By SARA BERGQUIST

sbe007@latech.edu and

LYDIA EARHART

lee003@latech.edu

 

 

In a 4-2 vote Tuesday night, the Student Government Association Supreme Court ruled that Caleb Smith’s candidacy for SGA president has been disqualified, and Matt Babcock is now SGA president-elect.

The court decision, a historic development, has evidently reversed Smith’s close 92-vote victory over candidate Babcock, a junior agriculture business major, in the 2006 SGA presidential election.

Tyler Landry, a freshman class senator and psychology major, helped Babcock with his campaign and filed a written protest to the SGA Election Committee against Smith.

Smith has specifically countered that he is not in constitutional violation of any of the alleged protest points.

As a result of Landry’s protest, the Election Committee unanimously decided Sunday that Smith would be disqualified from the 2006 SGA presidential elections on the grounds of numerous violations of SGA Bylaws.

Smith, a senior marketing major, has 48 hours to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision made Tuesday night.

If Smith appeals the decision, the matter will move forward to the Student Organization Committee.

However, Jim King, vice president of student affairs, said issues should be resolved “within the SGA as defined by the organization Bylaws.”

“Proper decorum and commitment to doing what is right” had prevailed on the part of Smith and Babcock and their proponents, King said.

King said the vote itself “was as close as any I have ever seen.”

The final count came to Smith with 749 votes and Babcock 657.

“Fundamentally we are making sure that we have a fair process in deciding this issue, and that above all protect the integrity of the great SGA organization here at Tech,” King said.

Landry’s protest stated Smith had broken five constitutional rules in his campaign.

The first protest point stated that Smith was in violation of Section 4.3.11 of the SGA constitution.

Section 4.3.11 states, an SGA candidate must be in good standing with the SGA at the time of election.

The written protest stated that Smith was impeached last year due to missing five required SGA office hours.

“The Election Committee overlooked this violation of the constitution when Mr. Smith was allowed to run in the 2006-2007 election,” the protest stated.

In Smith’s appeal to the Election Committee decision, he stated, “[he] met all qualifications for the position of president as outlined in Section 3.3 of the constitution of the SGA.”

Smith stated in his appeal that he was in good standing as an SGA member by the Election Committee March 28.

“[Smith] satisfied all conditions made by the student senate on Nov. 8, 2005, by working five additional office hours during the winter quarter,” the written appeal by Smith stated.

The Supreme Court ruled in the first appeal that Smith was in good standing as an SGA member.

The second protest point stated two campaign fliers promoting Smith were posted on the SGA “A” frame outside of Tolliver Hall.

The Bylaws of the SGA Constitution state signs cannot be posted on “A” frames belonging to SGA, Union Board and KLPI.

However, Smith denied any responsibility for the alleged placement of the fliers on the “A” frames.

The Supreme Court ruled the protests concerning the “A” frames should have been appealed within 24 hours of the Election Committee’s decision.

The third protest point stated Smith violated Section 5.8: “no candidate or member of his/her election staff may make use of SGA resources with the intent of soliciting votes for his/her position.”

The written protest stated an SGA resource included The Big Event,  a recent SGA-sponsored activity.

“He placed several ‘A’ frames around the event site, wore his campaign T-shirt, passed out his campaign T-shirts and wrapped students’ wrists with blue athletic tape as a visible form of support for his campaign,” the protest stated.

Smith countered that campaigning at The Big Event was not a violation of Section 5.8 of the SGA Bylaws.

“Even managing six job sites, [Smith] completed all tasks assigned to him during The Big Event.”

The Supreme Court ruled Landry should have appealed to the Election Committee concerning the violations made about The Big Event.

The fourth protest point stated Smith also broke Section 5.8.4 of the Bylaws, which states any written campaign materials must be in accordance with the Louisiana Tech University Student Handbook.

The handbook requires approval from the superintendent of maintenance on all written forms of campaign materials (excluding residence halls, married housing, Student Center, Tolliver, Centennial Plaza, Prescott Memorial Library, maintenance areas and athletic fields).

Smith denied responsibility for placing fliers on cars in the Woodard Hall parking lot on April 6.

“Due to the fact that [Smith] was running for office, there is an assumed authorization to solicit and distribute material to better inform voters,” Smith’s appeal stated.

The Supreme Court ruled the distribution of fliers on vehicles in Woodard parking lot was irrelevant to Smith’s presidential candidacy.

The fifth protest point stated Smith was warned by two SGA members not to campaign near the polling site the days of the election.

Bylaws 5.8.2 states: “No campaigning may be conducted within the area of the SGA physical polls on election days.”

Smith stated in his appeal that this claim lacked sufficient evidence and documented charges against him.

“In the election meeting on March 27, it was explained that students were permitted to wear campaign paraphernalia while passing through the polling area but should not work the polling site while wearing campaign clothing,” Smith’s appeal stated.

The Supreme Court upheld the Election Committee’s decision concerning campaigning within the polling area.

Smith and his campaign team expressed in the appeal the whole protest should be rejected because his campaign was in agreement with the Bylaws of SGA.

“[Smith] takes personal offense by the claims against his character made in the closing statement of the complainant’s [protest],” Smith’s written appeal said.

“[Smith] has in no way expressed ‘extreme disrespect’ for any administrator or governing body of the university or student association.”

The protest against Smith stated the SGA president must serve as a role model and a representative for students.

“[Smith’s] campaign does not merit the office of [SGA] president,” the protest concluded.

King said both sides of the issue and both candidates “had been thoroughly debated and both candidates had conducted themselves in an admirable manner.”

Mencacci said both sides of the protest will remain under close watch.

“By challenging the process it will help make future elections run more smoothly and help the election committee make easier decisions,” she said.

As of press time, Smith has not appealed the SGA Supreme Court’s decision that was made Tuesday night.