The bylaws specifically hold the commission responsible for “coordinating election procedures with the appropriate parties necessary to carry out electronic voting.”

But the election commission that presided over this year’s general elections was named on Sept. 23—only one week before the elections were scheduled to begin.

“The fall elections are extremely straightforward,” Lee explained last week. “They don’t require any extensive planning.”

But Illingworth and Jared S. Morgenstern ’03, the council’s technology coordinator, who designed the voting system, said the new protocol entailed much preparation by the administration and the council.

“We started working on this in June,” Morgenstern said last week. “We interfaced with the College early on.”

That meant the council planned elections for more than four months with no oversight from the Election Commission.

Another problem arose with the timing of the election. The bylaws require general elections each fall to occur two weeks after upper-class registration over a three-day period from Wednesday to Friday.

But technological and administrative difficulties meant this provision went by the wayside.

In the midst of last week’s delays, Lee said the rule could be disregarded because “the Constitution doesn’t take into account the new system.”

Last week, she said she received the approval she needed before proceeding with the new timetable.

“I spoke to the Executive Board and Election Commission about this,” she said.

But Election Commission chair Nancy A. Redd ’03 said last week, “she didn’t talk to the Election Commission about it.”

Lee responded by citing a provision in the constitution allowing her to establish “temporary standing rules.”

According to the constitution, “such rulings are subject to full Council veto, in the form of a majority vote.”

Since the council cannot meet until after elections, though, few checks—if any—existed on Lee and the Executive Board during the election delays.