Seven members of the Bridge slate filed a contest of election on Friday, but on Sunday they rescinded their complaints.
“We think as a slate that any infraction should be addressed … and if it is not addressed, in the future it is not corrected,” said Travis Maestas, a Bridge slate member.
Yet Maestas said the Bridge slate wouldn’t have had enough evidence to present a strong case against the BAM! slate, whose members swept the election last week. Eight of the 10 members on the BAM! slate are Resident Advisers.
Three complaints were initially filed. The undergraduate student government’s election commission threw out one, and on Sunday the group was set to hear testimony about two specific instances where the BAM! slate allegedly campaigned too close to polling places.
The Bridge slate complained that members of the BAM! slate could not hold ASUNM Senate seats
because residence hall advisers cannot simultaneously serve in student government, according to the Resident Adviser handbook.
Election Commissioner Brian Moore said the election commission threw out that complaint because the discrepancy was not under ASUNM jurisdiction. ASUNM does not prohibit senators from also serving as resident advisers.
The ResLife Web site prohibits holding both positions, but Patrick Call, director of Residence Life and Student Housing, said the clause on the Web site has been misinterpreted.
“I know that there’s a piece in our agreement with them that talks about that, but it is really intended for folks if they want to run for ASUNM president or vice president,” he said.
Call said the clause is also meant to restrict people from serving as committee chair members.
The revised version of the ResLife Web site clarifies the distinction, Call said.
According to the new entry, resident advisers shall “assume no major offer or chairperson positions in campus activities, campus student government or residence hall community associations.”
Another complaint alleged that BAM! campaign workers stepped inside designated 25-foot barriers at the Student Residence Center, which campaigners aren’t allowed to go into.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The Bridge slate said it had sources that witnessed BAM! members violating the rules, but the witnesses didn’t want to testify for fear of retribution, said Bridge slate member Shauna Sulima.
“They were not comfortable appearing at the trial because they are residents and they didn’t want (the RAs) to be against them,” Sulima said. “So, since they do live in the dorms, it would have been uncomfortable for them.”
The second complaint alleged that BAM! members campaigned inside Johnson Center, which is off limits, on election day.
Arman Salehian said he saw a BAM! member inside Johnson Center, but because of a scheduling conflict, he couldn’t make it to the meeting on Sunday to give his testimony.
Maestas said this is one of the reasons for withdrawing the contestation.
“One of our slate members saw them crossing the line, but that person couldn’t show up because they had work,” Maestas said. “They couldn’t really get off of work without risking their position with their employer.”
Moore said it would have been inconvenient, but the Bridge slate had other options to turn in a testimony besides in person. He said the Bridge candidate could have submitted a written affidavit.
Sulima said that another witness, who is also a member of the Bridge slate, didn’t have adequate evidence against the BAM! slate.
“We could say it happened, but they could also say, ‘What evidence do you have?’” Sulima said. “And in that case we didn’t have any. We didn’t feel like we had enough evidence for it to be a significant complaint.”
BAM! member Melissa Trent said the BAM! slate would have welcomed any complaint because they had nothing to hide.
“I don’t believe that they held any weight,” Trent said. “The claims were against our volunteers, and we had some really fantastic volunteers. And we ran the best campaign we could. We ran as clean as we could.”
—Pat Lohmann contributed to this article.
