An international student had trouble voting for an international senator Wednesday in the Government of the Student Body elections.

Lars Angenent, a graduate student in environmental engineering, said he wanted to write in two names for the international seats. Students who vote for the international seats are allowed to vote for two candidates.

But Angenent said he was told an election commissioner that he could only write in one name. So he did.

Casey Powers is the only candidate on the ballot, although he is from Pocahontas, Iowa. In an attempt to prevent Powers from winning the seat, many international students have been writing in two other names. Angenent wanted to do the same.

Later, he found out that he could have written in two names. He said he went back to ask a monitor about it and the monitor said Angenent could not “revote” because his ballot was already cast.

Angenent said the monitor told him his vote didn’t matter because Powers wasn’t going to win anyway. “I was mad because I missed one vote,” he said.

That was just the start of the criticisms directed toward election officials, Election Commissioner Ryan Flaugh in particular, Wednesday. The issue came to a head at the Senate meeting Wednesday night in the Pioneer Room of the Memorial Union.

Trish Sandahl, graduate senator and last year’s election commissioner, told the Senate that she’s heard several complaints.

“I have voiced my concerns to Ryan,” Sandahl said.

Flaugh was called to the meeting to answer criticisms.

Angenent and his friend, Neelika Perreira, were also at the meeting. Perreira, an alumnae and former member of the Student Union Board, confronted Flaugh earlier in the day in defense of her friend.

“He spent 3 or 4 minutes telling me how he wasn’t supervised by anybody,” Perreira said. “The nerve of this person being so bloody arrogant.”

Perreira and Angenent presented their argument to the Senate at the meeting.

Perreira and Angenent said they did not want to “hang” Flaugh or have the elections thrown out.

“I couldn’t believe his arrogance,” Perreira said. “We want him to know that he is accountable to someone for his actions.”

Senators debated what punishment, if any, would be appropriate for Flaugh.

Adam Obrecht, agriculture, said it is nice that the Senate was informed of the situation, but senators don’t oversee Flaugh. Still, some mentioned a censure. Others suggested Flaugh’s GSB stipend be revoked.

Terri Houston, GSB adviser and assistant dean of students, cautioned the Senate against making any rash decision.

John Hamilton, business, said he didn’t think any punishment should be imposed while the elections are on-going. “I feel really uncomfortable with [Flaugh] being a part of the Senate [discussion] because he has a lot of power,” Hamilton said.

Flaugh said he was “sorry” at the meeting.

“First of all I’m glad you’re complaining to someone,” Flaugh told Perreira and Angenent.

“I agree I should be accountable to someone.”

Flaugh said he believes he is accountable to Houston. “When I did say that I did lose my temper,” Flaugh said. “It’s been a long day and yesterday was a long day. I apologize for yelling and saying it in that way.”

Yasmin Blackburn, off-campus, asked Flaugh if he could handle running the elections today, the last day of voting.

Flaugh said he could.

But the debate continued even after Flaugh left the room. Mike Pogge, LAS, told the Senate that when he entered the Oak Room, the election room, early in the evening, he saw Flaugh taking ballots out of the box while the polls were still open.

“The ballot box is not supposed to be opened at any point during the election day, and that is stated directly in the election code,” Pogge said.

Ballot boxes are supposed to be locked until the polls close at the end of each day, when the Flaugh locks them in a room in the Union. In the morning, the previous day’s ballots are supposed to be taken by Flaugh to the Testing Center, where they are counted.

Repeated attempts to reach Flaugh after the meeting were unsuccessful.

---

History of GSB elections

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

# of slates 4 3 3 4 6 3

#of elections 2 1 2 2 3 1

turnout in 1st election 2,300 1,677 2,050 1,910 postponed 1,699

turnout in 2nd election 1,348 — 2,048 1,800 voided —

turnout in 3rd election — — — — 898 —