Live Blog: The UC Election Fiasco

It's the moment of truth we've all been waiting for.  At tonight's UC general meeting, the results of last week's highly controversial election will finally be settled. Keep watching us for live updates.

9:44 p.m.

It seems as if the UC fiasco has finally been resolved. Most of the UC seems happy and/or relieved.

So are we.

9:19 p.m.

UC and audience members are presented with a "UC Declaration of Faith in Eric Hysen," prepared by five members of the UC in order to "affirm Hysen's integrity and to thank him for the work he's already contributed to the UC." Aww, how cute.

McLeod declares that she and Flores also want to add their names to the declaration as an amendment. The motion is passed. Hysen's good name is restored. Or so they hope.

9:14 p.m.

Hayward gives a rather bittersweet congratulations to Bowman and Hysen. Zhang claims that he and Hayward only wanted to "leave Harvard better than when we started." Both hope that the issues raised by their campaign would be addressed.

9:11 p.m.

We get a three-minute break. And then we'll hear from Hayward and Zhang? They look kind of pissed.

9:09 p.m.

AND THE CERTIFICATION PASSES! BOWMAN-HYSEN ARE ANNOUNCED THE NEW UC PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT! The UC gives them a standing ovation.

9:06 p.m.

It's time for the roll call vote. Thirty-three vote in favor of certification. Four abstain. Two vote to disenfranchise. Guess who? (Hint #1: they ran against Bowman-Hysen. Hint #2: it's not Long-Johnson.)

9:05 p.m.

Another speaker in favor of certifying the results. Hysen's ex-prefrosh. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the results have not been tampered with.

9:04 p.m.

Another speaker against certifying the results. It's the Justice girl. No idea what she said. Had Phil Morris on the phone. UC declares this out of order.

9:02 p.m.

Flores speaks out in favor of certifying the results. "There is no evidence of foul play," she says. "The council I know would never throw away over 2,000 votes."

9:01 p.m.

Hayward speaks out against the results. Surprised? We're not.

"This is nothing personal, but we just have many unanswered questions" he starts off.

Need we go on?

8:53 p.m.

One concerned student claims that "as a voter, I would feel deeply disenfranchised by a revote."

8:51 p.m.

A member of the audience makes a valid point: "You can't really alter an election after the fact. You can't undo this," she says. "All you can do is look back on what went wrong and move forward and reform."

She adds, "As a voter, I would feel deeply disenfranchised by a revote."

8:49 p.m.

A UC member (who had Hysen as a host when he was a prefrosh) stands up to defend Hysen's teddy-bear qualities: "LOOK HIM IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM HE RIGGED THE ELECTION." Because a teddy bear can't rig election, silly.

8:45 p.m.

The floor is still open to UC and audience members to voice questions and comments. People are getting fired up. Some think tampering is incredibly unlikely, while others  still want "justice to be served." We think most of us just want this to get resolved.

8:42 p.m.

Hayward says he did not know that McLeod had locked Flores out of her ucpres@gmail account.

8:35 p.m.

Is this speech really still happening? Flores is telling the girl to stop. She speeds up. More incoherence. Help! We think her point is to tell the UC not to certify the election.

8:26 p.m.

Now a member of the Election Commission makes a statement. The girl starts by presenting a Justice book. She's asking for backup from Kant and Aristotle? We don't really know what's she's talking about. She seems to be saying something about justice in the student election process.

8:24 p.m.

A student asks Hysen straight up if he had the passwords. Ballsy.

Hysen explains (with surprising clarity) what happened on his end. After former UC Technical Director Randall S. Sarafa '09 graduated, Hysen was asked by Flores to take his place. Hysen's duties included overssing the basic upkeep of the UC website and other technology-related tasks. As part of this position, Hysen acquired the voting software information and all associated passwords.

But on Sunday, Nov. 15, he and Flores (who also had this information) were told by former chair of the Election Commission Brad A. Seiler '10 that their access to the software had been removed.

And this is where things get a little complicated.

Apparently, there are two parts to the election software. The front end deals with the voting itself, the tabulation of results, the addition of candidates, and so on. The back end contains the Audit Log that had been assessed by the FAS IT. Hysen says he assumed that he had been removed from both ends, but it turns out that Seiler had not removed him from the back end. But Hysen swears that he didn't log in to the program and that he was too busy campaigning to have time to do so.

8:22 p.m.

Flores confirms that The E-mail was written by two Hayward-Zhang campaign staffers and one supporter. Interesting.

8:19 p.m.

Hayward stands up for an announcement. "We have to separate that e-mail from what we're talking about right now," he says. "We're not accusing anyone of anything." (He's referring to the e-mail that accused Hysen of tampering with the voting results.  For simplicity's sake, we're just going to call it The E-Mail from now on.)

Really, now? Hayward claims that he only wants to find out one thing: "Did anyone have access to the software?" Apparently, FAS IT results aren't enough.

8:16 p.m.

One student (and former member of the Election Commission!) seems to be upset because he thought he was attending this meeting for deliberations. He complains that apparently everyone here has already "unanimously decided" to certify the election.

8:13 p.m.

A freshman UC rep decides he wants to tell a story about how he used to be a hypochondriac who always went to UHS, thinking he was sick even when he had no symptoms. The point of this revelation? We're all being metaphoric hypochondriacs about this UC stuff and should just chill out.

8:12 p.m.

Vice-presidential candidate Eric N. Hysen '11 says that FAS IT is able to identify who logs into the system, and from where.  But they did not find any such evidence.  Hmm...so what else is new?

8:11 p.m.

The same student is still asking the same questions. Is there a point to this? FAS IT found no evidence of hacking. We get it. Admirably, Dean Marine and Flores are keeping their cool.

8:01 p.m.

Assistant Dean of Harvard College for Student Life Susan Marine explains how the UC voting system works. She reads a long list of FAS IT reports, which concludes that the security scans and vulnerability assessment scans "found no significant issues" or "evidence of suspicious activity." Basically, information security was unable to conclude that the Audit Log had been modified in any way.

After several probing questions from one concerned member of the student audience, Dean Marine acknowledges that there is "no way to guarantee that no one could have possibly manipulated the system," but that there is still no concrete evidence of hacking.

8:00 p.m.

George J.J. Hayward ’11, a presidential candidate who ran against the Bowman-Hysen ticket, gets up to say that he just wants to get to the bottom of some questions and wants to keep the game from getting "too political."

We'll see about that.

7:49 p.m.

Current UC Vice President Kia J. McLeod '10 gives an impassioned, well-crafted speech, first apologizing for last Thursday's miscommunications, then pointing out that this debacle has finally shed light on some of the UC's problems.

She maintains, however, her innocence in the controversy over the e-mail that accused vice-presidential candidate Eric N. Hysen '11 of voting fraud.  "I do not deny my honest words that I did not draft that first e-mail," McLeod says. She states that although the tone of that fateful message was inappropriate, "the spirit in which that e-mail was sent was was to draw attention to the [flawed] election system."

Translation: she didn't write the e-mail, but she sent it.  So yes, she approved of its contents.

But she seems sincere in her apologies, emphasizing that her intentions were good. "I know I sounded an alarm, but it was not done out of malice," she says.

McLeod also implores UC members to take this as an opportunity to fix the Council's flawed system, especially taking advantage of the fact that all eyes are on the UC now. "My glowing successes are my only stakes in this game," she announced.

We're not sure what that last line means, but can we just point out that maybe the fact that this e-mail could be sent also demonstrates one of the UC's "flaws"?

7:40 p.m.

Current UC President Andrea R. Flores '10 announces that these days have been "incredibly difficult times for the UC," and that their "image is at stake." Beseeching the UC to "move forward" and certify the election, Flores said her recent investigation, conducted with Assistant Dean of Harvard College for Student Life Susan Marine and FAS IT specialists, has revealed that "there is no questionable behavior [in] the UC's voting system" and that this election was "fairly won."

She also takes a minute to remind the UC to remember that "we are a council, we are students who live and work in the same place," and that "at the end of the day, we are just members of student government, and student government should never be the subject of harsh personal attacks."

7:30 p.m.

UC reps and eager, answer-seeking students are still filing in. Everyone is all smiles, despite the obvious tension in the room.  Guess we're starting on Harvard time?