The Electoral Commission (EC) has once again imposed a Class A sanction on a sabbatical officer campaign during the final days of voting, this time on Alice Moran who is on the ballot for communications officer.
Yesterday evening, a video of Moran with former Irish rugby superstar Brian O’Driscoll appeared on the campaign’s instagram page @alice4comms. O’Driscoll is seen holding the campaign’s green t-shirt, telling the camera: “Hey I’m Brian O’Driscoll, I know this lady and let me tell you, you would be idiots if you do not elect her, she’s gonna smash it. She does all the stuff that it says on the tin and more. Vote Alice No 1.”
Similar to the sanctions imposed upon Presidential candidate Jonothan Hoffman earlier this week, the EC claims that the video is an infringement of Section 1.9 of Schedule 3. This section outlines how campaign teams are forbidden to receive or solicit any sponsorship from organisations internal or external to the college. This may include financial aid, provision of resources and advertising. In an interview with Charlie Hastings for the University Times, Moran explains her frustration with the situation and what she perceives as inconsistent enforcement of the campaign rules by the EC. The reel of O’Driscoll was both filmed and posted after Hoffman had been sanctioned; however, Moran maintains that “I’d say that if I had interpreted the regulations as others have in my race, I would have posted this on day one.”
While acknowledging both her utmost respect for the EC and the belief that they have been heavily overworked in a year which has also included by-elections, Moran explains how the video was posted due to a lack of cooperation from the EC. “I’m a big rule follower. I was not planning on breaking the rules, but then seeing them breaking the rules and feeling frustrated, speaking to the EC about my frustrations, them hearing them, but still not seeing any progress being made. And then to have Jonathan Hoffman’s endorsement, obviously quite public, and his subsequent sanctioning also to be made very public. It kind of just boiled over. It made it clear that the EC was willing to sanction some candidates, but there wasn’t. There appeared to be no consistency with how they were choosing to sanction.” Moran does not believe that this is a matter of favouritism amongst candidates but rather a structural issue, using the endorsement as a stunt to shed light on unfair treatment that candidates were subject to.
A follow up reel appeared on the campaign’s instagram page this morning of Moran wearing an Irish rugby jersey and later the campaign’s tshirt, satirising the seeming hypocrisy of the EC wanting more engagement but dealing out a Class A sanction. The caption of the original video also includes many disclaimers directed towards the EC, the first of which describes O’Driscoll as “Alice’s close and personal friend” alongside the caption #BODisGOD. Moran explains that this was not making fun of the EC but rather to make her audience aware of the sanctions, and also shed light on frustrations surrounding the legislation’s irony. “They made it very clear what the rules were. I knew that I was breaking them … I would say that any candidate who has broken rules throughout this campaign world are also aware that they have broken them. The EC did such an incredible job of making us all aware of all the rules. And also my amazing campaign manager, Louise [Kenny] is a lawyer, and she was very good at reading the EC regulations and touching on what Jonathan has said regarding His sanction, that there are gaps there.”
In reference to these gaps, Moran claims that she knows Brian O’Driscoll in a personal capacity, as he lives near her, and not as a famous rugby player, and while exact details were not given as to where this reel was filmed, it was made clear that it did not happen on campus. While electing not to name specific individuals out of respect, she highlights instances of candidates who have received public endorsement from people known in a personal capacity, such as their mom. These individuals have not received the same sanctions, highlighting the inconsistencies in both Schedule 3’s regulation and enforcement.
This Class A sanction carries a penalty of 95 points, just 5 points shy of the 100 point limit a campaign can receive before being struck off the ballot. This also carries a 9.5-hour ban on campaigning from 10am to 7:30pm today, which has the potential to significantly alter the course of a campaign, as Hoffman highlighted in his case. This is highly unlikely in the case of Moran, as the polls close at 4pm, which she acknowledges was a consideration when timing her posts. “The timing of our posting that video was very much like an acknowledgement that it’s the last day of campaigning. Almost everyone has voted. And the locations that we were scheduled to be campaigning at, we thought there won’t be many people there. We’re okay with losing that potential voter interaction for this okay. It’s also why our follow up video was posted at 9:59 this morning.”
While the EC enforces strict rules that the campaign period runs in person from 10am to 5pm, they made candidates aware that they would not be enforcing online campaigning. This means that the 9:59am post is completely allowed and does not put Moran’s campaign at risk of another sanction which would lead to her being struck off the ballot and all votes being redistributed. This was a decision which was carefully weighed by Moran’s team and clarified with the chair of the EC; however, Moran maintains that even if this were to lead to further sanctions she feels confident that this would not have been in vain. “I have felt very proud of how I’ve conducted myself during this campaign. I’ve learned so much. I have really grown as a person. I think it’s been an invaluable experience, and on the subject of this stunt, I also don’t think it’s been for nothing. It has brought to people’s attention that there are issues with schedule three, and will possibly help build momentum in prioritizing that getting revised … It would be so sad to put in so much work and for it to not go well. We did weigh that as being a possibility. I feel confident in the thought and effort we put in weighing all of the possible consequences that this won’t be the case. If it is, it’ll be disappointing, but ultimately, it’s not that deep. I’ve made my point. I’m happy with the point that I’ve made.”
“It’s not that deep” is a sentiment which Moran acknowledges has been made known by some students who are members of the union, both voters and non-voters alike. “Why do people care about this? You’ve seen it on, I’m sure, comments under posts that the University Times have put up, why do we care about this? It’s just some students being cocky. I feel like it’s important. I really value the role of the union. I think I could do a really great job. But if it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. And my other candidates in my race, if I was struck in one of them, wins, I’m fair. I think they are more than capable for the job.”
In regards to both Hoffman’s strike and her own, Moran emphasises that although there were loopholes present, the EC’s expectations of all candidates was made abundantly clear. At the time the reel was posted Moran was at the Halls hustings, along with members of the EC. Before the post Moran spoke directly to the EC expressing her frustrations, to which they explained that although they understand that their limitations may be of issue they are making an active effort to rectify this. “They made it clear to us, yeah, beginning, when they told us the rules, if you’re going to break the rules, or you think you’re gonna break the rules, please tell us, say to our faces so we can be prepared. And I felt that was definitely very important. Respected us both ways. So while I was talking to them, I mentioned to the chair, by the way, I have just posted the video could be interpreted as an endorsement. I wanted to let you know it was actually very funny. Bailey didn’t know who Brian was. I said he’s a rugby player. Oh, does he go to Trinity?”
While Moran was offered the opportunity to remove her post as it had only been posted a few seconds, she elected to receive the sanction as a form of protest which highlights other campaigns which violated the rules much earlier, were reported by numerous campaigns including Moran’s, yet were not reprimanded. When speaking on a specific unnamed campaign, Moran claims “In the majority of cases, they were small actions, small infractions that would have maybe amounted to 10 points per infraction. However, the infraction was reported to my account 13 times. Sure, which pushes you over the limit for running if you’re getting 10 points for each sanction.”
When asked for a statement, the EC refused to elaborate on their decision and maintained the same position as they did in the case of Hoffman:
“In line with Section 1.6.6.d of Schedule 3, the EC does not comment on ‘the content or outcome of any investigation or sanction’.
“To maintain democratic integrity the EC is mandated to investigate and if necessary sanction any breaches of Schedule 3 in either ‘letter or in spirit’. The EC has continued to enforce election regulations outlined in Schedule 3, by following the procedures set out in Section 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 of Schedule 3. Throughout this entire Sabbatical Election the EC has and will continue to strive towards free, fair and engaged elections.”
At the end of what has become a notably fraught election period, a larger conversation has emerged concerning the role of the EC within the democratic process on campus. As highlighted by an editorial piece posted to the University Times, the role of sabbatical officers is one of substantial responsibility which involves overseeing over 20,000 students and allocating hundreds of thousands of euros in an effective manner. The focus must begin to shift from the minutiae of campaign legislation to ensuring each student has an informed vote if the end goal of the TCDSU is, genuinely, to positively shape the student experience.
