Skip to main content

Editorial: Student Election Oversight Must Be By One Of Their Own

 

(Photo: ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr)

When I was a student in 2015, student government had a very different constitution. For instance, under the previous constitution, students had to first approve new amendments by a student-wide vote. Another difference was that the constitution also assigned final responsibility for student elections to the Parliamentarian, a student-elected representative and member of the student constituency. It was a good constitution in that it decentralized power and protected students from special interests. A serious protection against this was that it also placed final responsibility for student elections upon the Parliamentarian, a student constituency member. 

However in 2021, student government adopted a new constitution which brought with it innovations for how the association should function. One of them was that the SGA advisor, rather than the Parliamentarian, would be responsible for student elections. Another change was that constitutional amendments no longer required a student-wide vote for approval--or even a mandatory 30 days deliberation period as the previous constitution required. Under the new document, student senators could both introduce and approve constitutional amendments in the same day without the student constituency's ultimate approval. 

The 2021 constitution has serious flaws which still exist today, but one it seems most recently injured the constituency appears to be that of giving final election responsibility to the SGA Advisor. This non-student actor appears to have done what seems to this author, as little as possible to fulfill his role of election administrator. Instead, it appears he did the basic, bare minimum to fulfill his role, and to avoid conflict with senior administrators' efforts to secure a fee increase from students. His role as one finally responsible for student elections--for a constituency of which he is not a member and to which he has little vested interest--is a de facto conflict of interest for student interests. Instead, the student body should return responsibility to the Parliamentarian for its best protections.

In the recent athletics fee referendum, student government did not hold physical polling locations during the voting times. It also did not conduct promotional tables to ensure students knew of the upcoming fee election, as it had in the past. It also allowed seriously biased and inappropriate language upon the ballot that compelled students to vote for a fee increase. 

These behaviors are serious problems for the student constituency's independence. Student government failed to properly notify students of an upcoming fee election, and it failed to do its due diligence to keep its constituency informed about serious proposed changes to their cost of education. In this respect, student government seriously failed students, whose interests the association is supposed to represent. 

This appears to be because no student representative was finally responsible for the student body's interests in student elections. Instead, it was an administrator. Had there been someone responsible for running the election who was connected to students and shared their concerns, then students might have seen a much more informative and effective effort to both inform students and enact an unbiased ballot for their fee election this spring.  

The SGA advisor's conflict of interest favors the administration's side. If I was he, I would feel the pressure to do as little as possible in this past fee election to not risk injury in my relationship with senior administrators.

My point in all of this is to say students cannot rely upon the advisor, or a member of the administrative constituency, to ignore a serious conflict of interest and fight for the students' rights in student elections where their employers' interests are at stake. 

Student elections must have an officer from the student constituency to safeguard student interests in their elections. Responsibility must return to the Chief of Staff/Parliamentarian. And this appears to be what was seriously missing in this spring's athletics fee referendum: a priority upon the student constituency's protections against the administration's interests. 

Feature Image: Photo: ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Editorial: An Introduction To University Governance

( Photo : ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr ) In my previous articles, we spoke of our fictional heroine Molly who took the proper steps to advocate for university change successfully. We used her story to illustrate how the policy change process at a university works. Afterwards in the next article, we analyzed how her story illustrated important elements in the policy change process, such as how every stakeholder has a priority list and how a successful advocate will know how to either appeal to or influence this list.  Most recently, we noted how even with all the tactics in the world, it is a cause that gives one’s advocacy meaning. Now in this article, we will explore the university’s internal governance system, which is the context in which a student’s advocacy occurs. At the end of this article, the reader should have a better grasp of the advocacy environment within higher education. Metaphorically speaking, the reader will...
Post a Comment
Read more

Editorial: Three Types of Campus Activism Work

  (Source:  "Justin Whelan" by Kate Ausburn via Flickr ) Within the university context, there are three communities: students, faculty and staff. However, once one has a basic understanding of how these communities work together to govern the university (a.k.a., the "shared governance" model), then one can still find it difficult to identify how one can participate in shaping the university to reflect his values.  Therefore, this article will introduce three types of activism work that I have noticed in my years observing campus activity. I hope these types will illuminate a path for the reader of greater participation within his campus community and towards influencing the institution for his values. So without further adieu, let us introduce the three basic forms of campus activism.  In my observation of campus advocacy over the years, I have noticed three types of campus activism: compliance work, legislative work and public education work.  An effe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Editorial: Understanding The Athletics Fee Increase Referendum

  ("Money - Savings" by 401(K) - 2012 via Flickr) What is the student vote happening from March 20 to March 22? There is a proposal to increase the mandatory Intercollegiate Athletics Fee on the student ballot for the March 20 to March 22 spring 2024 election. There is also an election for student government executive officers.   Why is the athletics program seeking a fee increase? The athletics program is asking the student body to take financial responsibility for its unexpected NCAA Division II expenses after it transitioned to NCAA Division II at the University’s direction without the available funds in 2018. The proposed fee increase is to transfer the financial responsibility to students so the University can spend its current $2.4 million annual subsidy to the athletics program on other priorities. ( Patriot Weekly’s summary.) Why did the athletics program transition to NCAA Division II without a financial plan? Allegedly, the decision to transition the program fro...
Post a Comment
Read more