Even as students  vote online for this year’s Student Government candidates, investigations and hearings are ongoing into campaign violations committed by candidates in the final weekend of campaigning.

Monday night, elections commissions chairman Andrew Tucker reported a violation was formally filed against Kornelius Bascombe, a candidate for student body president, and another against Matt Woodward, a candidate for Student Centers president.

Bascombe was notified for violating the University’s e-mail policy Monday night, but the candidate said he was acquitted of the charge as it was once of his supporters one had sent out a mass e-mail.

“I wasn’t found responsible for any of it,” Bascombe said. “One of my supporters sent out an e-mail without me knowing. I advised him that he should have asked before he sent the e-mail and he apologized for sending them out.”

Tucker also received an e-mail Monday night related to Bascombe’s handbills being placed in a campus area, a possible violation, but it hadn’t been formally filed as of 11:35 p.m. The e-mail contained photos of Bascombe’s handbills stacked beside a computer.

“That hasn’t been filed against me so it’s not a violation,” Bascombe said. “I honestly feel like it’s not true. If you look at the pictures, someone was logged into the computer. I’m thinking someone walked away from their computer and then took pictures. I feel like they were set up for the kill.”

Bascombe said he couldn’t speak for all of his supporters, but felt there was no intent to violate campaign policies.

“I can’t really contain all of my supporters,” he said. “I think it was an honest mistake.”

Bascombe also voiced concern that the photos could have been a campaigning tactic by one of his opponents.

“I don’t know if it’s valid because of the simple fact that it wasn’t a formal complaint,” Bascombe said. “We don’t know if its staged or anything. Peter Barnes wrote the complaint and [he] is also a part of Jim Ceresnak’s campaign.”

Bascombe said there had been a trend of Ceresnak’s supporters complaining about his campaign.

“There have been other complaints against me from Jim Ceresnak’s campaign before,” Bascombe said. “I feel like I’m being bamboozled into being the bad guy.”

Ceresnak said he was not aware of any complaint or action by a member of his campaign in the matter, and even said that Barnes was not a member of his campaign team.

“I’ve filed no complaints and I’ve directed no individuals to complain from my campaign,” Ceresnak said. “Peter [Barnes] is someone who has had a peripheral impact on the campaign, but  he’s no more a part of my campaign than he is of anyone in the senate.”

Ceresnak said many candidates go to Barnes for advice, but he was not directly involved in his campaign.

“I would not call Peter [Barnes] an offical campaign worker of mine.”

Woodward’s violations, which he was informed of at 10:53 by e-mail, according to Tucker, were undue influence and a violation of the University’s e-mail policy.

Woodward said he had no knowledge of a violation being committed.

“[Tucker] said there were allegations concerning an anonymous e-mail sent about [one of my] opponent’s qualifications,” Woodward said. “I’ll look to see if there was any role to be played in it by my campaign or my supporters.”

According to Tucker, undue influence is “trying to make coercive statements to groups in order to influence votes.”

“Ultimately it’s the duty of the elections commission to determine if it’s valid in this instance,” Tucker said.

Woodward said while he was informed of the campaign violations, Tucker did not go into details about them.

“He said he couldn’t [discuss specifics,] but he said he tried to explain as best as he could,” Woodward said.

Woodward stressed that while two violations had been formally filed against him, his guilt in the matters will not be determined until a hearing.

“Although there’s an administrative concern…they haven’t determined guilt already, [the] data wont be presented until the hearing,” Woodward said. “We’ll be presenting all of [our data] to the hearing on Wednesday.”

Tucker said despite the recent controversies, the campaigns had been relatively quiet as far as violations were concerned.

“I’ve seen more destruction [of campaign materials,] but it seems to be more third party destruction,” Tucker said. “People are recognizing the recreational ability of campaign signs.”

Still the commission will take every violation seriously, Tucker said.

“A violation, even on election day, is still valid,” he said. “We don’t name a winner, we name a voting winner – [the decision] has to be solidified by the elections commission.”

Tucker said violation reports filed on election day could greatly influence the elections still.

“Violations through tomorrow are still valid and encouraged to be turned in,” he said.