Replies

Here is the latest from the Oklahoman and what was reported on the news on Channel 9 (CBS):

Istook aide may be victim in page scandal

By Chris Casteel, Nolan Clay and Michael McNutt
The Oklahoman

Copyright 2006, The Oklahoman
A former U.S. House page working on the gubernatorial campaign of Republican Rep. Ernest Istook may be a part of the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, The Oklahoman has learned.

The former page, a Californian named Jordan Edmund, on Wednesday hired Enid attorney Stephen Jones to represent him, the attorney confirmed.

Jones would not say exactly why he was hired, but did say, “I understand the FBI and the House Ethics committee have an interest in the matter ... the allegations concerning Congressman Foley which have surfaced.”

Foley, a Republican from Florida, resigned abruptly on Friday after it was learned that he exchanged sexually explicit e-mails with former pages. The FBI is investigating.

Istook’s campaign manager, Chip Englander, who is also from California, declined comment Wednesday to an Oklahoman reporter.

However, Englander gave The Oklahoman a statement that was attributed to Istook.

The statement says, “The sad and sick behavior of Mark Foley was a total surprise to me when it was revealed. Law enforcement is doing its job, and I support that effort. Now we should all support and protect the victims, and they should not be hounded by the press.

“It was a complete surprise to learn this morning that one victim may be someone I know. Each one of the victims deserves their privacy. To every reporter I request, please have the decency to avoid making things worse for the victims, and just leave them alone. This happened years ago when the victims were minors.”

Reached at his home, Istook referred to the prepared statement.

Edmund’s name surfaced on Internet “blogs” that linked him to the instant message address used in communications with Foley.

One blogger got the instant message address from the Web site of ABC News, which has obtained the instant messages sent between Foley and a former page.

In the sequence of messages identified by the blogger, Foley tells the person to “strip down and get relaxed.”

It is not clear whether Foley’s other instant messages, including one in which he apparently conducted “instant message” sex with a person, were all to the same person.

Asked why Edmund needed an attorney, Jones said, “You read the blogs. You know why he needs an attorney.”

Jones, who represented Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in his murder trial in Denver, confirmed Edmund was a U.S. House page.

“I’ve been retained in the last several hours,” Jones said. “I’m still reviewing matters.”

Jones said the two met Wednesday in Oklahoma City.

Edmund had an Internet page on the popular MySpace Web site.

On that page, he identified himself as being 21 years old and said he had been attending college at the University of California at Berkeley. He said he was going to Oklahoma to be deputy campaign manager for Istook’s gubernatorial effort, the Web site stated.

Edmund registered to vote in Oklahoma in March, records show.

The House Ethics Committee is scheduled to hold a closed-door meeting this morning about the Foley matter.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, one of the 10 members of the committee, flew back to Washington on Wednesday for what he called an “emergency meeting.”

He said the committee today would not hear from witnesses but would set the parameters of the investigation.

Contributing: Staff Writers Joe Wertz, Bryan Dean, Jennifer Mock and Ryan McNeill

http://www.newsok.com/article/2951137/?print=1

Chip Englander????
THIS Chip?
http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/2000/04-01-00/msa.html

Anatomy of a Scandal
How One Man Brought Down the Wolverine Party
by Jacob F.M. Oslick
I think the Election Board had a gross misinterpretation of the election code" commented Wolverine Party (WP) defense counsel Jeff Omtvedt, shortly after the Central Student Judiciary (CSJ) voted to disqualify WP candidates for Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) President, Vice-President, and MSA Representative spots from the schools of LSA and Kinesiology.

This was "the most clear-cut case of violating the code ever," counters Election Board Director Alok Agrawal, as the Wolverine Party exhibited "total disregard for the rules of the election."

So say the two sides to this dispute, the greatest scandal to rock MSA politics in recent memory. But what actually happened election night? And what should have been done? To answer these questions, one must delve deeper than the sound bite, and consider all the evidence involved.

The story begins on election night between 1:00 and 4:00 a.m., on the floors four and six of the Markley Residence Hall. As recorded in formal complaints submitted to the election board, a man fitting the description of WP Chair Chip Englander went door-to-door trying to secure votes for his party. He knocked on doors and presented himself as a supporter, but not candidate of the party. After being let in to peoples' rooms, he went to the election web page and asked students to enter their uniqnames and passwords.
According to one report, "I wasn't watching what he did after that, but basically, I turned around and he had the entire ballot filled out for a certain party. I looked at him like he was crazy." In another report, the man "very quickly, because I think he had been doing it all night, clicked all of the Wolverine Party candidates. . I never gave him permission, but he submitted my vote anyway."

Mr. Agrawal felt that if accurate, these reports violated sections 41.62, 41.64, and 41.68 of the Election Code (see side-bar) which prevent people from interfering with an election and campaigning within 50 feet of a polling site.

During this time, Wolverine Party documents state, Mr. Englander was scheduled to campaign on the Diag, as part of the Wolverine Party's "24 Campaign for a 24 hour campus." One WP candidate, Ryan Gregg, claims to have seen Mr. Englander "at least every 20 minutes or so" as he passed by the Diag while chalking for the party.

However, in an 11-page brief submitted to the CSJ, the Wolverine Party never formally denies the allegations. In the words of Mr. Omtvedt, "I don't know what Chip did, I only know what he was accused of." Instead of denying the charges, the WP defended itself by arguing, as co-defense counsel Joe Bernstein states, that "Chip was acting alone. No other candidate knew what he was doing." Mr. Englander himself admits to some wrongdoing, but adamantly denies that he ever submitted votes without first securing someone's permission. Claiming that he was unclear of the rules, he believed that as long as people consented to vote, he was allowed to assist them.

In total, only between 10-15 reports were filed alleging violations, and only three submitted by the Election Board to the CSJ as evidence against the Wolverine Party. For reasons of privacy, the Election Board declined to release the names of the accusers. This secrecy, Mr. Bernstein feels, left the WP unable "to present a completely just defense - we didn't know who was accusing us."

Adding that "our opinion is that this is a violation of the Sixth Amendment," Mr. Bernstein would have liked the opportunity to investigate the complaints to see, for example, "if these people all live in a hall with a Blue Party campaigner."

The secrecy regarding the accusations led one WP Candidate to blame the violations on a "Blue Party plot," pointing out "I wouldn't put it past the Blue Party to find two or three people to come forward with some bullsh-t like this."

Mr. Agrawal disputes this, claiming in an e-mail sent to the Wolverine Party that the Election Board investigated the complaints and found "several rooms" had similar experiences. He further points out that one of the accusers actually supported the Wolverine Party.

Even if they occurred, the Wolverine Party argued that the violations do not deserve total disqualification. In particular, the Party disputes that the specified sections of the Election Code even refer to a person such as Mr. Englander, who, although party chair, did not run as a candidate. Indeed, their brief points out that Section 41.701 states specifically "Candidates who violate ... sections 41.64-41.66 shall be subject to a penalty of one demerit.. ... Candidates who violate section 41.62 shall be subject to a penalty of five demerits." In the WP view, since the Code speaks only of candidates, not those working on a candidate's behalf, the Election Board had no sanction to penalize WP candidates for Mr. Englander's actions.
As Mr. Omtvedt states, "They didn't have the Code to work with, so they misinterpreted the Code so it would work with them."

WP disqualified candidate Doug Tietz concurs, saying that the election board "stopped democracy, cold in its tracks. . Kicking out the entire party is absolutely political. How can you explain ten illegal votes causing an entire party being eliminated?"

The WP further points out that three of the Election Board's five members (Siafa Hage, Marisa Linn and Peter Handler) are Blue Party members. The party alleges that several Election Board members stand to benefit from a Blue Party victory - such as Mr. Handler, who would likely retain a committee chairmanship. Thus, the WP brief states, "their decision was totally and completely biased."

Mr. Handler labels such allegations "ridiculous," noting that, as a senior, he will not serve on MSA next fall.

Mr. Englander believes something less overt played into the Election Board's decision. While acknowledging that few, if any, on the Board stand to personally gain from a Blue Party victory, he claims that close friendships exist between Board members and BP leaders. Thus, in his opinion, the Board's actions might to some degree reflect friends aiding friends out.

The Wolverine Party supports this claim of bias by contrasting the activities of this Election Board to previous Boards. In previous elections, states the WP brief, "violations committed on behalf of a party were penalized by demerits for the entire party - but these demerits were given randomly and to a single member of the party, not to every member."

Similarly, in the past, Election Boards have ordered limited re-voting in cases of ballot fraud, rather than disqualifying candidates. Such a case occurred last year, when evidence suggested a Blue Party supporter cast 77 fraudulent ballots for BP candidates. A few months after the election, the perpetrator was revealed to be a Blue Party candidate. Despite this scandal, arguably much more severe than anything the Election Board accused Mr. Englander of, the previous Election Board did not disqualify a single Blue Party member. Had a similar standard been applied in this case, any candidate who benefited from the fraudulent votes - possibly including departing MSA President Bram Elias, would have been summarily disqualified.
Mr. Agrawal responds to these charges of unfair treatment in several ways. First, he points out that while 41.701 and 41.702 do only mention candidates, the preamble states "Demerits may be levied upon candidates for their own actions, as well as for the illegal actions of those campaigning for them." As acknowledged party head, Mr. Englander clearly was campaigning, and violating election rules, on behalf of Wolverine Party candidates.

In Mr. Agrawal's opinion, the fact that WP candidates claim they lacked knowledge of Mr. Englander's unorthodox campaign tactics fails to absolve them of responsibility. "Ignorance is no excuse - never," Mr. Agrawal states. "There's a certain amount of trust when you select someone as your leader."
Furthermore, without enforcing violations against noncandidate campaigners, a campaign could violate MSA rules with impunity, simply by having a friend of the candidate commit the violations.
Blue Party member Shari Katz comments, "I think its unfortunate that the whole party would be disqualified on the actions of one individual, but at the same time when you run with a party you make a decision to uphold certain ideals and accept certain responsibilities."

Yet incoming MSA President Hideki Tsutsumi, who would have won even without the mass disqualification, disagrees. "I don't think it's fair for other members of the party to get disqualified unless there is evidence that they were involved," he said.

As to the issue of Election Board's alleged bias, or unfair treatment compared to previous Boards, Mr. Agrawal describes such talk as "insulting and preposterous," noting that the last political party in which he was involved - the New Frontier Party (NFP) - no longer exists.

Another Board member, the aforementioned Peter Handler, also denies WP claims of bias. For instance, he states that the Election Board reached its decision on Thursday afternoon, long before they knew the results of the election (without the disqualification, eight additional WP members would have won seats). Further, none of the three Election Board members with ties to the Blue Party actively campaigned on behalf of candidates this election - and all were unanimously selected to serve on the Board by MSA. However, Mr. Handler concedes that having Election Board members chosen directly from current MSA members does pose a problem, albeit a "problem that's hard to avoid."

He suggests that in the future MSA might consider searching for nonmember students willing to serve on the Board, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Largely upholding the Election Board's initial ruling, the CSJ avoided the question of potential bias, and instead based its decision "solely upon our interpretation of the Code," according to the official CSJ Opinion Summary. In doing so, the CSJ reinstated Wolverine Party candidates from all schools except LSA and Kinesiology, as there was no evidence of Mr. Englander tampering with those elections. The Wolverine Party is currently appealing the CSJ panel's decision to the entire CSJ, and claims to have 1,000 signatures from students supporting their cause.

Ironically, following the Fall 1998 MSA elections, Mr. Agrawal and other NFP members accused the Election Board of lackluster enforcement of campaign rules. In response to a Review investigation at that time, current Wolverine Party counsel Joe Bernstein admitted that, when he was on the election board, "Everybody's reluctant to disqualify people."

In part, Mr. Agrawal blames the current violations on previous Election Boards failing to properly enforce violations. Agreeing with the WP claim that he acted more forcefully than previous Boards, Mr. Agrawal insists he was equally strict towards all parties. In Mr. Agrawal's opinion, "Election Boards in the past have failed to uphold campaigning laws, which is why candidates feel they can rampantly violate the rules. Not this time."

President and Vice-President
Hideki Tsutsumi and Jim Secreto 3491
Rory Diamond and Marcy Greenberger 1392 - DISQUALIFIED
Glen Roe and Elise Erickson 1028
Erika Dowdell and Jessica Curtin 554
Kym Stewart and Brian Chiang 474
Galaxor Nebulon and Sara J. Sweat 298

LSA (9 seats)*
Doug Tietz 8088 - DISQUALIFIED
Jessica Cash 6311 - DISQUALIFIED
Steve Roach 6220 - DISQUALIFIED
Jessica Chamberlain 5846 - DISQUALIFIED
Shari Aviva Katz 5200
Teresa Bess 4697 - DISQUALIFIED
Andrea Pappas 4686
Burke E. Raine 4611 - DISQUALIFIED
Adi Neuman 4561 - DISQUALIFIED

Kinesiology (1 seat)*
Patrick Mullally 83 - DISQUALIFIED

*Points for MSA seats do not represent number of votes, but rather number of points (voters gave candidates from 9 points to 1 point)

41.62: Interfering With an Election: No person shall knowingly prevent or interfere with lawful voting by students, nor shall any person influence any student while he or she is voting.
41.64: Campaigning Near a Polling Place: No one shall campaign within fifty feet of a polling site.
41.68: Integrity of Elections: No student shall violate the integrity of (MSA) elections. Fraudulent acts ... and other dishonest or unethical acts will be treated with the utmost seriousness. ... The Election Board reserves the right to remove any candidate when there is substantive evidence that the candidate or his/her campaign committed an act that violates the integrity of MSA Elections. Candidates have the right to appeal such decisions to CSJ.
41.70 - Jurisdiction: The Election Director, Assistant Election Director, and one additional student appointed by the assembly is given jurisdiction to enact a penalty upon any student who violates the rules mentioned in 41.60. This penalty will be in the form of demerits. Demerits may be levied upon candidates for their own actions, as well as for illegal actions of those campaigning for them. Accumulation of five demerits by a single candidate will result in that candidate's disqualification.
41.701 - Violations by a candidate and his/her campaign: Candidates who violate sections 41.53-41.56 or sections 41.64-41.66 shall be subject to a penalty of one demerit. Candidates who violate sections 41.61 or 41.63 shall be subject to a penalty of three demerits. Candidates who violate section 41.62 shall be subject to a penalty of five demerits. Candidates who violate section 41.67 may be subject to a variable number of demerits, depending on the nature of the offense.

With reporting by Matthew Schwartz