Student Government Association v. Ritchie (2)

Facts of the Case:

On March 20, 2024, at 12:28PM Elections Committee Chair Aaron Barker emailed Josh Reynolds. This email's contents will be entered as Evidence Article I. As the Elections Committee Chair, ECC Barker is responsible for ensuring the proper people are on the Voting Ballot for election day. ECC Barker sent IT this specific email regarding White dropping out of the running for CAB VP. White asked me to take him off the ballot, therefore ECC Barker emailed Josh the following, “I had one person drop out of the race, so I'll have you take his name off the ballot if you don't care. White (a Cab VP candidate) is no longer running.” This should have been the end of the matter as White requested to no longer be on the ballot, and I as ECC carried out his request.

On the morning of March 26, 2024 (Election Day), ECC Barker received a message from White referring to him still being on the ballot. After receiving this message ECC Barker was thoroughly confused as he had already directed IT to take White off the ballot. I immediately emailed both Josh Reynolds and Jeremiah Duerson. The email said, “I wanted to reach out about an error in the SGA ballot. Last week White officially dropped out of the race and should no longer be on the ballot. I need his name to be taken off the ballot ASAP.” Jeremiah promptly responded two minutes later saying, “Camden Ritchie made the decision yesterday to keep him on the ballot. Please discuss with him.” This will be entered as Evidence Article III.

Following that message ECC Barker immediately contacted the Faculty Advisor as this is a major problem. Ritchie is (1) not a member of the elections committee, (2) not the Elections Committee Chair. Ritchie has absolutely no authority in any situation involving elections, more specifically, making any final decision with members on the ballot.

To further investigate this, ECC Barker met with both Jeremiah Duerson and Josh Reynolds to discuss the contact Ritchie had made with them. Jeremiah and Josh both remember Ritchie mentioning that he had cleared keeping White on the ballot with someone prior to talking to them. Jeremiah’s email also specifically stated that, “Camden Ritchie made the decision to keep him on the ballot.” During the meeting, Josh told ECC Barker that he mentioned to Ritchie that ECC Barker had emailed him about taking White off the ballot because he dropped out but that Ritchie told them no - leave White on the ballot because we (SGA) already printed stuff with his name on it (The only thing printed was a single page that had the slates on it). They mentioned that it wasn’t until after ECC Barker had reached out to them on the morning of elections that they hadn’t noticed the red flags that Ritchie was displaying by having them keep someone who was no longer running on the ballot. Multiple times on the call both Josh and Jeremiah stated that, according to Ritchie, due to materials already being printed that White had to stay on the ballot.

Furthermore, ECC Barker met with Ritchie to gain his side of the story and to ask questions based on what information I had previously gathered. Ritchie said that while on the phone with Jeremiah and Josh, he never told them that he had previously cleared leaving White on the ballot. He also said it was ECC Barker’s job, as the Elections Committee Chair, to contact IT about the ballot to be posted. In multiple situations, Ritchie also made it very clear that he “doesn’t have the power to interfere with the elections.” Ritchie also said it was not in his power to tell Jeremiah and Josh “no leave him on or no take him off the ballot.”

Therefore, the problem lies in something that Ritchie himself admitted to not having the power to do, but still doing it. By contacting Jeremiah and Josh he went above the Elections Committee and ECC. He did say he contacted Jeremiah and Josh, but his intent of the call was to make sure the ballot was ready for the next day. It was ECC Barker's opinion that Ritchie had ample time to contact myself or Chief Justice Heavren to make sure we had been in contact with IT about the ballot throughout the entire election season, but never contacted us.

At trial, the question arose as to whether this case was an elections violation and constituted a closed hearing because it involved

At trial, Ritchie attempted to argue both that he did not give a directive to IT by telling them to leave the candidate on the ballot and that even if he did, he had the authority as President to do so. Ritchie cited the Constitution which stated:

“Represent all members of the Association in dealings with persons or entities of other universities and the faculty, staff, and administration of the University.”

And held that this meant that he had the power to go over the heads of everyone in the association and represent them in any capacity. Mr. Ritchie argued that ECC Barker had not fulfilled his duties as ECC and therefore this gave him the right to answer IT’s questions instead of directing them to ECC Barker or Chief Justice Heavren.

Questions:

First, does directing IT to keep a candidate on the ballot constitute a directive?

Second, Does the Student Body President have the power “represent” positions within the SGA and exercise their powers despite not being in that branch or part of that Committee; and what does represent mean in the SGA Constitution?

Third, after determining what represent means in the Constitution, can the Court determine that Ritchie improperly represented the association?

Fourth, after determining what “represent” means in the Constitution, can the Court determine that Ritchie misused his position as Student Body President by taking actions that only the ECC can take?

Fifth, does this Constitute a violation of position if Jeremiah and Josh did not confirm receipt of EC Barker’s email?

Sixth, does this Constitute an elections case?

Answer:

First, The Court determined that because ECC Barker had directed IT to remove the candidate from the ballot, Ritchie’s telling IT to keep the candidate on the ballot constituted a direction and thus affected the outcome of the election. The Court determined that the appropriate action would have been to direct IT to speak to the ECC or candidate directly instead of making the decision on his own.

Second, The Student Court determined that “Represent,” as stated in the Constitution, does not allow the President to conduct the jobs of other branches or positions in SGA. Represent was determined to be more figurative, in that the President shall represent by ensuring that each position is conducting their duty as prescribed by the Constitution. The Court determined that if the President were allowed to “represent” individuals of the Association in the way that was argued by Ritchie, it would defeat the purpose of the ECC and other leaders within SGA.

Third, The Court in a 3-2 vote determined that Ritchie misrepresented the members of the Association by attempting to represent the ECC in a matter regarding Elections.

Fourth, The Court, in a unanimous decision, agreed that Ritchie misused his position to make decisions that he was not entitled to make.

Fifth, The Court decided that although it was uncertain whether Josh and Jeremiah received ECC Barker’s email at the time, that did not change the fact that Ritchie gave IT a directive from a position in which he was not authorized to do so.

Sixth, it was argued between both parties as to whether this was an elections case. ECC Barker argued because Camden Ritchie himself was not a candidate, even though this case involved and affected elections, because it involved no slates, it was not an elections case. Ritchie argued the opposite, that because it involved and would affect elections, that the case should be treated as an elections case. The Court unanimously agreed to treat the case as a conduct case against a non-election member of the association thus, the hearing proceeded as a non-elections case.

In a majority opinion written by Zachary Weston it was written, “It is the opinion of the court that the course of action taken by the defendant is a clear violation of the EKU Student Code of Conduct and SGA Bylaws. Because the defendant contacted EKU IT for an elections related matter, informed them of elections procedure, and then gave them a directive, the defendant superseded the authority of the SGA Elections committee, and acted improperly. From the court’s perspective, the only behavior solicited by the bylaws would be for any member of SGA to, instead of saying anything, refer the entity asking questions to the Committee responsible for whatever the entity is asking about. Any response, correct or otherwise, is not acceptable.”