The REAL Chris Olson & Joel Ebert

During his closing argument of the last election hearing, Joel Ebert tried to present a 30-page report on elections that he co-authored with Christopher Olson as evidence for how much he cares about the election process and not just about winning.  About a month ago, I asked Chris Olson if I could read the report, and he told me it did not exist in “digital format” but that if he could find the hard copy of it, he would show it to me.  As it turns out, this was a lie.  Chris was hiding the report from me.  When I read the report, I found out why.

The report does exist in digital format, and I just received the PDF file today.  I was shocked beyond belief.  Joel Ebert stood before the EPC and waved this report around in their faces as evidence about how much he believes in the sanctity of the “election process.”  There is only one problem with this argument.  In this report, Joel Ebert & Chris Olson demand that UIC adopt policies to prevent certain campaign tactics: slating and ad hoc voting.  The problem? Chris Olson and Joel Ebert’s entire SBG campaign was based on two things: The strength of their large slate, and the number of ad hoc voting stations they set up around campus!

Chris Olson & Joel Ebert on Slating – 24 July 2008

For the purposes of this report, slating will be defined as a system of mutual endorsement where candidates run in concert for separate offices under a similar platform.

UIUC SEC Chairperson Kevin Shields explained that slating was not permitted because of the strength of some student organizations on campus. Shields stated that when there are strong student organizations on campus such as fraternities, sororities or advocacy groups, “affiliation can become more important than merit” when selecting student leaders.

Due to the large commuter base at UIC, election awareness is a problem. Over the past five years, only two candidates have run for student trustee each year, with the exception of the 2008 election, when three candidates ran for office. The vast majority of candidates for student government run uncontested and often form a slate, simply as a formality. Therefore, a candidate running for a contested office can be marginalized by not running on the slate of uncontested incumbents. Over time this creates a closed student government where incumbent candidates running uncontested have little need to campaign, contributing back to the student body’s lack of awareness; hence, the problem becomes self-perpetuating.

The policy at UIUC ensures that a candidate’s merit will be considered rather than their affiliation. This policy is most congruent with fair and open elections. Therefore, UIC and UIS must adopt a similar policy to that of UIUC, explicitly prohibiting slating.

What did they do about slating? – 15-16 April 2009

Chris Olson and Joel Ebert organized the largest slate in UIC election history: A Student Trustee candidate (Joel Ebert, himself), a USG Presidential candidate (Bernard Mariano), a USG Vice Presidential candidate (Sean Murray), and 6 USG Assembly Candidates (Sara Agate, Geoff Berkheimer, Bernadette Casaclang, Heather Kaufman, and Cecilia Real).

Because Chris Olson & Joel Ebert created a slate – which they themselves said was a horrible practice – they managed to get all the members of their slate disqualified from the election due to the actions of a few people.  Hypocrisy doesn’t get you very far, does it?

Chris Olson & Joel Ebert on Ad Hoc Voting – 24 July 2008

For the purposes of this report, ad hoc voting will be defined as the act of explicitly soliciting votes for a particular candidate from a computer which is not an official voting terminal.

While students at each campus are free to vote from any personal computer during an election, votes collected at ad hoc stations are not a pure form of civic expression. These stations often use a free giveaway to entice students to vote without knowledge of candidates and issues. Ad hoc stations compromise the honesty and fairness of elections.

Furthermore, ad hoc voting contradicts the spirit of rules that stipulate a candidate may not campaign within a certain distance of official polling places; such rules are in place at all three campuses. In this way, ad hoc stations marginalize official polling places.

Campuses without explicit ad hoc voting policy, such as UIS and UIC, cannot safeguard against disputes arising from the practice in the future. Campuses that condone ad hoc voting, such as UIC, are in essence allowing elections to descend to a menial level. When ad hoc voting is used, voting ceases to be a volitional act, where candidate qualifications and important issues become moot in the face of giveaways or coercion. Elections at these campuses may, over time, descend into competing giveaways and coercive strategies.

Student elections are a learning opportunity. When ad hoc voting coupled with coercion becomes a systemic problem at a campus, students do not learn the importance of civic engagement and a higher purpose of student elections is not served.

UIS and UIC must adopt policy explicitly prohibiting ad hoc voting, that includes provisions for enforcement. Because ad hoc stations are most often mobile, the administrative bodies must have the means to investigate ad hoc stations wherever they may be, with respect to what is reasonable. Just as polling place administrators safeguard the honesty of the official polls, so too must the campus provide for assurance of the integrity of the official polls by guarding against ad hoc polling.

What did they do about ad hoc voting? – 15-16 April 2009

Chris Olson & Joel Ebert orchestrated the largest organized ad hoc voting effort in UIC history.  They ran a 2 day event (on both election days) in the Lecture Center Plaza (the “quad”) where they used 20 tables to set up ad hoc polling stations and giveaways all around the perimeter of the quad.  Furthermore, they gave away ice cream, Red Bull, candy, clothing, and allegedly cell phones (I never witnessed this myself).

It was this very event, and the EPC’s findings of a Level 3 (University Policy) violation that ended up disqualifying the entire SBG slate.  Furthermore, the EPC ruled against campaigning within 25’ of a polling station for 2 other ad hoc voting stations: One being run by Bernard Mariano (SBG Presidential Candidate) and Jina Holt (an SBG campaign worker), and one run by Megan Calcaterra (President of Students for Change, and an alleged SBG campaign worker).

What does this all mean?

To me, this can mean only one of two things.  Either Chris Olson & Joel Ebert are the biggest hypocrites at UIC and have absolutely no integrity to be willing to do the exact things they believe are wrong and dangerous.

OR, Chris Olson & Joel Ebert did this to prove a point: They used Bernard, Sean, Sara, Geoff, Bernadette, Heather, and Cecilia to prove why slating and ad hoc voting will always “win” – they gambled with the reputations of innocent students and persuaded them to “believe in” the merit of things they themselves wrote in black and white are wrong.

SBG: Are these guys still your heroes?

Here is the original report co-authored by Joel Ebert & Christopher Olson:
The Current State of Student Elections