2008 Woodie Awards
After the election, nobody wins
Jason Stefaniak
Opinion | 4/28/08
As the chatter about Student Government Association elections dies down, I have to ask-what have we accomplished? I'm hesitant to say anyone has done anything worth being proud of during the election season. I don't say this because I am greatly disappointed with the outcome of the elections, which I am. I respect each member of Team Tigertown and believe they have the truest of intentions to work for the students. What I'm getting at is bigger than the outcome of the elections, but instead how each of us-candidates, campaigners, students, and administrators-handled ourselves during the process.
First, the election commission. The SGA election policy calls for an "impartial election commission" to "administer the elections." These five students were supposed to be administering a fair election, but when the SGA decided not to support a deadline extension the commission made, they resigned because they did not get their way. Biases became apparent. A policy infraction committed by Team Tigertown went unpunished. One commissioner became a member of the Team Tigertown Facebook group, and still is. Another commissioner, after resigning, was overheard talking with a Team Tigertown candidate about wearing one of their shirts. The new commission was more professional but included an outspoken opponent of the Foundation ticket. Even more egregious than the apparent bias was a policy violation made by the second commission itself: not a single student was present for the tallying of votes.
If the election commission is not going to remain unbiased, uphold the election policy, and oversee the tallying of the votes-a new system for administering the elections is necessary.
Second, the administration. I greatly respect the Towson administration, but sometimes administrators do inappropriate things. First example: it was inappropriate that the election commission was not present for vote tallying. The results were typed up and given to the election commission to be announced. The administration should have made sure to tally the results with commissioners present. Second example: a mock election was held on the Involved@TU system the day before the actual elections began. One of the questions on the survey asked who students wanted as their SGA president, and one of the choices was Kristen Guy. An e-mail was sent out to about 20 people. No exec board candidates except Guy were included. If there is going to be a mock election, either none or all of the candidates should be included in the test-not just the favored candidate.
First, the election commission. The SGA election policy calls for an "impartial election commission" to "administer the elections." These five students were supposed to be administering a fair election, but when the SGA decided not to support a deadline extension the commission made, they resigned because they did not get their way. Biases became apparent. A policy infraction committed by Team Tigertown went unpunished. One commissioner became a member of the Team Tigertown Facebook group, and still is. Another commissioner, after resigning, was overheard talking with a Team Tigertown candidate about wearing one of their shirts. The new commission was more professional but included an outspoken opponent of the Foundation ticket. Even more egregious than the apparent bias was a policy violation made by the second commission itself: not a single student was present for the tallying of votes.
If the election commission is not going to remain unbiased, uphold the election policy, and oversee the tallying of the votes-a new system for administering the elections is necessary.
Second, the administration. I greatly respect the Towson administration, but sometimes administrators do inappropriate things. First example: it was inappropriate that the election commission was not present for vote tallying. The results were typed up and given to the election commission to be announced. The administration should have made sure to tally the results with commissioners present. Second example: a mock election was held on the Involved@TU system the day before the actual elections began. One of the questions on the survey asked who students wanted as their SGA president, and one of the choices was Kristen Guy. An e-mail was sent out to about 20 people. No exec board candidates except Guy were included. If there is going to be a mock election, either none or all of the candidates should be included in the test-not just the favored candidate.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
Jenny
posted 4/28/08 @ 11:16 AM EST
I could not have put it better myself. Jason has made some very valid points. Unless students start caring about these things they cannot expect to receive adequate representation and advocacy in SGA. (Continued…)
Adam Jackson
posted 4/28/08 @ 2:24 PM EST
I have to say, I had low expectations when I began to read Jason's piece on the SGA election on Monday, but I didn't think that his entire criticism would devolve into baseless arguments about how Foundation should have won and the evil Tigertown MUST have cheated to get there. (Continued…)
Adam Jackson
posted 4/28/08 @ 5:38 PM EST
"I caution you to consider your accusation that Jason is holding others to standards he himself cannot meet."
He says EXPLICITLY that people on the board were biased, and that's a bad thing. (Continued…)
Post a Comment