Allegations including bribery and illegal recording of interviews have been raised against newly elected SGA4YOU officers of the Student Government Association as a result of controversial interview practices.
The incoming SGA officers are accused of bribery, illegal recording of interviews, and ousting of individuals because of their UNITEDSGA loyalty during interviews for executive board positions by four students who interviewed for positions on the SGA's Executive Board last week. The incoming SGA officers could face potential action from Judicial Affairs and the SGA legislative bodies.
In response to the allegations, SGA4YOU campaign strategist and executive assistant Taris Mullins said that little to none of the accusations are true. Mullins, a senior English major, was directly involved with organizing the interview process for executive board position appointments.
Several applicants interviewed for executive board positions said they were asked if they would accept $100 to cease pursuit of the position. Mullins was solely responsible for the composition and content of each question asked to executive board applicants.
"This is a misinterpretation which we will take ownership for," Mullins said. "This is not something that we intended to be misinterpreted, but the question was not worded one hundred percent correctly. We thought it was really clear what we were saying."
SGA4YOU cites an article from a popular magazine as their inspiration for the controversial question.
"Our explanation for our process came from an article in Fast Company magazine and the company Zappos," Mullins said. "It's a billion-dollar company. Basically, what he did during his interview process is exactly what we did. They asked, 'If we were to give you $2,000 would you leave the company and the process right now?' We used that as an inspiration to model the question after."
Of the 150 applicants for 41 positions, not all candidates received this question. In a group interview, members of the SGA4YOU ticket declined to say how many students received the question.Former SGA Director of Transportation and sophomore Spanish major Ricardo Boulware, on the opposing UnitedSGA ticket in the SGA elections held in April, reapplied for his executive board position as director of transportation affairs, but was not chosen for the job.
"They did ask me the question concerning leaving the process for $100," Boulware said. "I cannot put a monetary value on my service."
SGA4YOU admits that there was, in fact, $100 on the table during the interviews where this question was asked. However, they said the money was not going to be given out.
"We never gave them $100; we said 'if.' There was money sitting on the table, but it is not money that was going to be given to anyone at any time," Mullins said. "The purpose of that question was to determine whether or not people were actually approaching this situation in the right manner and whether or not they wanted to be involved with SGA for the right reasons or if they just wanted to do it for the status."
Beyond the question involving the $100, the same questions, however, were not asked to every applicant. There was a set of standard questions that was asked to every student that was interviewed. Then, based upon which position that person was applying for, there were two specific questions per position.
At the end of the interview, there were two different rotating questions that were asked randomly.
"The other question we would ask them was if we were to offer you an assistant directorship position or committee role, would you still want to be involved in the SGA," Mullins said.
Former co-director of constituent outreach Jessy Miller served on the executive board this year, and applied to continue.
"My interview was on Tuesday evening, and that's when I first heard of the bribery," Miller said.
Miller, a sophomore history major, said the alleged bribery caught applicants off guard.
Applicant Nicole Zajowski, a freshman business management major, had an interview the same day as Boulware, and was not offered the $100.
"Even though they claim this is standard practice or a business oriented practice, this is a student organization not a business," said Miller, who did not receive the $100 question. "It's just fishy because it seems that Ricardo was the only one."
SGA4YOU said this question was to see whether or not the applicants simply wanted the title of director, or if they truly wanted to serve in the organization. They say it was not to target anyone.
"We wanted to make sure that people were here for students," Mullins said. "That's what our entire campaign was run behind. We wanted no one to feel biased or to feel jaded. People need to be here not just to bolster their resume. They need to be here for the students."
Mullins says that the question was not a major issue for the interviewers and was simply used as an aide.
"This question was not the defining factor. It did not make or break someone's candidacy," Mullins said. "We simply used this information in addition to the answers and information we already had as far as their qualifications and their resume."
Others have also complained that the same questions were not asked to each candidate between positions. SGA Justice Thomas Haghdal said the inconsistency is not a direct violation of SGA bylaws, but is out of the ordinary.
"Nothing in the constitution or bylaws says they need to be the same, but it's highly advisable and has always been done in the SGA that for every interview, everyone is asked the same questions," Haghdal said. "I have been speaker of the house in 2007-2008, and when we did executive interviews back then, we asked the same questions. It wasn't like 'This person is this; we'll ask them this question.'"
Those making allegations against SGA4YOU also claim that the interview process was flawed in the fact that individuals who did not apply for a certain position were given that title in lieu of someone more qualified and who had actually applied for that role.
"A lot of things for government affairs require a lot of contacts, a lot of experience, and also a lot of things that need to be done quickly and on the ball," Haghdal said. "You need more experience than that, and the best way to get it is from an assistant director position. They've completely eliminated that and now there are two co-directors. It's never been done like this."
Most upper level positions in SGA usually require prerequisites, and Haghdal, a senior engineering and economics major, says that the traditional system was not followed this year.
"Generally, executive positions are given to people who have been in SGA for a long time and have been on (the SGA executive committee) for a while," Haghdal said. "These positions are basically oversight, and they coordinate what the people below them are getting ready to do. In the past, that's been the way things have been done."
Miller found it odd that many positions were given to applicants who applied for different positions. Miller's 2008-2009 position, co-director of constituent outreach, was given to an applicant who did not apply for the position.
"Every former exec member was granted an interview. I received confirmation on Saturday that I was not reappointed to the executive board," Miller said. "Sherry Meehan, who was given the position that I applied for did not apply for it. She did not apply for executive director of outreach because she had never served on executive board."
Miller reiterates her belief that Meehan is very capable as she is also a member of class leadership, but cites other realignment issues.
Meehan declined to be interviewed for this article.
"They changed it from co-director instead of a director and assistant director of government affairs. In the past, it's been a graduating program. When you're the assistant director and you've done your job, then you graduate to the next position," Miller said.
Another example of the drastic realignment is seen with Scott O'Donnell, former assistant director of government affairs. He was not given a position, and that spot was given to individuals who had not previously served on executive board.
Haghdal believes positions were not given to active supporters of UnitedSGA, the opponent of SGA4YOU in the recent election.
"O'Donnell applied for directorship, and it wasn't given to him because he was an active supporter of the other ticket," Haghdal said.
Miller said the elimination of UnitedSGA supporters could hinder the organization moving forward.
"They have no former leadership returning, which is concerning due to the fact that they've got three executive director positions that are in charge of so much and this is only because people didn't support them," Miller said.
Many incoming executive board members will be disadvantaged because of the change in hiring strategies, Miller said.
"Once you serve as an assistant director, especially in government affairs, you have an advantage because you have experience," Miller said. "It's hard to come into that kind of position because there are so many factors. It's more difficult to enter and be effective as somewhat of an outsider."
Mullins says, however, that appointments were justified.
"I conducted the entire process, from writing every single question, to the applications, to the interview schedule, everything. As we reviewed applications, we made sure people who were applying for certain positions were applying for positions they wanted," Mullins said. "If it came up in the interview process that they were interested in another position, then we would keep that in mind as we made our appointments."
SGA4YOU says they had no intent to pigeonhole any applicant.
"While they might have said PR or technology on their application but during the conversation they are deviating toward something else, we would go with that train of thought," Mullins said.
Accusation of Illegal Interview Recording
Boulware said the alleged bribery was not the only suspicious part of his interview.
"My interview was Saturday at 5:45 in the SGA Office," Boulware said. "In the interview room, there were two open computers. One was (SGA treasurer) Joey Zakutney's, and his iPhone was connected to his computer. Shane (McCarty, SGA vice president) told me he wouldn't be present for the interview, so he told me they may be recorded. When I entered the room, there were no formal cameras or notification that I would be recorded. They did not ask my permission. I sat across from the table with Taris on my left, he and Joey had an open computer, but there was no formal camera or note that the iPhone was recording."
Mullins said recordings were made when certain officials were not able to attend.
"We only recorded a couple of interviews towards the beginning of the process when we weren't necessarily able to have every single party present," Mullins said. "Before we even began filming we had the consent of the individuals that were involved in that, and we offered them an explanation why the other stakeholders present for their interviews."
Miller also noticed Zakutney's iPhone, and questioned its use.
"Their executive assistant, Taris, was taking their notes. Attached to a computer was an iPhone. I know that Joey Zakutney has an iPhone and uses it regularly," Miller said. "I heard that Saturday interviews were recorded, and no one had been informed of this. I asked in my interview if I had been recorded, and they looked at each other, and then looked at me and they said 'No.'
When asked if names could be provided of those who were aware that the interview was being recorded, SGA4YOU could not furnish any names. SGA4YOU also claims that there were only video interviews, and no audio.
"After we completed the process, we shared the information with the other stakeholders and the video was destroyed," Mullins said.
SGA4YOU claims the only computer in the room was a Dell belonging to Mullins. The only reason the computer was in the room was to ensure that the activities of the interview were monitored.
"At any point in the process, I don't know where someone got that idea. That was not part of the process," Mullins said.
Allegations of political preference impacting interviews
SGA4YOU says they did not necessarily bring back every single eligible person due to the number of applicants. While some say that this was due to favoritism, Mullins says this is not the truth.
"I don't think there was any intentional effort from anybody on any side to oust anyone unceremoniously," Mullins said. "It was a matter of us wanting to make sure we assembled a team that was extremely passionate about serving the students. That's what our goal is. We have brought back members from exec last year to next year's team, but it's not fair to the student body to bring people onto executive merely because we felt obligated to."
Shane McCarty, newly elected SGA Vice President, said some change was expected going into the interviews due to the high volume of applicants."In the past, it's been a mindset of 'I'm in SGA, I continue in SGA all the way up,' but I think the point that isn't mentioned is that when you have three times as many people apply, those are outside people and students who were affected by our campaign, saw student government out there, and really tried to make a difference. We saw students come in here that had qualifications that I've never seen. They may not be considered a student leader on this campus, but it's because they haven't been seen in this capacity," McCarty said.
SGA4YOU believes the increase in applicants was due to an effective campaign.
"I think we really showed something different than most student governments. We let students choose our No. 1 platform, that's how important the student's voice is to us. I think that is really telling," McCarty said. "They saw a group of students that wanted to change this school and make it better, and that's what they wanted to be a part of."
SGA President Brandon Carroll said the spike in applications showed a new group of people was interested in the organization.
"So many people that I've just never crossed paths will and so many different student leaders wanted to be a part of this," Carroll said. "It's an honor."
Some proved they were not applying only for the positions of power.
"People came in here just wanting to be involved, even without high directorship roles," said SGA Treasurer Joey Zakutney.
Mullins contends that there was no deception during the executive board interviews.
"Every single thing we did during the interview process, we tried to keep completely transparent. We were never trying to hide information from people, we explained the purpose of things right then and there," Mullins said.
McCarty said applicants had a chance to confront he and the other SGA officials.
"At the end of every single interview, we said do you have any questions for us. We are trying to be approachable and get feedback," McCarty said. "Most people just said no and walked away."
Miller also expressed frustration with the rescheduling of interviews. Kirsten Kube, a member of the UnitedSGA ticket, was a candidate for chief justice and was interviewed at 10:45 p.m. on a Tuesday night. Kube was not granted the appointment -- the role was given to Erica Swanson.
"Her interview was finally at 10:45 on Tuesday night," Miller said. "It's very hard to work for two years and spend endless hours in the office and in one fell swoop to be ousted."
Mullins said Kube's scheduling trouble was an isolated incident.
"The only interviews we moved around during the course of the process were the chief justice interview. We allowed people to sign up for their own interview time, but Dana Gilmore needed to be present for this interview, and taping it was not an option," Mullins said.
While the 2008-2009 officers, led by President Emily Mashack and Vice-President Rianka Urbina, brought some change, Miller said the organization remained on a steady track.
"Emily and Rianka brought in a lot of new faces last year and were somewhat criticized for that, but there are always a lot of returning experienced people as well," Miller said. "It's not like if you don't know anything you're not going to get the position, but if you are experienced it is easier to keep up with the program and help out."
Issues have also been raised concerning the transition meeting that was held on Sunday. The former executive board was supposed to meet with the new executive board for transition details.
"The former exec was told be in Squires at 1 p.m. The new exec was told to be in Squires at 2 p.m. by the new administration. This means that a majority of the new executive team has not been transitioned," Miller said. "Emily Mashack, former SGA president, did not require the new exec to wait around for an hour because they were given the wrong time by the new administration."
SGA4YOU admitted there was a miscommunication with the outgoing president, Mashack. However, the matter in which the transition was essentially handled is also being called into question.
"Brandon and Shane said their people would not show up until 2:00. Shane told us to drop off our binders, and they would go from there," Boulware said. "It has been routine has been to meet in person, but they clearly did not want us to have interaction with the new team. "
Lastly, stolen ideas are another bullet on the long list of complaints against the ticket during executive board interviews.
Allison Parker, former Historian, also did not receive any executive position despite applying for the board.
"I gave a proposal for an event and I had several points planned for the event, and I introduced this during my interview," Parker said. "In the end, they didn't mention anything to me about the event, but there is now a conference coordinator on their exec board, and I was not appointed to an executive position."
Boulware said the SGA should hire Parker, a sophomore Communication major, if they intend to use her thoughts.
"What SGA did, without permission, was take her idea with no credit given to Allison Parker," Boulware said.
Haghdal believes that this was completely due to the fact that Parker supported UnitedSGA during the election.
"There were a number of people who were very qualified who did a lot of good things for SGA this year, and a lot weren't appointed positions," Haghdal said. "Most of that was because they didn't support SGA4YOU or they ran for or supported the other side. It's very obvious there is a slight."
The final list of executive board members that were appointed has more positions than were offered on the original offering list. The SGA4YOU ticket has significantly expanded their executive board membership, and Boulware believes the motives for this are questionable.
"The SGA4You ticket is looking for a lack of drama. They want to get as many people on their ticket that they promised positions to, and for that reason I feel as if that is why they are expanding their exec board," Boulware said. "The SGA4YOU team claims that they are here to represent the student voice and represent the students, but I feel as if they have wrongly been disenfranchising those of us who are currently on the exec board and now were not selected due to personal endeavors and issues, such as those not being included in the social circle and feeling excluded from certain things."
Some also believe that the overall composition of the SGA and their relationships with others at Tech will suffer from the questionable practices of the SGA4YOU ticket.
"The relationships the SGA has established with the university administration will suffer from this, and for that to happen to the organization we all care so much about is truly unfortunate," Boulware said.
After consulting with SGA Chief Justice Dana Gilmore, Boulware has filed a grievance with judicial affairs.
"At least one grievance has been filed, and it's really up to the judicial branch of SGA to deal with that in conjunction with the SGA advisor, Kim Timpany," said Ed Spencer, Vice President of Student Affairs. "Really, by SGA Constitution and bylaws, it is a matter for their judicial branch to deal with and maybe their advisor."
"It's getting vicious, and I think SGA is getting hurt by it because people who are good for the organization and do a lot of good work aren't allowed to continue because they didn't support SGA4YOU during the election," Haghdal said. "It never used to happen like this."
Haghdal said SGA legislation has the opportunity to take action if they see fit.