Editor’s Note: Jack Bartholet was not a member of the editorial board this week and thus was not involved in the discussion, writing or editing of this editorial.
Zappone was disqualified for violating two of the CSE bylaws. The first, Article IV.2.f.viii, prohibits candidates from campaigning in closed groups, such as a secret Facebook page. The second, Article IV.2.f.vi, mandates that candidates address each recipient by name when sending messages electronically. The CSE report detailing its findings, decision and explanation for the ruling was sent to the student body on Tuesday, after the election results (with the disqualification) were announced Monday. The CSE described how it concluded that Zappone’s actions undoubtedly violated the committee’s rules. And frankly, the Editorial Board sees no issue with the CSE’s decision. It was the manner in which these violations were brought to the CSE’s attention that has the Board, and the general student body, split.
Bartholet, running against Zappone for the vice presidency, presented these allegations to the CSE for review. By finding a rule violation and taking action, he did not technically break any rules — in fact, he acted in order to ensure that all rules were being followed. However, because Bartholet was Zappone’s only opponent, the entire situation has become a controversy. While some argue that Bartholet acted logically and was in the right for bringing the violations to the committee’s attention, others find the situation unsettling; though Bartholet technically did nothing wrong, his actions leave a bitter taste in some people’s mouths.
The Editorial Board itself was unable to come to a consensus on its feelings toward Bartholet’s actions. While some of us believe what Bartholet did was not only legal but absolutely justified, others find the whole situation unsavory. (We understand, too, that many are uncomfortable with this newspaper endorsing one of its own and find that situation unsavory, even if not technically objectionable.) There is something about a candidate tattling on his opponent that just feels wrong, even if no one can argue its legality. The Editorial Board recognizes that it is this sentiment — one that we ourselves have difficulty putting into words — that is shared by many in the student body. Normally, we require ourselves to come to a consensus on an issue before presenting an editorial on it. In this extreme case, we determined it was important to be truthful: We’re split.
While we could not agree on how we feel about Bartholet’s actions, we were able to agree on another, arguably more important issue: Zappone’s disqualification. At the end of the day, Zappone was found to have broken two CSE rules, and because of that, she was disqualified. While many in the student body have called for an exception to be made because Zappone beat her opponent by 247 votes (340-93), the Editorial Board remains firm in saying that a rule is a rule. Yes, Zappone was overwhelmingly supported among the small percentage of the student body that voted, but the rules are not in place on a conditional basis. The rules are meant to ignore the details of the situation — the implicated people, the difference in votes, etc. — in order to be fair and unbiased. Zappone could have had the entire student body’s support (though she only had around 6 percent, but that is beside the point) and the Editorial Board would still have firmly supported her disqualification. We are united in the fundamental belief that violation of the rules should result in immediate action. If Bartholet had broken the rules, we would have advocated for his disqualification. Our feelings have nothing to do with the people involved and everything to do with our respect for the rules the CSE deemed worthy enough to put in place. For those questioning the value of these specific rules, we encourage you to read the CSE statement in full.
Moreover, as a candidate for Executive Vice President, Zappone, more than nearly anyone else, had a responsibility to fully know and understand the rules. While it may seem that the rules she broke are minor or easily forgotten, the fact of the matter is they were broken. Furthermore, Zappone and every other candidate running for SGA Executive Board was reminded of their responsibility to adhere to each and every rule — not just the “important” ones and not only if they won by less than 247 votes. To the Editorial Board, this situation regarding Zappone’s disqualification is entirely black and white. Based on its decision, the CSE seems to feel the same way. It really came down to a simple question: Did Zappone violate CSE rules? The investigation determined the answer to be yes. From there, there was no doubt about what the decision should have been.
