 "Photo: N/A")
This year's Student Government Association election has been praised as a smooth one without the issues of the previous two elections.
Although this may seem true to an outsider, anyone close to the organization or campaign knows this is far from the truth. Multiple times during the process, the Elections Board has shown complete disregard for the Elections Code, which lays out the rules and regulations of the campaign.
Only one executive slate, Student Connection, showed up for the Nomination Convention. This slate would pass a senate vote nine days later. The Elections Board chose this route because, in the case of a campus vote for a sole slate, only one person needed to vote for Student Connection to win. By going to a senate vote, students still had the option to vote down the executive slate, causing the elections process to start over.
The Elections Board handled this part of the election properly for the most part, and Student Connection was put into power through the proper means prescribed by the Elections Code. The board's competence ended there.
One area of the code that members of the Elections Board should have been familiar with — but weren't — is the section stating that members of an executive slate cannot have been a member of the Elections Board in the 90 days prior to an election. On the day of the senate vote, two members of the Elections Board stated intentions to run if Student Connection failed the vote.
This brings to question whether the members of the Elections Board were fair in their handling of the election. Could the Elections Board have conspired to unfairly disqualify Student Connection in some manner in order to create an opportunity for Elections Board members to illegally run on an executive slate?
In addition, the Elections Board handed down fines for two supposed code violations, one regarding a campus printer used to print off materials for the campaign and the second for a log-in being improperly used in order to access said printer. However, during the process of handing out these violations, Elections Board made several mistakes and violations of its own.
The first mistake occurred when the Elections Board didn't properly review the violations and wrongfully handed out the fine in the first place. The materials printed were for use at the debate. The Elections Code states that materials used for the function of the election, and not for campaigning, do not violate the code.
A second mistake occurred when the Elections Board failed to realize that ultimately the materials were printed off by a graduate assistant who had no connection to the campaign and used her own log-in to access the printer.
The board's violation of the Elections Code occurred with how the fine was given. The Elections Code states that the sheriff "is responsible for assessing fines"; however, the chair of the Elections Board, Cory Schneider, assessed the fine. This violation should have made the fine null and void, but the Elections Board refused to do so.
Because of these violations and mistakes by the Elections Board, Student Connection has exercised its right to appeal the fine. SGA's Judicial Board will hold a hearing soon.
The real violations of the Elections Code by the Elections Board occurred in regards to the senate campaign. Because 15 people submitted paperwork for 10 Senate positions, a campus-wide vote is required. According to the Elections Code, that vote should have taken place Monday and Tuesday this week. However, because of mistakes by the Elections Board, this vote will not occur until two weeks following Spring Break.
The Elections Code gives the board full authority over all aspects of the election as long as the board follows the process in the code. Any deviation from the code has to be approved by a two-thirds vote of Senate. This change is a deviation that should have been presented to the senate for a vote. Instead, the board simply informed the senate of the change without any input. This is a gross violation of the code.
The Elections Code states that the official ballot has to be posted no later than seven days following the Nomination Convention. Elections Board didn't post it until the ninth day. In addition, the Elections Board didn't even inform the students who submitted paperwork that there were fewer positions available than students running and that an election would have to occur.
Because of this, students seeking an at large senate seat went nine days thinking they had one, before being informed that they had to quickly organize a campaign and receive enough student votes in order to become a senator.
Although some may perceive these mistakes and violations by the Elections Board as minor errors, they are far from that. The members of SGA represent 20,000 students on campus and control a significant amount of student fees. The seven members of the Elections Board are charged with making sure the elections process is handled smoothly and properly.
By disregarding the rules, the Elections Board did not give each student a fair chance to become involved with SGA and may possibly have hurt the campus as a whole for the year to come. If there were ever an example of how an Elections Board should not operate, this year's board is it.
Write to Frank at frhood@bsu.edu.
Roasted.
"Appropriate disclosure, for a paid staff writer in an opinion piece, includes mention of working for organizations on which on one is commenting. The story of missteps and errors is generally well written. Finding out that the author has conflicting interests, while on my payroll, is angering.
Frank, you were correct to tell us about the mistakes and your displeasure at the fines seems appropriate. All of the above information makes a great story, and is exactly the sort of thing for which a newspaper is written. Leaving out your part, of direct involvement in the above events, borders on abuse of position and sullies, in the eyes of readers, your qualifications as impartial commenter in the future. The only saving grace I can see, would be your ignorance, of which I can make no judgment.
I would suggest that you now owe us a published qualification of your involvement in the above events, as well as general explanation to your reasoning behind disregarding such imperative information."