The winners of the 2006 Student and University Assemblies elections were announced at yesterday evening’s S.A. meeting in the Straight’s Memorial Room.
For the U.A.-at-large seats, the winners were Ethan Russell ’08, Opal Hammer ’07, Jules Marwell ’08 and Katie Whalen ’07.
For the S.A.-at-large seats, the winners were Vincent Hartman ’08, Katie Duch ’09, Kwame Thomison ’07 and Carrie Bodner ’07.
For the S.A. College of Arts and Sciences seats, the winners were Mark Coombs ’08, Sarah Boxer ’07 and Maddie Ehrlich ’09.
For the S.A. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences seats, the winners were Adam Gay ’08 and Sarah Santana ’08.
For the S.A. College of Engineering seats, the winners were Grace Leonard ’09 and Neal Nisargand ’07.
For the S.A. College ofArchitecture, Art and Planning seat, the winner was Daniel Budish ’09.
For the S.A. School of Hotel Management seat, the winner was C.J. Slicklen ’09.
For the S.A. College of Human Ecology seat, the winner was Elan Greenberg ’08.
For the S.A. School of Industrial and Labor Relations seat, the winner was Ryan Lavin ’09.
For the S.A. International Liaison-at-large seat, the winner was Ahmed Salem ’08.
For the S.A. Minority Liaison-at-large seats, the winners were Shivaun Deena ’08 and Roger Gousse ’08.
For the S.A. LGBTQ Liaison-at-large seat, the winner was Calvin Selth ’07.
The Clean Slate ticket picked up ten seats on the S.A. and one seat on the U.A., while University Voice won seven S.A. Seats. Two of the U.A. winners were independent of either ticket.
The Elections Committee of the S.A. met Wednesday evening in a closed session to hold hearings on the challenges, which were due by noon on that day. The hearings ran until 2:30 a.m., according to David Cameron, interim assembly coordinator for the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly and the Employee Assembly.
“All candidates [who were subjects of complaints] had a chance to hear the evidence against them,” Cameron said.
Although he declined to comment on the outcomes of any individual challenge, Cameron explained that the committee had three possible decisions on each complaint: to rule that there was no violation of the election regulations; to rule that a minor infraction had occurred; or to rule that a major violation had been committed. Candidates could be dismissed after having been found to commit either one major infraction or “a combination” of minor infractions.
On the whole, the Clean Slate ticket and its members filed “a lot more” complaints than their counterparts on the University Voice ticket, Cameron said. He said that approximately 34 challenges were filed this year, up from 25 last year. Only those complaints that the committee actually ruled on and were not dismissed or withdrawn were released yesterday.
The challenges ran from the mundane – violations on posting notices and campaigning in residence halls – to more serious allegations of physical and verbal harassment between candidates.
As of last evening, the committee had ruled on 21 of the challenges. The remaining ones that were not dismissed or withdrawn were decided yesterday in another session of the committee that was held before the public S.A. meeting.