Last month’s ASUW elections have provoked some internal conflict after some candidates broke election rules concerning campaigning and changes to the ASUW constitution. Respectively, four students and all ASUW Board of Directors members are awaiting a verdict about whether they violated election guidelines.

Elections Policies and Procedures (EPP), a rulebook re-approved by the Board of Directors each fall quarter, requires that any proposed constitutional change be submitted at least 20 days before the election. This rule is in place to ensure that each side has a chance to argue its case before voting.

The amendment in question was submitted just one business day in advance, said ASUW president Tyler Dockins.

Dockins filed the complaint against the board members. He said a constitutional amendment should never have been put on the ballot.

“The measure was intended to clarify the language of the constitution about how student government is formed,” said Shawn Fisher, chair of the ASUW student senate.

In effect, the measure would increase the power of the senate, but Fisher said that power was given in an amendment two years ago. Unfortunately, the wording of that amendment left much to interpretation, Fisher said.

The ASUW Judicial Committee ruled that the deadline had passed to add the amendment to the ballot, said Alexandra Baumann, committee chair.

“The board overturned the Judicial Committee and put it on [the ballot] anyway,” she said.

Yutaka Jono, secretary of the Graduate and Professional Student Senate, said the board’s “final say on judicial matters” means they were correct in overturning the committee’s ruling.

Because the Judicial Committee had already ruled on the legality of including the amendment, and because the board itself has the ability to overturn the Judicial Committee’s rulings with a three-quarters majority, the complaints will be passed on to the Attorney General’s office, said Ehsan Aleaziz, Student Senate liaison to the Judicial Committee.

Fisher said this was an ongoing issue, and despite the fact that the amendment wasn’t approved for the ballot 20 days in advance, there was plenty of time to campaign for or against it.

The complaints were filed against Jono, Rob Barnum-Reece, Tyson Johnston and Anttimo Bennett.

“It’s kind of an awkward situation because I’m the president and I’m filing a complaint against the board that I ran with last year,” Dockins said. “But it’s a matter of propriety.”

Johnston, director of diversity efforts, said he’s been left with “serious reservations” about Dockins’ accountability.

“[Dockins] didn’t even bother to speak to any of the board members about his feelings or even mention anything about filing a complaint – and he is supposed to be our leader?” wrote Johnston, in an e-mail. “I have full faith in how I voted, and I am pleased to end my term with absolutely no regrets.”

Four other students have also been penalized for campaign violations. Three have been sentenced to five hours of community service each.

The fourth student is facing a hefty fine. Dolly Nguyen, next year’s ASUW vice president, failed to disclose $300 of campaign spending. Having no applicable EPP guidelines, the Judicial Committee based their decision on precedent. They charged Nguyen a $50 fine on top of the $233 she overspent, Baumann said.

Dockins said Nguyen’s failure to disclose was an honest mistake, but that next year he’d like to see the EPP guidelines strengthened.

“I think there are certain rules that need to be more strict,” Dockins said. “For next year, if you spend over the campaign limits, you should be completely kicked out of the race.”

Nguyen declined to be interviewed. PJ LaFemina, who opposed her in the running for vice president and filed the complaint, also declined.

This year’s total of 11 complaints (three were dismissed) is a much lower number than usual, said Baumann. Usually, there are 25 to 30 complaints per election, said Rene Singleton, an ASUW advisor.

In the past, the deadline to submit complaints was often after election results came in.