With the many criticisms and claims that Tufts Elections Commission (ECOM) has had against this spring's Tufts Community Union (TCU) presidential candidates' campaigns, ECOM has left a somewhat ugly trail of its own. While the Daily has supported some of the outcomes of controversial decisions made by ECOM this campaign season, we are unwilling to condone the processes by which these judgments came about.
ECOM's major criticism of this year's presidential campaign was of incoming TCU President junior Sam Wallis' exceeding of the campaign expenditure limit of $750 by purchasing a plane ticket to fly back to Tufts from Israel — where he has been studying abroad — in order to participate in the presidential debate against opponent Lauren Levine, also a junior. In a statement posted on the ECOM website, ECOM Chair Sharon Chen, a sophomore, explained that while ECOM understands Wallis' reasoning for overspending, it must take action against his campaign in order to eliminate the possibility of creating an unjust precedent. But if ECOM is going to be stringent about following procedures, it must also act in accordance with its own.
Thus far in the election, ECOM has managed to pay no heed to some of its own bylaws, as well as implement some questionable, though not outright illicit, practices. The controversy over Wallis' purchase of a plane ticket back to Tufts was only the start of the lack of information provided to those involved in the campaign process. Wallis should have been informed immediately of ECOM's decision to prohibit him from spending any more on campaigning; instead, he found out five days later.
More recently, voters found out only upon opening the online ballot for the TCU election that four referenda would be voted on yesterday instead of during a May 3 special election — which ECOM previously said would be the case. After considering the implications that this move would have on voter turnout for the referenda, we supported the proposal to include the referenda on the presidential ballot instead of holding a special election. However, we remain galled by the fact that this decision was not announced to students ahead of time. While putting the referenda on the ballot may have been the right move, deciding to put the referenda on the ballot at the last minute without informing the student body at all was not. In ECOM's defense, the decision was made quickly and supported by both the TCU Judiciary and outgoing TCU President Brandon Rattiner. Still, there seems to be no excuse for not at least placing the relevant information on the ECOM website days ahead of time in case this decision was reached. The language of the referenda was decided on long before the election, and the Senate agreed even before that on what the referenda would include. There seems to be no reason for not having posted at least the content of the referenda on the website sooner.
Additionally, when the referenda were added to the ballot, it was not made clear that referenda 3 and 4 were opposing referenda, and both were passed during yesterday's vote. Now the TCU Judiciary must make a ruling regarding which of the two referenda actually passes, if any. If ECOM had been more clear about the fact that these referenda could not both be passed, this problem would not have arisen.
Since one of ECOM's major responsibilities is facilitating the TCU presidential election each year, it is ludicrous that its website is not kept up to date during the week leading up to the election. While basic information on the election, including candidates' photos and links to their websites, have been available, the page titled "Current Election" states, "there are no elections at this time." As ECOM has stressed over and over again that its goal is to maintain a fair election, perhaps its members should consider practicing what they preach and communicating with the student body and with the candidates.
