A conflict between junior class slates The Giving Tree and Ocean’s Oh-Ten over campaign emails has led to one of the most heated exchanges between ASSU candidates in recent memory.

“Never in the history of Stanford elections has there been such cold politics,” wrote Elections Commissioner Ryan Woessner ‘10 in an email to both slates and The Daily.

Woessner declined to revoke the fair campaign status of either slate, but thoroughly condemned their actions.

“It is not against campaign policies to send out negative messages against another slate because it never happens, at least not at this level,” Woessner wrote. “What happens between you two happens, but involving the entire sophomore class and student body is unacceptable.”

The controversy began with a newsletter sent by the current sophomore class presidents to the Class of 2010 list on Mar. 5 entitled “What do our Class Presidents Do?” The email touted several of the group’s past accomplishments, and urged sophomores to come to the sophomore showcase at the Cantor Arts Museum.

The problem? The sophomore class presidents are running for re-election under the same name — The Giving Tree — with the addition of newcomer Ronnie Tisdale ‘10.

“It was a newsletter,” said Cameron Drake ‘10, a member of The Giving Tree. “It was fully designed to give people an idea of what had been going on from the class presidents. We sent emails like this every quarter. This quarter was no different.”

The Giving Tree sent a similar email to the class list on Apr. 3, but this time, the sending of the email just days before ASSU elections drew increased scrutiny.

After seeing the Apr. 3 email, Ocean’s Oh-Ten filed an official complaint with the Elections Commission, accusing The Giving Tree of inappropriate campaigning.

Woessner denied Ocean Oh-Ten’s complaint.

“It was just very strategic timing,” Woesnner said of The Giving Tree’s email. “They weren’t specifically campaigning.”

But Ocean’s Oh-Ten wasn’t satisfied with Woessner’s decision and pursued the issue further.

“If you mention a slate name, it’s automatically campaigning,” said Jonathan Kass ‘10, a sitting ASSU senator and member of the Ocean’s Oh-Ten slate.

Kass told The Daily that The Giving Tree was essentially exploiting a loophole in the rules by running with the same slate name they used the year before, so that their newsletters would not violate fair election policies.

Kass and his Ocean’s Oh-Ten slate subsequently worked out a compromise with The Giving Tree and Nanci Howe, student affairs director in the Office of Student Activities (OSA), to provide Ocean’s Oh-Ten with access to the Class of 2010 email list. Under the terms of the deal, Ocean’s Oh-Ten would have their platform posted on the list.

But that is where the disagreements intensified.

“We didn’t want to post to the Class of ‘10 list,” Kass said, “But we thought it was unfair for them [The Giving Tree] to post to the list.”

The main point of contention between the two slates is the question of who was supposed to post the Ocean’s Oh-Ten platform. While Ocean’s Oh-Ten claims that under the terms of the deal Nanci Howe was supposed to post the email, The Giving Tree, which eventually posted the email, said that they were given permission to do so by Howe.

“We were put under the impression that the administrator would email it out for us, with the proviso that it would contain a statement saying that ‘this could be done because of the previous campaign violations [by The Giving Tree],’” Kass said.

But The Giving Tree was not, and has not been, convicted of any campaign violations, a fact that The Giving Tree candidates repeated to The Daily several times.

“The bottom line for us is that that is not what we had agreed to, and we wanted to share that with those who were going to be reading the email,” added Ocean’s Oh-Ten candidate Anthony Bestafka-Cruz ‘10. “We spoke with Nanci Howe and she was to send it.”

Ocean’s Oh-Ten declined to provide The Daily with any email correspondence confirming their communications with Howe.

The Giving Tree told The Daily that they did not want the email posted to the list by Howe, and that the OSA administrator agreed with them.

“They were under the impression that they were going to have the email sent from Nanci Howe,” Drake said. “Our slate objected to this, because we didn’t like the idea of Nancy sending an email to our class list — it would implicate impropriety on our behalf.”

Drake said that he confirmed with Howe three times that it was alright for The Giving Tree to send the email.

“I wrote it, sent it to Nanci, and she approved it,” Drake said.

In an email to Howe, Drake wrote, “Just so that we are clear I am sending this email today correct?”

Howe replied, “Yes, I will send it [the revised draft] to you shortly!”

After the email was sent out late Monday night, Ocean’s Oh-Ten candidates and their supporters posted responses to numerous campus email lists Tuesday morning.

A statement sent to various email lists by several Ocean’s Oh-Ten supporters accused The Giving Tree of two campaign violations and attacked The Giving Tree’s email on the class list Monday night.

“The Giving Tree’s latest email was not approved,” said a statement sent by Ocean’s Oh-Ten supporters. “This email was not them being generous, but was a temporary solution that was manipulated to suit the needs of others.”

The statement was accompanied by a message from the Ocean’s Oh-Ten candidates themselves.

“As you know, the Giving Tree’s last email has placed the Ocean’s Oh-Ten slate in jeopardy by seeming to be generous by offering to share our platform with the sophomore community,” the candidates said. “However, the truth is that the sophomore class presidents have incurred campaign violations that have allowed them to manipulate their standing and our standing in the sophomore body.”

These statements drew the full wrath of The Giving Tree.

“They sent an email that made us look like liars and cheaters, and their intent was malicious,” Drake said. “We won’t be satisfied until this is heard by judicial affairs. We consider this slander.”

Tisdale told the Daily that he considered the Ocean’s Oh-Ten emails personal attacks, and sent out an email to several chat lists as a response.

“What happened [Tuesday] morning was very disappointing to us,” Tisdale told The Daily, “just because it was more of a character attack on us. Negative campaigning on this campus is unprecedented. That kind of negative campaigning is just beneath us all.”

Elections Commissioner Ryan Woessner ‘10 weighed in on the battle between The Giving Tree and Ocean’s Oh-Ten in an email to both slates last night.

“No matter if you sent the first email or just responded to one, you all have severely damaged your images on campus,” Woessner wrote. “There is really nothing you can do about this at this point. Instead of allowing the Elections Commission to assess and deal with the situation, you both went ahead and did your own thing.”

Woessner’s words were not received well by Tisdale and the Giving Tree.

“I cannot disagree more,” Tisdale said. “I know I personally did nothing wrong. For that reason, I am a little upset with Ryan. He’s my age and he’s trying to sit me in a chair like a little boy, and that’s not who I am.”

Woessner’s decision not to revoke either slate’s fair campaign status ensures that voters will ultimately be the ones who decide how much weight to attach to yesterday’s happenings.

“As Elections Commissioner, I am very disappointed in the way both slates have performed today,” Woessner told The Daily. “Both are not telling the truth and as a result, the electorate, I believe, will respond properly.”