Last week’s Panther staff editorial misrepresents the situation that resulted in Kahan Chandrani being named the next Associated Students president.

The editorial says that the decision made by the Review Board, of which I was a member, “set precedent that you can tamper with the vote but still be elected into the most powerful student position on campus.” This is not true, according to our decision.

The reason that we decided not to disqualify Chandrani was to reserve disqualification for more serious offenses, specifically including tampering. Sending a mass e-mail, though prohibited by the election code, is not tampering.

Furthermore, the editorial criticizes the Board’s reference to tradition in making its decision. The editorial says: “We wonder at the validity of any document that comes out of this government.”
This fails to recognize that the vast majority of modern Western judicial systems rely on precedent. This includes the American system. Making decisions based on tradition is not only prudent, it is also a widely accepted practice.

The editorial says: “There was no mention about considering a re-election.” This may not have been mentioned in the decision, but I assure The Panther that we considered the option. The substantial time and cost required to hold another election did not make this a viable option.

Finally, the editorial adds: “In a predictable decision ... the Board dutifully bowed to the political pressure to move forward with the A.S. transition.” This is unnecessarily insulting to the Board’s integrity. Neither the candidates nor the A.S. staff pressured the board in any way.

Furthermore, the Board seriously considered a variety of options in this case. The issue was taken seriously and thoroughly discussed before a decision was reached. Despite what The Panther wrote, nothing about the decision made was “predictable” or “dutiful.”