SBP Campaign: The Candidates and the Complaint

CRDaily

This morning, Student Body President candidates Will Lindsey and Hetali Lodaya were notified by the Board of Elections that fellow candidates Rob Jones and Christy Lambden had filed a complaint against them, claiming that Hetali and Will had violated Title VI in our student code. The complaint says that Will Lindsey collected signatures before the starting time, campaigned in illegal locations, and used illegal online signature gathering. For Hetali Lodaya, the complaint states that her campaign collected signatures before the starting time and campaigned in illegal locations.

Will and Hetali both stressed that did not believe that their respective campaigns had violated Title VI, and also stated that if a violation had occurred, it was accidental and that there were no malicious intentions. Christy also underlined the lack of malicious intentions in his filing of the complaint, saying that he submitted the complaint because he wanted to maintain integrity within student government and hold all campaigns responsible. Rob Jones declined to comment, because he wishes for the complaint to go through the proper channels.

Will and Hetali also stated that they plan on following the code when responding to the complaint.  Will Lindsey emphasized his commitment to following the rules, citing his position as the head of the Greek Judicial Board this year.

Title VI uses a point system to punish candidates who violate the code, with a maximum limit of ten (10) points before the candidate is disqualified from the election. The point value of a “False Start” is 3 points with ± 2 points at the BOE discretion. For campaigning in illegal locations, the value is also 3 points ± 2 points at the discretion of the BOE. For technology violations, the point value is 3 points ± 3 at the BOE’s discretion.

Of course, if Will and Hetali did not violate Title VI, they could easily file a counter complaint against Christy and Rob claiming that the original complaint constituted “Harmful or Malicious Behavior” or intentionally ruining a campaign irreversibly or maliciously. This is punished with 8 points ± 2 points at the BOE’s discretion.

Christy, Hetali and Will conveyed their desire to have a clean campaign season, because no one wants to have this campaign stretch on for a long time. They all know that voter apathy was at a peak last year, and the year before (2011) saw one of the dirtiest Student Body President elections in recent memory. However, the BOE will likely have to halt Student Body President elections so that they can investigate the complaint, adding time to the already too long campaign season.

One candidate, however, remains clean in this messy complaint; in an interview earlier, Kevin Claybren highlighted that his absence from the controversy illustrates how his campaign is being run honestly and transparently.

The question remains: who is going to end up as the villain in this situation? Will public opinion favor the accusers or the accused?

More Dastardly Deeds by Art Pope. Watch Out Will!

Campus Life, CRDaily, Student Government

Breaking News! I have received inside information reports that Art Pope is continuing his dastardly campaign, twirling his mustache in joy, of taking over the University. The Vast Right Wing communications committee (I’m a nonvoting member) has uncovered that the Papal plot The Papists plot The Pope plot The Illuminati   The Pope Center is financing Art Pope’s return to UNC. Mr. Pope will be reenrolling as a student of UNC because he knows that the best way to destroy something is from the inside. He will be working his way through student government until he reaches his final goal: Student Body President.

Not satisfied with buying the Chancellorship, Mr. Pope will use his vast resources to conduct a shadow campaign along with his legitimate campaign for SBP so that he can buy all the votes he needs to take over as SBP. He has seen large success with this technique in the past and hopes it will continue to serve him well. He also has a team of researchers from the Pope Center looking over the Constitution to see if our illustrious and heroic SBP Will Leimenstoll can be impeached. At current publication time, they have about 8 reasons why he can be impeached, including but not limited to: violating the spirit of the Carolina Way, not enforcing laws he doesn’t like, and disliking Carolina basketball.

The radical ideas that Mr. Pope hopes to enact as the dastardly SBP are to eliminate bureaucratic waste, help the University stay financially solvent, institute single sex housing, and keep the Union open 24 hours (he likes Alpine-preferably the Oval Office bagel). Do you know what that would mean? It would mean that the Papists have finally taken over and fiscal sanity will reign supreme!!!!

Who can stop this dastardly (I really like this word, it rolls off the tongue well) plot? It’s certainly not me. I’m a Senior, I don’t give a damn.  I think we shall have to rely on a vanguard of students who are willing to vote against the Papacy. The Democrats shall be their example for that. They shall have to work by night, anonymously. They are the heroes that we need, but do not deserve. Their protests should begin by posting 95 complaints on their Facebook pages. Then it should emerge from secretive meetings in the Campus Y. Then finally it will come to light as a Facebook event!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Leimenstoll, I’m speaking directly to you now. If you ever wake up tied to a railroad track with a train rapidly approaching, just know that the dastardly (Best. Word. Ever.) executor is Mr. Art Pope.

How do I know this? I have the same amount of evidence as those who believe he forced out our beloved Chancellor Thorpy. Absolutely none.

Why UNC should think twice about the TOMS deal

Campus Life, CRDaily

I’ll be upfront about it, I own a pair of TOMS. I bought them on impulse when I was a freshman and have rarely worn them since.  I just can’t ever find an outfit that I like with them, and I hardly ever think to myself, “Gee, I should wear my TOMS today.” But this isn’t about my views on fashion.

This is about how TOMS actually hurts the people they’re trying to help. TOMS premise is, “when you buy a pair of TOMS shoes, we give a pair to a poor child in need of shoes in some poor country.” While this sounds great and makes you feel better about being materialistic because it’s For The Children, it’s actually detrimental to economies in those areas. Why should any ambitious entrepreneur open a shoe factory in Africa and sell shoes in the same market when their customers are all getting TOMS for free? It’s a huge disincentive for the economy to advance and to innovation. It’s similar to some arguments against foreign aid that it stifles the creation of an economy, because who can compete with free aid? Rather than giving a pair of shoes to a child in need, why doesn’t TOMS use its profits to fund local entrepreneurs? What some people forget is that almost everyone is willing to work to give themselves and their families a better life, why not give them a chance rather than stifling innovation in poor nations? TOMS is interfering with the market more than the US government and doing as poorly a job.

If you don’t agree with that argument, also consider that TOMS is making a profit off of exploiting poverty in the developing world. Their business model uses people’s good intentions to make money. It’s selling a band-aid rather than actually working to reduce poverty.

Since UNC prides itself on its work fighting poverty at home and abroad, I urge them to reconsider branding with TOMs.

Out of Touch SBP? Sounds Right to me!

North Carolina Politics, Student Government

Elizabeth Merritt

I’m editor for CRDaily. I don’t speak for anyone on this campus except for myself. I am an average student. What if I were Student Body President?As SBP I would represent the student body (Section 3 Park H). If I wrote an editorial and signed it with my title as SBP, I would be speaking as the main representative of 29,136 of my fellow students.

On April 17, Student Body President Will Leimenstoll wrote a letter to the Editor in the Daily Tar Heel where he urged the student body to vote against Amendment One.  Personally, I am against the Amendment, but this isn’t about the Amendment. This is about the Student Body President, who represents 29,136 students.

As Student Body President, you speak for the student body. When you write a letter to the editor imploring students to vote in a certain manner on an issue, you disregard the opinions of students you claim to represent. There are students on this campus who are in favor of Amendment One, and this means that you must respect that. It is easy to claim that this is a personal belief, and that would have been fine, it if had been signed without the title “Student Body President.”

The same applies for appearing on campaign websites. It’s fine to agree with a politician on an issue, but to appear as the spokesman for the Obama campaign on student loans, means that as Student Body President, the representative of the student body, you have successfully ignored the political views of a strong minority of students.

When I met with Will Leimenstoll, he informed me that he wanted to make sure that all voices were being heard on campus, even conservatives. I find that hard to believe now. His Executive Board, full of Young Democrats and Moreheads, is obviously out of touch with any student who holds differing opinions. He needs to stop pretending to listen to those that disagree with his beliefs, and actually do so.

I sincerely hope that President Leimenstoll does not abuse his position as Student Body President further by urging us to vote for President Obama or Walter Dalton for Governor. I hope that he realizes that once he puts his title on anything that he says, he speaks for 29,136 students, not just himself. It’s a tough lesson, but it’s time to learn it.

Hey DTH, Grow a Spine

CRDaily

We always welcome free publicity.

 

It looks like the Daily Tar Heel doesn’t like it when people are “mean” to them. It kinda reminds me of the bully who starts crying when someone makes fun of them, a little ridiculous. The Daily Tar Heel claims to be a “big boy” newspaper, but they sound more like college students who don’t like being criticized.

Come on Deetch, if you can’t take criticism from a fellow publication what does that mean when you’re out in the real world and you get yelled at? You can’t start crying every time a coworker criticizes your work.

We also have some legitimate grievances that you should pay attention to. When you devote an entire opinion page to bashing someone’s letter against Dan Savage and then don’t allow him a chance to respond, it means that you don’t understand the concept of equality of ideas. We saw this repeated after the David Horowitz event  as well. Your edit board ignores the opinions of an entire group of people on campus, and then get offended when it’s pointed out to you.

It’s pretty clear that the DTH has some issues that it needs to resolve, but it may get even worse next year when the new Opinion Editor is the former Editor of the Campus Blueprint and good friends with the Student Body President and Vice President. Good thing Carolina Review will still be here to act as the real watchdog on campus.