Jana Stewart, Student Government Association vice president, was disqualified from the homecoming elections yesterday due to infractions she committed during the elections as ruled by the Judicial Board. Stewart said she will appeal the Judicial Board’s ruling and submit a letter to Eugene Dial, vice president of student affairs, and Stephen Hulbert, University president, requesting a suspension of penalty until an appeal is heard in accordance with the rules in the Student Code of Conduct.
According to a Judicial Board memo, the Board ruled 3-0 that: Stewart did commit infractions during elections, the violations did warrant judicial board action and she would be disqualified. The memo stated that a full and detailed report was unable to be compiled due to time sensitivity of the issue.
Azadeh Alavi, acting Judicial Board chair, said she was not in the position to answer any questions before an official report is released, concerning: the precise charges, the ruling’s determining factor or whether accusations were confirmed with additional evidence. The report will be presented at the Nov. 5 SGA meeting.
Mickey Diez, Judicial Board adviser, said there is nothing in the election code to mandate when the official report needs to be released, but it has been customary for them to make it available at the next SGA meeting. Diez said there was not enough time to type up the report for yesterday’s SGA meeting.
Deborah Raziano, homecoming chairperson, said no other woman will be selected as a homecoming court maid to fill the position. “I made the decision out of respect for Jana,” she said. “A new girl would not have any chance of being selected queen or to participate in activities; it just would not be fair.”
Raziano said this is the first time in her 16 plus years as chairperson that such an incident has occurred.
The ruling resulted from a Judicial Board hearing Tuesday between Heba Algazzar, an SGA senator, and Stewart.
Louis Gardner, SGA director of student rights and grievances, represented Stewart.
Algazzar said a student approached her concerned that Stewart was helping students to get online in her office to vote and not leaving the office while they voted. Algazzar, acting as a representative for the anonymous student due to her position as an arts and sciences senator, stated the case against Stewart.
Stewart’s action is in direct violation of the Election Code because she turned on the computer for the students to vote, according to the Judicial Board. This is considered to be acting as a commissioner of the election. Alavi said the election code applies to all candidates in honorary and political elections.
Algazzar said, “Also, the student said she overheard Jana talk about the number of election votes.”
Algazzar approached Judicial Board member Jade Campbell, who asked for the student to meet with her to file a written complaint. The student never met with Campbell. Algazzar filed a written complaint herself with the Judicial Board, as Campbell recommended.
Algazzar said she asked some students who were in the SGA office at the time and SGA secretary Elaine Musso what they had witnessed.
“When I went to SGA’s office to ask Mrs. Elaine certain questions about it, it seemed like Mrs. Elaine did not want to tell me it was Jana,” Algazzar said. “She was telling me the answers, and she just broke out into telling me it was Jana.”
Algazzar said Musso did not notify the Judicial Board because she is not a student, and it was not her place to do so.
Stewart admitted she brought five people into her office to vote the Monday of the first elections, Oct. 13. “I did not ask any of them to vote for me,” Stewart said. “I did not persuade them. I did not stand over their shoulder and watch them vote.”
Stewart said computers were not set up in the Student Union for student use at the time, so she was trying to help them by allowing them to vote after getting their PINs.
“I knew better than to stand over their shoulders and watch,” she said. “But, I did not know what the election code said.”
Stewart said she may have walked into her office to get something during the time that the five people were voting, but to the best of her knowledge, she did not believe she did.
“I did not realize I was breaking a rule at the time,” she said.
Stewart said Musso confronted her and told her what she was doing was wrong. “She said ‘Jana, you are not supposed to do that. It is almost like you are being a poll worker, you should not be doing that’,” Stewart said.
According to Stewart, Musso explained why what she was doing was wrong, and Stewart then stopped allowing people into her office to vote.
“I made a mistake. I did not receive a copy of the election code for this,” Stewart said. “The last time I had even heard of the election code was last spring when Eliza Traigle (Judicial Board member) read it at the elections for SGA offices.”
Algazzar spoke with Stewart’s roommate, Heidi Vincent, marketing senior from Sulphur, about the issue and a phone conversation between Stewart and Jaret Hubbell, SGA president, Tuesday, Oct. 21.
Vincent said she told Algazzar that Stewart was upset.
“Jana was crying because she felt bad for letting three (Editor’s note: Stewart admitted to five) people vote and said she would have to turn herself in to the Judicial Board,” Vincent said.
The following day, Wednesday, Stewart reported her actions to the Judicial Board.
Before the hearing took place, Stewart took it upon herself to give Algazzar the opportunity to give her the letter she had sent to the Judicial Board. Algazzar said Stewart approached her to tell her nothing could be done about the situation because she had not followed proper measures for filing a complaint. Algazzar did not send a letter to Stewart explaining the charges.
The election code states that all infraction complaints must be filed in writing with the Judicial Board chairman and the person being charged within three school days upon closure of the polls. Gardner said this was not the case.
“As of Friday afternoon we hadn’t received a copy,” Gardner said. “We received our first copy of the (infractions) being brought against her with the notification from the Judicial Board.”
Stewart is appealing to the Judicial Board because this procedure was not followed.
Concerning the second complaint against Stewart, she said she never knew how many people voted for her. “I still do not know who voted for me or how many people voted for me. It’s impossible for me to know that,” Stewart said.
On Monday, Oct. 13, Tom Bonvillain, director of academic computing, called Hubbell and told him how many people had logged on to vote. Stewart said she left a message for Bonvillain that Wednesday asking for an update on how many people had cast a vote. Bonvillain left a voice message for Stewart with the number of people who voted.
Stewart said she didn’t think about it not being in her authority since the Judicial Board, which is over elections, did not have those numbers. She thought it was common knowledge.
“The Judicial Board is the only one that’s allowed to have the numbers and the statistics on elections,” Alavi said. “So that was out of (her) jurisdiction.”
Stewart agreed with that statement and said she didn’t think that was out of bounds and was just getting information for the Senate.
Alavi said the statistics concerning the votes for the amendments are public knowledge after the election is over.
The Board deliberated after the hearing and yesterday before making a decision.
“While I know in my heart I didn’t break the codes on purpose, the Judicial Board did their job,” Stewart said. Stewart said she couldn’t say if this was a fair punishment or not because she has not been given any explanation.
She said none of the homecoming nominees were given a copy of the election code, and she didn’t look it over. “My mission is to make sure this doesn’t happen to another person and that the Judicial Board gives a copy to all nominees before the election,” she said. Stewart said those running for SGA elections are given a copy but she doesn’t remember every aspect of the election code.
The election code was not updated since online voting was adopted. Alavi said in the past, the Judicial Board looked at the election code after every election and made adjustments to better the process.
Alavi said they were not approached by those implementing online voting to change the code.
When Stewart was asked if she thought the situation got personal since she was an advocate for the Election Commission, which removes the election responsibilities from the Judicial Board, Stewart said, “no comment.