to the GUSA bylaws, the Assembly must approve the election results for all or none of the candidates and cannot approve some at different times than others.

“We are disappointed that the recent elections for Student Association representatives from the Class of 2006 have been affected by allegations of wrongdoing,” GUSA President Kaydee Bridges (SFS ’03) and GUSA Vice President Mason Ayer (SFS ’03) said in a written statement. “We both wish to reassert our commitment to fair elections and condemn the perpetration of acts of intolerance and hatred.”

Gonzalez filed the only official complaint of the campaign with the GUSA Election Commission before the 8 p.m. Election Day deadline, as stipulated in the GUSA bylaws; the complaint centered on a mock flier that had been put up making fun of his name. The Election Commission received several informal complaints, however, in the days before the election, Election Commissioner Ramya Murali (SFS ’03) said. Many of these reported incidents were of fliers being taken down or mock fliers being put up making fun of candidates or mimicking their official fliers.

Murali said she had also received complaints that people connected with some of the candidates’ campaigns had been overheard making ethnically offensive comments, but the people who had allegedly overheard these remarks did not report the incident in person to the Election Commission office.

“Was the validity of the election results compromised [by these incidents] – no,” Murali said. “Were some of the [informal] complaints filed against people who won – yes. Would further investigation into this change the results of the election – it’s distinctly possible that it would.”

According to GUSA bylaws, only campaign problems that occurred on Election Day can delay the approval of new candidates, since complaints about incidents occurring beforehand were required to be reported by 8 p.m. that day. Tabling the motion, however, will allow the GUSA Constitutional Council to look into the matter and hear any complaints before making a recommendation to the GUSA Assembly about whether or not to approve the freshman representatives. Students wishing to express complaints have until this Friday at 5 p.m. to submit them to the Office of Student Programs, Murali said.

Sophomore representative Luis Torres (COL ’05), who sponsored the motion to delay the vote was the first to raise concerns after Murali presented the election results to the Assembly.

“I would rather wait and have no cloud of suspicion over the election than approve the results now,” he said.

Sophomore representative Nazareth Haysbert (COL ’05) agreed. “There were discrepancies in this campaign, and the atmosphere on this campus has not been the most conducive to [looking into] that,” he said. An important consideration, he added, was if “any of the points of inquiry concern people connected with this election.”

Subsequent discussion centered on how to address election complaints after Election Day without violating GUSA bylaws and if GUSA should form special committees to look into current and future election situations.

“The question is, are there things within GUSA that need to be changed so this type of situation doesn’t happen again?” Senior Representative Trey Street (SFS ’03) said. He suggested creating “a special working group on rules and ethics” to deal with this kind of issue.

Students not affiliated with GUSA also attended the meeting; all the chairs in the Leavey Program Room were filled by the time the election discussion got underway.

Tiffany White (COL ’05) said she felt GUSA should take concrete measures to address the situation. “This type of thing should not have happened at all . If we sit back and let it go, there are many other organizations on campus that are going to do something about it,” she said.

Torres expressed similar resolve. “I refuse to sit here and say that whoever it was, whatever they said, can get away with it,” he said. “This is going to put a cloud on the candidates and this assembly.”

“If the election wasn’t fair, how was it valid?” Vice President of the Black Student Association Veronica Root (MSB ’05) asked Murali. She added that even though Murali said all candidates had been notified about the Election Day deadline for filing complaints, some candidates may not have properly understood the procedures for doing so. “The freshmen were informed, but they may have been confused,” she said.

Other students felt the representatives should be approved despite the controversy. “If you did not make your complaints – sorry. That’s what the bylaws are there for,” said a freshman who identified himself as a staff member in one of the losing campaigns. “Now a candidate you didn’t want to win has won, and that makes you uncomfortable.”

“As upsetting as it is, I don’t see any other mode to deal with this than approving the results now and working on preventing this in the future,” senior representative Matt Hopkins (COL ’03) said.

Mike Barrett, who ran on one ticket with Dan Monico, argued for approving the election results at the meeting. “I would definitely question the validity of election results if one group of candidates was [ethnically] profiled,” he said. “But there were problems waged against every single campaign on a racial level, on every level. I don’t see how that disrupts the validity of the election . It’s more constructive for us to certify the results and get the class of 2006 represented on the Assembly.”

Some students also questioned the 5 p.m. Friday deadline set by urali. Root was among those who advocated unsuccessfully for students to have additional time to send in their complaints.

In order for a candidate to be disqualified from the election at this point, evidence must show that a candidate or a member of his or her staff violated the Student Code of Conduct, in which case the matter would be brought before the University’s Office of Student Conduct as well. If a candidate or candidates were disqualified, the candidate or candidates who received the next highest number of votes would take the position.

As written in the university’s Speech and Expression policy in the Code of Conduct, “Expression that is indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual preference is inappropriate in a university community, and the university will act as it deems appropriate to educate students violating this principle.”