The commission's mishandling of the spending issue only scratches the surface of what seems to be a complacent attitude toward alleged violations by the Driskell-Burton ticket. Although commission rules dictate that candidates who commit a University offense should be immediately disqualified, the commission seemed to look the other way when Driskell-Burton flyers appeared in first-year mailboxes. This failure to investigate the matter is especially disturbing because rival presidential candidate Sterling P.A. Darling '01 earlier requested permission from the College to do the same thing--and was denied.

The questions don't end here. Why did the commission wait until last Wednesday--the last day of voting--to investigate alleged spending violations when those same violations were reported by other candidates since that Monday? Why, when reports of possible commission misconduct began to surface after the election, were the public election rules removed from the commission's Web site? And why did candidates' financial reports, which were made publicly available during the election, contain marked differences in detail and rigor?

No elected officer likes to begin her term under a cloud of controversy, and it must be frustrating for both Driskell and Burton to have won this election and be immediately faced with questions about how they ran their campaign.

But if the election commission is so unsure about the application of its own rules that it gives one response one day and the opposite the next, it should become a immediate concern of the new leaders of the council. We call upon Driskell and Burton to clear up this confusion through a public statement about their campaign's finances. Furthermore, we urge the council to re-examine the rules and procedures of the election commission so that it can become a truly accountable and responsible body.