ASNMU president Katerina Klawes was campaigning at the Marketplace on Tuesday evening when she received an email from ASNMU’s Election Committee that it was investigating a claim that she had forged an election document.
Klawes immediately stopped campaigning and began preparing for an emergency hearing scheduled the next morning, Wednesday, March 18, to address claims that she forged approval to canvass for re-election at Payne Hall.
If the charges were proven, Klawes would be deemed ineligible for re-election. Klawes asked the Election Committee if she could see the document in question before her hearing.
“That was never honored,” Klawes said.
The emergency meeting started about 10:15 a.m. Wednesday, March 18, when the ASNMU Election Committee told Klawes its course of action, giving her the option to drop out of the campaign or to continue under investigation.
Around 1:42 p.m. she received an email from Mitchell Sevigny, chair of the Election Committee, that her deadline to withdraw would be noon, Thursday, March 19, one hour before the NMU student government election results would be posted.
If Klawes didn’t comply and the Committee determined there was evidence that a document was forged, she would be disqualified and her opponent Lindsey Lieck would win by default.
According to Klawes, after she presented her evidence objecting to the claims, the Election Committee did not vote again to determine its course of action.
Four of the five Election Committee members had signed a document detailing her ultimatum, then did not reconsider it after she gave her defense.
“This was before I was able to provide my evidence,” Klawes said. “So they had come up with the decision of how to handle it before I could even defend myself.
“I think it’d be like the jury voting that someone’s guilty and then having the court case.”
The Election Committee received the claim at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 17, then held a meeting at 5 p.m., which resulted in Klawes’ emergency hearing.
Klawes was presented with the three following charges: failure to receive permission to canvass at Payne Hall, failure to present written proof of permission to the Election Committee and falsifying and/or modifying messages in order to gain permission.
“I did not forge any documents or emails,” Klawes said. “What they are calling into question is a sentence.”
At the meeting, the Election Committee showed Klawes an email containing an allegedly fraudulent sentence granting her permission to campaign in Payne Hall.
She was not provided with a copy of the email and The North Wind could not obtain one before going to print.
Klawes said she received permission to canvass during a Payne Hall Government meeting on Thursday, March 12.
She emphasized that her vice presidential running mate Jess Gula and ASNMU General Studies Representative Sheila Williams canvassed in Payne Hall, but that Klawes herself did not. She claims this nullifies the first and second charges, which are dependent on each other.
“Two of the three charges are laughable, in my opinion,” Klawes said.
According to Klawes, Williams confirmed with Gula that they had permission.
No charges were made against Gula and a Payne Hall representative could not be reached.
The Election Committee is investigating the charges and promised to have the investigation results posted with election results.
In an official comment received via email, the Election Committee stated: “We take all complaints very seriously in order to uphold the fairness and integrity of the election.”
They did not comment further.
According to ASNMU Election Rules and Regulations, a candidate will be disqualified from the election if they commit three minor violations or one major violation in the campaigning process.
The Election Committee could not confirm whether the charges constitute major or minor violations.
Klawes requested senior political science major Brice Burge accompany her to the meeting for emotional support and witness testimony.
Burge claims he was advised by Election Committee members to not attend the meeting.
Even though Klawes was advised via email to bring witness testimony, Burge claimed committee members deliberated as to whether or not he could be present. While they discussed it, he went to the bathroom.
By the time he returned, the door was closed and the meeting was underway. No ASNMU advisers were present in either of the meetings and were not available for comment.
“It’s one sentence, which makes it really small,” Burge said, adding that forgery is significant whether or not it was seemingly minor. “Even though it is just one sentence at hand, you’ve got reputations and future reliability that you have at all points.”
Whether or not forgery was involved, Burge maintains Klawes was not given any form of due process.
“If there was fair time and due process to investigate and make sure that things were okay, then a lot of the [issues] would be remedied,” Burge said. “That process was completely undermined. To say Klawes was anything but railroaded is a complete understatement.”
CB • Mar 25, 2015 at 11:45 pm
Tom B.
I am a supporter of Kat, and have seen the alleged evidence against her. I was wondering if you had any recommendations for a good lawyer in the Marquette area.
Kristen • Mar 24, 2015 at 12:48 am
This allegation against Katerina Klawes make me very angry with the election committee. Ms. Klawes has done nothing wrong and for the election committee to say she did and not even give her a chance to prove that she is innocent. Well, that is just wrong and shameful I just don’t see why they did that on the day before elections ended.
Tom B • Mar 19, 2015 at 9:47 pm
As an NMU alumni and an campaign professional, the law is on Ms. Klawes side here.
From the Wikipedia article on canvassing:
“Throughout the 21st century, local governments in the United States have passed local laws to limit Americans’ ability to canvass. Many of these challenges escalated to the Supreme Court, which has ruled overwhelmingly on the side of the public’s right to canvass as protected by the First Amendment. For example, in Martin v. Struthers, Justice Hugo Black stated:
“Freedom to distribute information to every citizen wherever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that … it must be fully preserved. To require a censorship through license which makes impossible the free and unhampered distribution of pamphlets strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees.”[3]
In 2002, the Supreme Court reconfirmed its conviction that canvassing is protected by our First Amendment rights in Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton. Justice John Paul Stevens stated:
“It is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.”[4]”
The very fact that the university is requiring forms to be signed to canvass and speak to university students in regards to their representation in student government is completely unconstitutional.
Ms. Klawes could win this lawsuit with Saul Goodman as her attorney.
Ryan • Mar 19, 2015 at 2:27 pm
It amazes me that student government elections are so concerned about individual candidate’s validity with only hours before the vote. Undoubtedly one of the fastest actions i’ve ever seen taken at this level (or in almost any political atmosphere for that matter).
Without due process, the threat to invalidate Kat’s right to run is an empty threat, nothing more. If an appropriate (and legal with respect to the SG’s bylaws) investigation is undertaken AND Kat was found guilty, then I would have no problem with their concern for quick (while still following due process) action and I would fully support their decision to revoke her rights to running or elected position.
HOWEVER, nothing Kat allegedly did validates the necessity for such threats or the railroading that she experienced (no violent crimes were committed), let alone the fact that the entire student government bypassed the systems in place for handling these issues.
Instead of wasting time and efforts trying to victimize someone who stands to gain no financial reward from a victorious race, perhaps more effort should be placed on investigating WHY the due process and emergency management systems were thrown out the door? Perhaps instead of investigating someone with no proof and empty threats we should investigate those who convey meaning to inappropriate actions and make the threats (whether it be formal or informal)? Perhaps we should remove student government entities from existence in all public institutions if we’re going to claim petty misgivings instead of focusing on the whole purpose of the organization in the first place – STUDENT’S RIGHTS?
This is an example of how NOT to handle your student government’s internal affairs.