Below are the results for the Vassar Student Association Spring Elections. Tanay Tatum ’12 will serve as the next 26th President.

11:50 | Students are beginning to arrive in the Retreat for the annual VSA Elections Results Party.

11:58 | The Retreat is very full.

12:01 | VSA President Mathew Leonard ’11 is addressing the crowd. “I want to thank all the candidates who ran,” he says.

Board of Elections Chairs Samantha Allen ’11 and Aaron Grober ’11 are about to announce the winners.

12:03 | Committee Positions

Campus Investor Responsibility Committee: Travis Edwards ’12 and Kelly Shortridge ’12

Committee on College Life: Madeline Zappala ’12, John Lee ’13, Rebecca Bower ’14

Food Committee: Rachel Schorr

Campus Master Planning Committee: Carlos Hernandez ’14, Lindsey Hagarty ’13,

Campus Sustainability Committee: Tess Dernbach ’12

Campus Community Advisory Committee: Meghan Levine ’12

Admissions and Financial Aid: Seth Warner ’14

12:06 | Judicial Board: Arushi Raina and Willow Thompson ’14

Alex Koren and Max Frankel ’13

Sam Scarritt-Selman and Juliana Halpert ’12

Judicial Board Chair: Tiffany Shi ’12

12:07 |House Presidents

Cushing: Daniel Shaw

Noyes: Deborah Steinberg

Josselyn: Michael Kiel

Jewett: Clayton Masterman ’13

Raymond: Sam Brucker ’14

Davison: Doug Greer ’14

Strong: Manning Wu ’14

Lathrop:Dallas Robinson ’14

In Lathrop, there has been a tie for Sophomore Representative. The candidates will need to attend Council on Sunday night where the position will be voted on.

Main: Sienna Brown ’14

Town Houses: Alejandro Montoya ’12

Terrace Apartments: April Cha ’12

South Commons: Matthew Wheeler ’12

12:16 | Class Presidents

Sophomore Class: Michael Moore ’14

Junior Class: Vincent Marcheta ’13

The Senior class is facing a tie for president. The candidates, Pam Vogel and Alessandra Schmidt, will attend Council on Sunday night. The Council will vote on the candidates.

12:18 | Executive Board

VP for Finance: Jason Rubin ’13

VP for Activities: Michael “Mookie” Thottam ’13

VP for Academics: Kate Dolson ’13

VP for Operations: Jenna Konstantine ’13

VP for Student Life: Charlie Dobb ’13

President: Tanay Tatum ’12

7:07 | Council is about to begin.

7:12 | Attendance.

7:13 | The Elections Result Party will be on Monday, April 25 at 11:59 p.m. in the Retreat.

7:14 | President of Jewett House Mariah Minigan ’13 is asking about write-in candidates. “We got an insane flood of write-ins,” says President of the Terrace Apartments and Board of Elections co-Chair Samantha Allen. She says that they have shut in write-in candidates for now, and open positions will be filled by appointment as many of the write-in candidates did not write themselves into the voting.

7:16 | The Vassar Greens “Tap That” Presentation: The Greens have come with a powerpoint about the “Tap That” campaign, which is meant to raise awareness about the use of bottled water on campus and to promote tap water. The organized has sold over 150 water bottles at subsidized costs.

The Greens are proposing that VSA organizations should not spend money on bottled water because water is free on campus. They also cite a study from an Environmental Studies class that has indicated that tap water on campus is as safe as bottled water by EPA standards. Their new rule would be added the expenditures section of the VSA Policies.

The Council is discussing the pros, cons, and manner of exceptions to the rule should the bylaw be passed. Council members are largely in favor of the bylaw with some reservations about when it might be necessary for an organization to buy bottled water. The discussion has particularly focused on whether an exception might be made for performers who come to Vassar and request bottled water in their contracts.

“If the VSA takes a stand, it will put pressure on the College as well,” says  Vice President for Activities Tanay Tatum ’12. “If the VSA decides to do this, the College will also support it.”

“Our ultimate goal is to ban bottled water on campus, and this would be the first step,” says co-President of the Vassar Greens Ethan Buckner ’13.

President of Noyes House Jenna Konstantine ’13 suggests that organizations and houses consider making reusable bottles part of their merchandise.

7:48 | Allocation of $600 Grassroots Alliance for Alternative Politics (GAAP) from the Collaboration Fund: The motion passes.

7:50 | Motion to Decertify Student Activists Union (SAU): President of the Town Students Maya Acevedo ’11 says that SAU will be merging with GAAP. The motion passes.

7:52 | Motion to Decertify Vassar Shared Bikes: Vassar Shared Bikes was the student group that took care of the pink bikes. According to Tatum, the organization asked to be decertified. The motion passes.

7:59 | Motion to Certify Slow Food Vassar: Slow Food Vassar would be a chapter of an international organization that is dedicated to local, fair, sustainable food and to a general “way of life” that would be an alternative to a “fast food lifestyle.”

Slow Food Vassar has made food for several events on campus this year, and they say that they will decide to cater different events based on the opportunity for outreach to students about their food.

The motion passes.

8:10 | Committee on Curricular Policy (CCP) Memorandum: The student representation on CCP is being reduced from six to two as part of a restructuring of the committee that makes it smaller and, it hopes, more efficient and dynamic.

8:18 | Executive Board Report from Student Life: Vice President for Student Life Samin Shehab ’11 is discussing the conversation dinner the VSA hosted to discuss the referendum and VSA restructuring efforts. He says that he is working on the relationship abuse charge so that next year’s Vice President for Student Life can pick up the project.

The Executive Board’s next project will be training for next year’s VSA Council.

8:24 | Open Discussion: There are 28 days until Commencement.

The VSA budget will be posted outside of the VSA office on Thursday night, April 27.

According to Vice President for Finance Travis Edwards ’12, there will be no more cash advances through the end of this semester.

8:29 | New Finance Bylaws: The Council is considering amendments that would move finance allocations to the consent agenda and possibly standardize the attendance rules and meeting time of the VSA Finance Committee.  The amendments will also require that the VSA Council agendas be sent out no later than Thursday every week. The amendments are being presented and discussed tonight, but the Council will vote on them next week.

8:39 | Open Discussion: Acevedo is reminding the Council about May Day, the international workers’ day.

“Reefer Madness” will open on May 5.

Charlie Dobb ’12 announces that this week will be Sexual Assault Awareness Week.

8:44 | Motion to Adjourn. Motion passes.

7:50|  Editor-in-Chief of The Miscellany News Molly Turpin ’12 will moderate a debate between candidates for Vassar Student Association (VSA) Executive Board Positions.

The candidates are VSA Vice President for Activities Tanay Tatum ’12 running for president, Charlie Dobb ’12 and Sharon Onga ’13 for vice president of student life, Noyes House President Jenna Konstantine ’13 and Michael Mestitz ’12 for vice president of operations, Ferry House President Kate Dolson ’13, President of Jewett House Mariah Minigan ’13 and Jordan Tower ’13 for vice president of academics, Davison House President Michael Thottam ’13 for vice president for finance, and Jason Rubin ’13 for vice president for finance.

The lecture is taking place in Sanders Spitzer Auditorium.

7:59| There are 11 students in attendance in addition to the candidates.

8:02| VSA President Mat Leonard has begun the proceedings. Turpin is discussing the challenges that will face the 26th VSA Council.

Mestitz has sent a proxy, as he is currently abroad in England.

“Next year we’ll start from the ground and have more voices in the room” says Tatum of restructuring.

8:06: “What new ideas will you bring to restructuring?” asks Turpin.

Konstantine: “The big thing we need to change is trying to do things gradually and make sure people are involved from the beginning.” She wants to change how fund applications are considered as well.

Mestitz: “I’d take up restructuring again next year using student input as a starting point.” He agrees with Konstantine about improving efficiency, but maintains that major changes should be presented and revised several times before being implemented.

8:09| Turpin asks how the vice president for student life will implement the Committe on Inclusion and Excellence (CIE) Audit.

Onga: “It’s about figuring out how we can use the committees we have now and put student voices in places where they can be heard”.

Dobb: “One of the thing’s I’m really passionate about is an advisory council on inclusion. I’m hoping it would include student leaders from a lot of orgs on campus as well as at-large students… letting them put forward advice on what the VSA is doing as well as their own agenda.”

Onga plans on meeting with administrators regularly to be able to target students who want to be involved.

Dobb is also passionate about the Relationship Abuse Charge. “One of the concerns is that students aren’t coming forward, and I think it’s because the current system doesn’t serve their needs”, says Dobb. He believes showing the administration that students feel strongly about the charge will help it pass.

8:16| Minigan is discussing addressing professors who violate standards about handing back papers on time or scheduling class during study week. She wants to make a position that would serve as an intermediary between students and professors for addressing such complaints.

Dolson wants to implement a social consciousness credit, saying it’s “inherent in what Vassar is, but I feel reluctant to slap on another requirement.” She wants to create spaces to discuss the implementation of a requirement of this kind and gauge student opinion.

Tower’s main goal is allowing academic credit for labs. She says she is unfamiliar with the VSA’s history in trying to add credit for this but will familiarize herself with it and push it forward.

8:21| Turpin asks Tatum about her goals for VSA transparency.

“Having more people involved in the process from the get-go can resolve a lot of complaints”, says Tatum. “If students know what the Exec Board members’ roles are they can better know how to access them” She wants to use student surveys and town hall meetings to make the Executive Board members’ faces more public.

8:23| Thottam wants to address “overbooking” on weekends, particularly with performances by working with organizations and the administration.

8:25| Turpin asks how Rubin plans to streamline fund applications.

Rubin thinks that putting all fund applications on the consent agenda at Council meetings would be a good start.

8:26| Konstantine wants to make the governing documents more concise and avoid inconsistencies. She quotes one inconsistency between the Bylaws and Constitution on what happens if the VSA President is absent from a meeting.

Mestitz explains that committees “don’t have an idea of what other committees are doing”, and act out-of-sync on the same issues. He wants to coordinate  committees by fostering communication.

8:30| Turpin asks what Tatum will do for the final semester of Vassar sesquicentennial year.

Tatum wants to work with the Sesquicentennial Committee to bring the Poughkeepsie community to Vassar and encourage students to hold their own sesquicentennial events using VSA funding.

8:31| The floor is now open for questions from the audience.

Dobb further explains his ideas for an advisory council. He wants to include organizations that identify themselves as working towards inclusion. The council “wouldn’t be a voting body, but a conversational body.” Rather than passively allowing students to come to VSA meetings, he sees the advisory council as actively inviting the student body at large to participate in the VSA.

Onga sees an advisory council as a “band-aid approach.” She thinks that since the advisory council wouldn’t vote, they wouldn’t have power, and so instead different voices should be included in the VSA Council as full members.

Dolson plans to implement a Board of Majors’ Committee Chairs which would advice the Committee on Curricular Policy and the VSA. Minigan agrees, and adds that majors committees need to be more active. Tower also thinks it’s important to reach out to majors’ committees but says “a lot of things at Vassar happen by committee” and thinks that the student body as a whole should be engaged as well in academic issues.

Mestitz wants to hold meetings open to the student body about the governing documents a few times throughout the year. “The best possible result I could hope for is that more students start to care about the VSA”, says Mestitz.

Konstantine wants to create videos “acting out the VSA” in order to educate students about its operations.

Rubin believes in certain areas the governing documents should be left open to the interpretation of the vice president for finance, but finance committee decisions should be somewhat regulated.

Thottam wants to switch the maximums on different funds, reassess what falls into the categories of different funds, and incorporate the Bylaws into the current structure of the finance committee.

8:47|  Tower defends her stance on lab credits, citing at least 6 hours per week devoted to labs in addition to the classes they supplement, 4 hours as class time. Dolson  says she envisions lab classes as an optional half-credit with a limited amount of times used, so the system could not be abused but it could “ease the pressure” on students who take multiple labs. Minigan also sees the need for lab credits for students trying to take two or more lab classes in a semester.

“The president should be very vocal”, says Tatum. She plans to discuss issues as much as possible throughout the school year, though she says some things the president does are secret.

“VSA has the potential to really be used for change on campus,” says Dolson. She says face-to-face communication, including door-to-door surveys to get student input by reaching out. Onga also emphasizes actively telling students how they can use the VSA as a resource. She wants to encourage programming that provides spaces to discuss student issues and make sure they are well advertised. Minigan says that committee meetings as well might be better attended if they were publicized. Dobb hopes the VSA will publish a document telling the student body what the VSA can do for student issues.

Thottam mentions the survey that asked students whether the term “correlate” should be changed to “minor”as an effective, simple survey that can serve as a model. He wants to design an effective activities survey gauging what kinds of events students value or are missing.

Dobb wants to address House Team training, which he says is “cobbled together” and has a lot of gaps, including eating disorders and sexual assualt. He wants the system to be reorganized following the models of peer institutions and using input from student groups like CARES. Onga felt she learned a lot from House Team training and has found it valuable, but wants returning House Team members to voice their concerns and be active in revising the process themselves.

9:10| The debate is adjourned.Voting begins Saturday, April 23 at noon.

7:07 | The Council meeting is about to begin. Vassar Student Association (VSA) Vice President for Student Life Samin Shehab ’11 is presiding over the meeting for VSA President Mathew Leonard ’11.

7:10 | Attendance.

7:11 | Consent agenda.

7:12 | Allocation of $1200 to Vassar International Students Association (VISA) from Council Discretionary: VISA is hosting a dinner for international seniors during Senior Week. The allocation passes.

7:15 | Transfer of $1980 to the Founder’s Day Committee from Council Discretionary: The Committee needs the funds for the movie rights to Mary Poppins, which it will screen on Founder’s Day as well as for the set up of the movie screening on Sunset Hill and other general set up costs on the day. The Founder’s Day Committee is an internal VSA group rather than a VSA organization, which is why this is deemed a transfer instead of an allocation. The rain location for the movie screening will be UpC. The allocation passes.

7:21 | Executive Report from Vice President for Operations Ruby Cramer: Cramer is addressing the referendum and its appeal. “We felt that we had to go through every last step to pursue this to the end,” she says. “That whole process really showed us as a body that those conversations are really helpful…We’ve gotten more students talking about the VSA than I’ve ever seen.”

“I just want to thank everyone for coping with us through that process.”

Cramer says that Matthew’s Follies, a variety show, will be on the Friday before Founder’s Day, April 29. Cramer is giving a preview of some of the acts in the show, including performances from singing groups and athletic teams.

Cramer adds that about half of the planned Sesquicentennial merchandise is now on sale in the College Bookstore.

The Poughkeepsie bus will officially be servicing Vassar, though the exact date is as yet unknown. The VSA will continue to provide service to the mall and train station on the weekend.

A comprehensive website of Vassar committees will be online soon.

Cramer adds that the All School Gift is going very well, but says that representatives need to continue their efforts to reach out to their constituents about the gift.

7:34 | Open Discussion: Vice President for Activities Tanay Tatum ’12 notes that many positions are still uncontested in the upcoming spring elections. Filing for spring elections will end tomorrow, Monday, at midnight.

7:37 | Motion to adjourn. The motion passes.

The Judicial Board will hear an appeal to its ruling yesterday that last week’s referendum vote was unconstitutional tonight at 7 p.m in College Center 204. The appeal has been brought to the Judicial Board by the Board of Elections (BOE). The hearing will be open to the public, while the final Judicial Board decision will be closed.

The Board of Elections is contesting what it views as a lack of precedent for the Judicial Board’s ruling that the option to abstain would need to be printed on the ballot in order for the referendum to be valid. As the appeal states, “Under the courts ruling, the entire VSA council along with the Judicial Board and all other elected officials have not been legitimately elected. During the fall election cycle of 2011, there was no mention of abstentions anywhere on the ballot or at any point during the voting process. ”

Because of the appeal, filing for spring elections has been postponed until tomorrow, April 13.

The full text of the appeal is below:

As per Article IX.5.A of the Constitution, the respondent would like to file an appeal on two counts.

The respondent believes that procedural rights were violated with regards to the decision being founded on evidence that was not mentioned by either party during the trial. The Board acted nostra sponte (on its own initiative), something which is improper. It is the Board’s job to interpret the evidence provided to it, never to make its own. In this instance the Board addressed a question raised by no one and supported by no evidence provided at trial. Regardless of whether the court is correct, it chose to actively incorporate new evidence on its own initiative, a decision which is almost always held to be a reversible error on appeal in general courts.

Moreover, the respondent believes that there is new evidence that needs to be taken into account during this assessment. This evidence is drawn from a dialogue that took place during the widely attended Operations Committee meeting on April 4^th. This dialogue was not mentioned during the trial as the evidence and interpretation used by the court to make its final decision was never included in the trial.

As the judicial board correctly points out, Article VI.8.F of the bylaws was the basis for the Board of Elections’ final decision. Given the importance of this article, the definition of an abstention came up several times during the Operations committee meeting. Initially, the members of the Judicial Board who were present stated that an abstention option would have to be placed on the ballot for the vote to be valid.

The judicial board acknowledges in their memorandum that “To be clear, this subsection (VI.6.A) does not preclude the Board of Elections from declaring that ‘not voting’ is an ‘abstention.’” The Operations Committee came to the consensus that “not voting” has always been declared an abstention by the Board of Elections. This consensus was based on the precedent established by every VSA election in the past three years. There has never been wording on a VSA ballot that states that a non-vote is an abstention. Furthermore, there has never been an option to abstain on any VSA general body vote.

Under counsel from the members of the Judicial Board present, the Operations Committee recommended to the BOE that “a simple majority, not including abstentions,” was sufficient to pass the amendment and that a “non-vote” can be defined as an abstention.

Finally, it is important to note that the Judicial Board’s decision (although in concordance with the bylaws) goes against several years of precedent. As mentioned before, there has never been an explicit mention of abstentions in any election in the past three years. The BOE made their decision based on the precedent of previous elections. Under the courts ruling, the entire VSA council along with the Judicial Board and all other elected officials have not been legitimately elected. During the fall election cycle of 2011, there was no mention of abstentions anywhere on the ballot or at any point during the voting process. As such, if the Judicial Board believes that the court is correct and chooses to enforce the court’s interpretation of “abstention” than the current judicial board would be inconsistently applying that definition.

According to an e-mail from Judicial Board Chair Shouvik Bhattacharya ’11 sent via Vassar Student Association President Mat Leonard ’11 at 12:46 a.m., the four members of the Judicial Board hearing the complaint against the constitutionality of the recent referendum regarding amendments to the VSA Constitution unanimously voted in favor of upholding the complaint.

Leonard has confirmed that he has received an appeal to the  Judicial Board’s decision. Therefore, filing for spring elections will be postponed until Wednesday, April 13.

“Just to give an update, as of this evening, I have recieved an appeal for tonight’s judicial board ruling. Therefore, filing will be further delayed until after the appeal can be heard,” he wrote in an email at 1:47 a.m. “Updates will be given as soon as information is available.”

In the email, Bhattacharya listed the reasoning behind the Board’s decision. Because the VSA Constitutional language applicable to referenda not supported by the VSA Council—Council voted down the amendments—did not specify a simple majority of voters or a voter threshold, the Judicial Board had to turn to language in the VSA Bylaws on referendum votes. The bylaws suggested that a simple majority of the VSA is required to pass a referendum, leaving out abstentions. The Judicial Board found that if the act of not voting could be counted as an abstention then the referendum would have been Constitutional, however, they found language to contradict this interpretation in the Bylaws applicable to general elections, which require “abstention” to be a choice on the ballot:

“All General Elections ballots shall allow voters to vote in the order of their preferences for up to and including the number of candidates running for any given position. These ballots shall include the names of each candidate in random order and a space or instructions for abstention. An unopposed race shall include the name of the candidate, a space for “no,” and a space or instruction for abstention.”

Overall, the decision was consistent with the Judicial Board’s earlier recommendation that 51 percent of the entire VSA (the whole student body) would be required to pass the referendum rather than a simple majority of voters. Citing concerns of practicality and lacking a published precedent for establishing a voter participation threshold, the Board of Elections (BOE) had then decided that the amendments could be ratified by a simple majority of voters.

While there was no active precedent for a voter threshold, in the spring of 2009, the VSA Council did pass legislation requiring 50 participation in a referendum vote. However, this language was lost last year and never officially published within the VSA’s governing documents. Because the language had not been public to the student body, despite being passed in Council, the Judicial Board deemed early in the referendum process that it could not be used. 30.5 percent of the student body voted in the recent referendum between Thursday, April 7 and Saturday, April 9.

The full text of the e-mail is below:

On Monday April 11^th 2011, the Judicial Board heard a case where a member of the class of 2013 brought the following charge against the VSA Board of Elections:

“The VSA Board of Elections’ decision to require a simple majority of participating voters and not a majority of all members of the VSA is a violation of the VSA Constitution.”

In a unanimous vote, the four sitting Judicial Board members have upheld the charge and declared the decision of the Board of Elections to consider a simple majority of participating voters to be not in compliance with the VSA Constitution and the Bylaws. In reaching this decision the Judicial Board used the following reasoning:

• Per Article VI.1.B of the bylaws: “[The Board of Elections] Shall conduct and oversee all elections and referendums through reasonable interpretations of the VSA Constitution and VSA Bylaws.” Reasonable interpretation was the guiding principle in the Board’s decision.
• Explicit language concerning referenda on constitutional amendments is found in Article XIV of the VSA constitution:

Section 1: Amendments to the Constitution

A. Any member of the VSA may propose amendments to the VSA Constitution to the VSA Council. The VSA member proposing an amendment must submit it to the VSA Vice President for Operations prior to bringing it before the Council.

B. A two-thirds majority vote of the VSA Council is sufficient initially to amend the Constitution. A vote may take place at the meeting following that in which the revision is introduced.

C. Following an amendment, the VSA Vice President for Operations must notify the entire student body of the change, and the number of signatures necessary for a referendum, via posting, as well as providing one to any student upon request. The amendment stands if a period of two weeks passes, and a written objection is not presented to the VSA Executive Board.

D. If there is an objection(s) signed by at least 5% of the VSA membership, then the VSA Council must call for a referendum vote to be conducted by the Board of Elections. A simple majority of those casting ballots, regardless of abstentions, shall be required to either pass or defeat the amendment.

E. Any proposed amendment not supported by the VSA Council may be brought to a referendum with a petition signed by 15% of the VSA.

• The complainant stressed that the present decision of the board of Elections should be in relation to subsection E. Subsections C and D, which also contain language pertaining to referenda, do not apply here. He contended that section D relates to referenda based on an objection to an amendment passed by the VSA Council. The Judicial Board found that the distinction between C and D operating as a unit, and E operating on its own was a reasonable interpretation. The language of referenda in D applies specifically for the case in which there is an objection to an amendment passed by the VSA Council. In this case the referendum did not pass the VSA council, so the question of objection does not arise. Thus, we are dealing exclusively with subsection E.
• A consideration of subsection E leads us to the bylaw found in Article VI.8.F of the VSA Bylaws:

In a referendum vote, the article shall be deemed to have passed if a simple majority of the VSA has voted in favor of the article, not including abstentions.

• The decision in this case hinged on the interpretation of “abstention.” If the governing documents define “abstention” as “not voting,” the Board of Elections would be in compliance with the VSA governing documents.
• However, per Article VI.6.A of the VSA Bylaws:

All General Elections ballots shall allow voters to vote in the order of their preferences for up to and including the number of candidates running for any given position. These ballots shall include the names of each candidate in random order and a space or instructions for abstention. An unopposed race shall include the name of the candidate, a space for “no,” and a space or instruction for abstention.

• This subsection clearly provides for language on abstentions. While the dominant sense of the subsection might appear to be related to candidate elections, there is a clear provision for “including a space or instruction for abstention” in Voting Forms in general.
• To be clear, this subsection does not preclude the Board of Elections from declaring that “not voting” is an “abstention.” However, in this instance, the Board of Elections disregarded this provision on abstentions entirely, and in so doing, they did not fulfill their mandate of a comprehensive, reasonable interpretation of the governing documents as set out in Article IV.1.B of the Bylaws.

The Judicial Board wishes to clarify that in this finding the merits of the amendments themselves were deemed irrelevant. Additionally, the Board is not making a determination about a single interpretation of Article VI.8.F of the VSA Bylaws. Rather, in reaching this decision, it wishes to open up the possibilities of Article VI.6.A of the bylaws in informing Article VI.8.F.

Per Article IX.5.A of the Constitution:

The Judicial Board shall have the authority to retry cases on appeal from the original Judicial Board decision in the case that substantial new evidence exists and/or the procedural rights of the respondent or complainant were violated.

If either the complainant or respondent believes there is substantial new evidence or that procedural rights were violated, (s)he can submit a petition for a rehearing to the VSA President.

Sincerely,

Shouvik Bhattacharya

Judicial Board Chair