By Alexandra Sailor

Although all three of the unity slate’s candidates for the top positions in the Student Government Association lost, some in the SGA are still left with a bad taste in their mouths about the Unity campaign.

Questions have surfaced as to whether the relationship between Unity and Athletics violated SGA election legislation.

According to Kenny Klein, associate athletic director for Media Relations, Athletics did nothing wrong.

“There were no boosters?to?our knowledge who helped,” Klein said. “Apparently, they are allowed to have items donated according to SGA bylaws.? Some items were donated by companies and other items they bought.? They reported all these items, both donated and purchased, on what they turned in to SGA.”

“The Athletics issue is a complicated one,” Chief Justice of SGA Supreme Court, Kyle Riggs said.

“As far as the SGA Constitution, By-Laws and the 2008 Election Rules are concerned, Athletics can endorse any candidate it chooses. However, many of the actions of Athletics, both alleged and proved, violated the 2008 Election Rules. Unfortunately, the court does not have jurisdiction over the entire Athletics department,” Riggs said.

Cases were filed against Unity and it’s involvement with Athletics, but none of them were successfully linked to the candidates and were dropped.

Still, there is concern from within SGA about Athletics’ immersion in the election.

“I was upset with Athletics being so actively involved in the SGA elections,” SGA President Brian Hoffman said. “No administrative body at this university should ever be involved in student elections. ?Such involvement threatens the very independence of student representation.”

Hoffman believes Athletic involvement in SGA elections is a result of precedent tensions between the two.

Throughout his term, Hoffman has been an open critic of the Athletic department, on a variety of issues.

“These actions by Athletics are in response to the current SGA administration being critical of some of Athletics current policy decisions,” Hoffman, a senior political science major, said.?”Instead of responding to SGA’s constructive criticism of some of their policies, apparently they thought they would just take SGA over.”

In response, Klein said he believes the Athletic department’s action is a fair alternative to the critical remarks and pressure placed on the department from SGA administration.

“[The Executive Board of the Student Athlete Advisory Committee] believed the way to solve some of these issues was to become involved in the process,” Klein said. “Therefore,?a group of?student-athletes?chose to?organize a slate.”

Riggs said SGA election rules will likely be modified so this type of problem does not occur in the future.

“Next year’s rules will likely forbid candidates from receiving support in any capacity from U of L” Riggs, a senior political science major, said. “This year’s rules corrected many of the recurring issues from previous elections, but there’s always something new.”

According to Hoffman, the issue lies in administrative responsibility.

“To date, no administrative branch at U of L has openly criticized Athletics’ actions. It is as though this university is afraid of its own Athletics Department” said Hoffman. “In my view, ethical lines were clearly crossed.”?