Campus elections fraught with controversy

An ASPSU election controversy erupted Wednesday, when a senatorial candidate from one slate accused an opposing slate’s senatorial candidate of improperly recruiting a third candidate to run on his slate.

Pollyanne Birge, a senatorial candidate running under the Kristen Wallace/Dune Zhu slate, raised the issue in a letter published Wednesday in the Vanguard. Her accusation came partway through the ASPSU election balloting, which started Tuesday and will conclude today.

On April 3, Shahriyar Smith, a senatorial candidate, contacted fellow senatorial candidate Kara MacKillop in an effort to recruit her to run under the Cory Murphy/Lindsey Bauer slate.

While both parties agree the phone call took place, there are discrepancies about the content of the call.

One allegation made by Birge was that Smith called MacKillop in his official role as a senior editor at the Spectator. The letter appeared to connect the politics of the Spectator to the politics of the Murphy/Bauer slate. “What really gets to me,” she wrote, “is the relationship between the Spectator and several PSU senatorial candidates and their party. … My issue comes from the strategies of certain individuals on Cory Murphy’s slate (which consists of many Spectator contributors).”

Birge’s letter, without identifying MacKillop, recounted the Smith-MacKillop conversation. In an interview with the Vanguard, MacKillop said the “tone” of Birge’s letter “and the ideas in it” were “absolutely consistent with what I told her.” Some words were different, “but not the meaning,” she said.

According to MacKillop, Smith did not state in his introduction which presidential candidate his slate was aligned with, nor did he tell MacKillop he was an editor on the Spectator. This information came to light, she said, several minutes into the conversation.

Smith said, “I was in no way purporting to be in my official capacity as editor of the Spectator when I called MacKillop. When pushed to give an example of my ideology, I mentioned the Spectator because she may have been familiar with it.”

In a letter to the Vangaurd, MacKillop wrote that after hearing of Smith’s position at the Spectator, “I informed Mr. Smith that I am a lesbian as well as a single mother. Mr. Smith repeated several times that I was ‘morally wrong’ but he continued to urge me to join the team because, ‘it would add the appearance of diversity to the slate.'”

According to MacKillop, she wrote that phrase down when Smith said it over the phone because “it made me feel so uncomfortable. … I even showed it to the other people in the room.”

It is possible, Smith admits, he used the word ‘appearance,’ but insists he also emphasized the slate’s desire to be diverse. After MacKillop’s statement about her sexual orientation, Smith said, “My words after this comment were very clear: so what? It was not an issue to me; I did not intend to make it one. Her sexual orientation was completely irrelevant to me.”

Smith also said he made a clear distinction between his personal beliefs about homosexuality and his political position on the matter. “Ms. MacKillop seems to be under the impression that if one is not supportive ideologically of homosexuality, one is automatically anti-gay and oppressive … which is completely untrue.”

MacKillop stated she could not support the Murphy/Bauer political platform, and referred to it as “anathema to my deeply held convictions and beliefs,” that she could not support. She wrote, “I will not allow my gender, sexual orientation, parental status or any other factor not directly related to my ability to perform as a Senator to be the basis of my campaign or election.” Smith simply said he refuses to participate in ‘identity politics.’

The slate, Smith said, would have been more diverse with MacKillop’s representation. “Political diversity of the slate ensures that any person with any issue, from any political ideology and any point of view is guaranteed representation.”

When asked to comment on Birge’s questions about his slate’s connection with the Spectator, Cory Murphy, joined by running-mate Lindsey Bauer, said, “She grossly mischaracterized the view of our campaign. We are running a campaign of individuals who are concerned about student government. … There’s no agenda we have other than serving the students.” Murphy emphasized that the slate has no connection with the Spectator other than the coincidence that some senatorial candidates also contribute to the publication.

Napolean Linardatos, editor of the Spectator, also maintains that there is no relationship between the Murphy/Bauer slate and the publication. In a letter to the Vanguard, Linardatos wrote, “The Spectator has not endorsed any candidates this year. We do have a number of contributors taking part in PSU’s current election. This case is in no way specific to our paper.”

In response to Smith’s personal ideologies about homosexuality, Murphy had this to say about their platform: “I do not tolerate bigotry in any form; the slate does not tolerate bigotry. We are about inclusiveness.”

Questions were raised about the propriety of a leading member of a student fee-funded organization using his title when performing political recruitment. According to Chris Moller, Student Fee Committee chair, any individual can legally endorse or support anyone or any platform and use his title in an SFC-funded organization. The guidelines, Moller said, state that activities can be “secular or partisan, but cannot use our money to support those endeavors.”

Moller does not foresee any official inquiry to be conducted, and it does not appear any official SFC rules have been broken.