Though we did and do endorse Ian Lee on the basis of his ideas, we feel compelled to voice our reservations about the legitimacy of his candidacy due to its clear violation of the Student Code. The Board of Elections’ failure to even acknowledge this concern is appalling.
The code states, “The following Student Government officers shall not participate in a campaign for any elected position…” and then lists 10 student government positions, the sixth of which, Student Body Secretary, is currently held by Lee.
As our endorsement stated, Lee should have stepped down from this position, and still can.
This far into the race, addressing the violation might do more harm than good. But that does not change the principle of the matter: The BOE needs to do its job.
The BOE should not be content for its inaction to serve as tacit approval. Nor should the other candidates’ silence about Lee’s violation be interpreted as a lack of concern on their part. The consequences for a candidate of suing an opponent are manifold and largely negative, even if the suit is won.
First and foremost, responsibility to follow the code rests with the candidates.
Regardless of his reasons for doing so — his last-minute decision to run combined with his obligation to fulfill his duties as secretary — Lee is ultimately responsible for any consequences of this breach.
And if Lee broke the code unwittingly, he still must be prepared for the fallout, since ignorance of the law is never an excuse for breaking it — especially because the secretary’s job is to know the code in and out. Lee’s enormous institutional knowledge, perhaps his greatest strength, seems unlikely to help him explain his actions here.
But the BOE, led by Andrew Phillips, is to blame, too. As the primary check on candidates’ power, it should have addressed these issues long before they came to our attention.
