Current SGA president scrutinized for similarities between his platform and W&M students’
Posted on September 6, 2007
Updated Thursday, 10:26 p.m..
Last week Student Body President Brandon Eickel released an apology in The Breeze to Zach Pilchen and Valerie Hopkins of William and Mary, along with the entire JMU community, for not making it clear that he had taken the majority of his spring 2007 platform ideas from Pilchen and Hopkins’ campaign.
Since his letter to the editor, many have discussed what to do about the situation.
“I don’t know if he’s going to be impeached, I don’t know if he’s going to be scorned, but I’ve been talking to the students and they want to know the facts before they decide what should be happen,” Ilk Ghavami, senator for the college of science and math, said.
Eickel first met Pilchen, student assembly president of WM, at a Virginia 21 leadership retreat this summer. After the retreat, Pilchen came across Eickel’s website while searching to see what other student governments found interesting. While looking at Eickel’s platform he said that he noticed that seven out of eight of his “bold ideas” were similar to the ones used in his and Hopkins’ campaign.
Pilchen met with Hopkins, student assembly vice president of WM and decided to send Eickel an email, saying they had seen the “bold ideas” section of his website and were worried about the similarities between the two platforms.
Pilchen said that Eickel was very apologetic, but seemed confused about citation rules. He also said that what upset them most about the platform was that it had “copyright 2007 Eickel for president” at the bottom. Worried that they would look like plagiarists, they asked Eickel to remove his website and explain the situation to The Breeze, both of which Eickel did.
Eickel said that he did not intend for the copyright to pertain to the information on the site. He had hired a designer for his website and said that the copyright was solely on it’s name and the name of his designer.
"I realize that this could have been done differently,” Eickel said. “Whatever I could do to ease [Pilchen and Hopkins’] minds I was happy to go and do that."
Eickel does not deny the similarities between his platform and that of Pilchen and Hopkins’, but said that he did not take ideas from their site.
“I don't consider myself as having come in there and taken [their ideas],” he said. “Looking back I should have handled it differently."
Eickel credits the similarities to the fact that in planning his campaign he wanted to see what students were doing at other campuses. He said that he thought the WM students had a lot of great plans that he wanted to bring to JMU. He also said that there were many plans on their site that JMU had already been implementing which he thought he could improve upon.
"When I was creating my platform last semester, having already done this already, I thought it would be great to reach out to other schools," he said. “In order to make JMU a better place we have to reach out and see what other students are doing."
Once contacted by Pilchen and Hopkins, Eickel said that he realized his mistake.
In his letter to the editor, he said that he “wanted to make sure that due credit [was] awarded and emphasize [his] desire to bring successful ideas from other schools to JMU.”
Eickel also e-mailed the SGA explaining the situation, in which he presented an official apology. The apology said that his intentions were not to upset fellow members or put them in challenging situations, but to bring new ideas to JMU.
"I do realize that I have made a mistake,” he said. “No excuses. I am confronting that mistake head on and I have accepted the consequence and embarrassment that have developed as a result of my actions."
According to Eickel, he has worked things out with Pilchen and Hopkins and both sides are excited to move on and work together.
"I tried to solve the problem as quickly and effectively as possible,” he said, adding that he didn’t want the situation to turn into a battle between two competing student governments.
Pilchen and Hopkins agreed. While they didn’t want to ruin Eickel’s time at JMU, they wanted to ensure JMU’s student body had all their facts straight about the election. They also said that they were concerned for Ghavami, who worked hard and lost, despite having original ideas.
“When I first read it, I found it funny because it had come after everything was finished and completed,” Ghavami said. “It came kind of late.”
He also said that he doubts the validity of Eickel’s statement that he wanted to bring new ideas from other campuses to JMU.
“The concept of bringing other ideas to the school can be effective, but it seems as though with the way that everything worked out that that was not the original intent,” he said.
He also said that he thinks something must be done in order to insure that Eickel receives repercussions for his actions.
“I think if someone makes a mistake, they won’t learn from it unless they pay the consequences,” he said. “He needs to pay for it somehow, more than just an apology…If we don’t address it now, it’s going to be slid under the table. In a matter of time people will forget.”
This may not be the case. According to Ghavami, the senate plans to meet on Sept. 11 and may discuss possible solutions to the situation with Eickel.
Students seem to disagree in regard to what they think should be done.
“I don’t think there’s anything that can be done,” freshman Meghan Huber said. “Unless they put it in writing, they can’t really revoke his position.”
Freshman Kelly Meehan agreed, saying that she wasn’t surprised about Eickel’s platform because it seems that in politics everything is fair game.
“Keep him in office, and try to make sure there’s a clear cut rule about what the campaign can consist of,” she said.
Others, however, disagreed.
“I just think it’s unfair how he got elected,” Junior Colleen Mahoney said, adding that with only one person running for elections last year there was no way for them to choose the best candidate for the job. At the same time, she does not feel as though he should be impeached, as she does not see the impact he has on campus.
Sophomore James Fitzpatrick, however, said that if Eickel is not coming up with original ideas he should not be in office. According to Fitzpatrick, if Eickel did not come up with seven out of his eight platform ideas, he should not have received seven-eighths of the vote and should be impeached.
About Us | Supplements | Advertising | Contact Us
Website design by Erik Pitzer ('07)
