Thursday, January 29, 1998
Students First! accused of campaign fraud
ELECTION: Allegations include illegal phone use, falsifying
expense reports
By Dennis Lim
Daily Bruin Contributor
Alleged events from last year’s undergraduate elections have
come back to haunt several members of this year’s Undergraduate
Student Association Council (USAC).
Former Finance Committee Chair Robert Rhoan has alleged that
campaign fraud occurred on more than one occasion during last
year’s undergraduate elections, and that it was Students First!
candidates who violated the election by-laws.
Chief among Rhoan’s charges is that 11 Students First!
candidates spent in excess of their campaign spending limits,
provided false information on their expense reports to the election
board, and used the phones in the offices of the president and
external vice president’s office illegally.
Candidates can only spend $400 for all positions except
president, which has a limit of $600. Rhoan alleges that candidates
spent over their limits, and did not report these expenditures.
"The true cost of the sandwich boards that candidates used last
year were not included in the expense reports," Rhoan said about
the posters worn by candidates as they campaigned on Bruin
Walk.
USAC members have denied the charges.
"There were no campaign violations," said Kendra Fox-Davis,
chief of staff for the President’s office. Kandea Mosley, the USAC
president, could not be reached for comment on the issue.
Names of 11 people appeared on the invoice for the posters,
among them Kandea Mosley, Stacy Lee, Carol Lee, Max Espinoza, An
Le, Juan Aguirre, Mike Hamilton, Samantha Gilardi, Darnell Grisby,
Joe Medico, and Jo Anna Ley, all of whom are current USAC members
and ran on the Students First! slate.
According to Agate Printing, who printed the sandwich boards,
the total bill for the posters is almost $3500, which comes close
to $300 per candidate.
USAC officials have refused to release the campaign expense
reports on the grounds that they contain private information on the
candidates in addition to the campaign costs.
The president’s office did "not want to violate any candidate’s
rights to have their academic records remain private," said
Fox-Davis.
However, USAC officials questioned Rhoan’s failure to voice his
concerns earlier.
"I am personally disturbed by his allegations because he has
never indicated to our council that he has had any concerns
regarding the authenticity of our expense accounts," Fox-Davis
said.
The lack of an Election Board, a neutral body to mediate such
allegations, has led to difficulties in the resolution of Rhoan’s
charges. According to the Election Code, the laws that regulate
USAC elections, an Election Board should have been appointed by
USAC before fall quarter. However, no one has been appointed to
date.
Rhoan has also levied charges of illegal phone usage against
USAC.
Rhoan says that USAC officials used phones in both the
President’s and External Vice-President’s office to solicit votes
during last year’s elections, a violation of Election Board
laws.
"They would call people and say ‘This is so-and-so from USAC,
and we just wanted to make sure you were going to vote tomorrow and
if you do, vote for Students First!’" Rhoan said.
"I heard these conversations and it really disgusted me," he
continued.
Albert Retana, last year’s external vice president, denies
Rhoan’s accusations.
"No, we didn’t solicit votes through USAC offices last year.
That allegation is false," Retana said.
John Du, last year’s USAC president, could not be reached for
comment.
Phone records obtained by the Daily Bruin from student
government accounting show that in April, the month before the
election, 162 local calls were made from the President’s office. In
May, that number more than doubled to 428 calls.
Phone records from the external vice president’s office revealed
a similar trend. In April, 142 local calls were made from the
office, while 355 were made in May.
Some of the long-distance numbers that came up on the phone
records matched student phone numbers.
Albert Anon, a second-year business student whose number
appeared on the records, said he remembered being called in the
days before the election to have his vote solicited.
Adria Debaca, a fourth-year French student, remembers being
called before the election as well.
"I was called and asked to help campaign right before the
election," she said.
According to the Election Code, in an electoral campaign "the
use of ASUCLA and/or University equipment, and/or telephones is
prohibited. Any violation of this provision may result in
disqualification."
In response, Retana said "during this time, my office and the
President’s office were working on a couple of campaigns.
"I believe they were the ‘Our Millennium is coming’ and the
‘Death of Education’ campaign," he continued.
Retana also said that the phone numbers were probably gathered
during petitioning drives, though Anon does not recall taking part
in USAC or in any petitioning drives.
"I’ve never had anything to do with USAC or anything like that
before. Not at all," Anon said.
"I don’t know how they got my phone number, though they might
have done it through the Academic Advancement Program (AAP). I know
I’m on their phone list, but no one else’s," he said.
If the allegations are true, the consequences are uncertain,
according to Eric Mah, chief justice of the Judicial Board.
"We’re more like a judge rather than a watchdog group. If a
student files a petition, they have to cite specific documents,
cases and suggest a remedy to the situation," Mah said.
"Only then can anything be done about these allegations," he
continued.
Mason Stockstill and Stefanie Wong, Daily Bruin Senior Staff,
contributed to this report.