Are Sulksy and Brooks abusing their incumbency?

(update – I’m assured that, in fact, they aren’t.)

We’ve been receiving reports all night of a mass email sent by Justin Sulsky on behalf of himself and Andrew Brooks. They’ve used blind-carbon-copy, so we don’t know where they got email addresses of all these people.

Now, this is just unsourced speculation at this point, but the question must be asked: Where did they get all these email addresses? Because if they used their positions to gain access to these emails, then that’s probably illegal.

As to the content of these emails, they basically paint a picture of two Senators who rubberstamp worthy projects such as Endowment Transparency and Gender Neutral housing, while themselves taking the lead on small-bore projects like Spring Shuttles and Midnight Buffet. I agree with this characterization. Activists like our very own Alex Melman and Lev Hirschhorn (themselves both running for Student Union Senate) did all the work regarding Endowment Transparency. Activists like those in TRISK, along with Mike Kerns, brought us Gender Neutral Housing. I don’t think Sulsky and Brooks should pat themselves on the back too much for “supporting” either of those initiatives when all the work they did amounted to little more than voting the right way.






7 responses to “Are Sulksy and Brooks abusing their incumbency?”

  1. Lev

    Hey man, I’m not drinking any Kool-Aid. When I said overboard, I just meant that the campaign made Brooks and Sulsky look like real assholes. When they’re not. I disagree with them, and don’t want them to win, but they are both very nice guys. That’s all I meant.

  2. Annonymous

    To the comment about Midnight Buffet and Spring Shuttles: neither have done very much to plan these two events. The real credit should be given to Julie Rapp who has basically stepped in as the Senate Chair for the Committee and done a FANTASTIC job as well as the current Non-Senate Chair, Laura Cohen.

  3. Adam Hughes

    OK, so will someone please tell me exactly what we did that was so libelous and disgusting? Yes, we shined a harsh light on the records of Sulsky and Brooks. But where does this idea that we lied or spread malicious rumors come from?

    We had libel charges brought against us to the Elections Commission, and the Commission very explicitly declined to punish us in ANY way. Nelson Rutrick made two suggestions to us, and we made the changes immediately. The first concerned the statement that Sulsky and Brooks’ records include “authoring and being the only two senators to vote for the ridiculously partisan American flag resolution.” As it turns out, only Sulsky authored the resolution they both voted for. I actually knew this before writing the statement; what I was trying to say was that they were the ones responsible for the long, pointless debate. I admit that my wording made things unclear, though, so due correction was made.

    The second concerned Sahar’s statement that Andrew Brooks called Kamarin Lee “completely racist” in an e-mail. This turned out to be untrue. However, we got this false information from a Justice article for which a correction had been submitted but not put within the archive. As soon as we heard that this was not factually accurate, we corrected it as well. Do these sound like the actions of a serial smear campaign? Do the issues in question even seem large enough to raise a huge fuss about?

    In fact, I have already planned to push for some sort of action to be taken in regard to campus media to ensure that incidents like the “racist” quote do not happen again. And the person I discussed setting this up with was none other than Andrew Brooks himself. I am interested, Lev, if you have done this much as a potential senator to begin positive work with those candidates you disagree with after this election.

    Unfortunately, Ollie and Lev have chosen to drink the Kool-Aid that Justin Sulsky has been serving without questioning its accuracy. I have tried to hold their records in the brightest spotlight I could, and if they look horrible when I do, then maybe you’re holding the wrong person accountable.

  4. Lev

    Heh… Ollie has a bit of a point you know…

    I’ve been meaning to point that out really. The Student Bill of Rights has been in the drafting process all semester… and its two pages long. The timing of its release is pretty damn amusing.

    As for the Noam campaign. I do not support Brooks and Sulsky, but I do agree that much of the material I’ve seen written about them here and on facebook is way overboard.

    I think the real shame of it is that if Noam wins, Brooks/Sulsky can just claim now that its because of the trashing of their record. The fact that the student body didn’t want them elected is going to get lost in the controversy.

    The will of the voters will be a much better reflection on Brooks and Sulsky’s records than anything else, and lets not forget it.

  5. Ollie the Owl

    No abusing your incumbency would be doing what Jason Gray did and sending out a fluffy mass e-mail the day before the election using the all-students email list the day before the election singing the praises of the new student bill of rights which you had just authored.

    Sending out an e-mail to a bunch of e-mail addresses which you collected yourself is perfectly fine. I must say that the tone of this blog and Noam’s campaign during the last 2-3 days has been absolutely disgusting.

  6. Adam Hughes

    After discussion on this matter with Shreeya Sinha, Nelson Rutrick, and none other than Andrew Brooks himself, I am of the firm belief that no election rules were violated with this e-mail. Rest assured, however, that the Noam Shuster campaign will take advane of the rules that allow such an e-mail to be sent to completely clarify the record.

    As for the content of the e-mail, I agree that it is self-serving and more than a little misleading. I encourage everyone to correct anyone they hear discussing this e-mail; you might want to keep in mind that the elections commission received complaints about libel on our site, and they dismissed these complaints with no public reprisals. We are not running a dishonest campaign; we just refuse to compromise a frank discussion of the failings of Brooks and Sulsky’s record. It is no wonder that they object to this, but it is unfortunate that Justin Sulsky felt the need to smear our campaign in response.

  7. Anonymous

    This is actually completely within election rules. I remember getting several emails/messages on my phone to vote and I actually asked a higher up about it and its totally legal. Given that candidates on the ballot have access to all union materials, I’m pretty sure that noam could be able to do this too. But I’m not 100% on that point.