The Student Council Appeals Panel decision to disqualify all the candidates running for the Executive Council and hold another election is mired with confusion and controversy. It has once again displayed the bureaucratic and insular nature of Student Council.
It is very possible that holding another election will be necessary. Before the appeals, five of the nine candidates running for office were disqualified by the Committee on Student Elections (CSE). Certainly, the elections proved to be a complete debacle, and few viable solutions were left. During the appeals process, the Appeals Panel decided that it would be prudent to disqualify all candidates and hold another election.
The Panel, however, never gave any reason for the mass disqualifications. If the four candidates who avoided punitive action by the CSE actually merited disqualification, holding another election would be understandable. However, the Appeals process was so opaque that it calls into question the legitimacy of the decision.
If the four other candidates were disqualified due to misdeeds, the reasons for their disqualifications must be made known to the student body. This is important for a number of reasons. First, many don't understand why the Student Council is having another election. If a handful of candidates ran clean campaigns, this election effectively punishes them by holding new elections. Moreover the punishment to those who did not follow the rules is negated.
The problem is that we don't even know if the candidates who were not disqualified by the CSE are innocent or not. The student government needs to be more transparent about these issues. The hope is that the new Student Government Association will be a transparent and effective advocate student interests. This election is particularly important because it will decide what direction the student government will take in the future. Students already voted and now that election, damaged by broken rules, irresponsible behavior and electoral incompetence, will be instantly negated. Students need to know why.
Furthermore, the Appeals Panel must disclose its reasons for disqualifying candidates because such information will shape student opinion in the coming election. Students should know who was disqualified, what rules they broke and the severity of each violation. Indiscriminate disqualification creates the perception that each candidate was equally guilty, which may not be the case.
The structure of the appeals board further undermines its decisions. It's a three-person body with only one student representative, Student Council President Scott Bierbryer. While there is no justifiable reason to suggest that Bierbryer is biased, the appeals court lacks legitimacy because of its size and lack of students able to balance one another.
Hopefully the judicial branch of the new SGA will be able to serve as a technocratic, sovereign body that can deal with future issues such as this without any doubt of legitimacy.
The CSE, however, will still exist after the new Constitution is established. After these elections, the Student Council needs to take a serious look at how to reform the election process.
The CSE, as it currently exists, is a reactive organization. The body simply responds to complaints that come to it about campaign violations. Moreover its rules are torturous and overly burdensome and need to be streamlined, while the organization needs to become more transparent. Rather, the CSE must be a proactive and independent body that investigates and checks up on each respective campaign with equal vigor to make sure that successive elections are fair.
Hopefully the next election can avoid the bureaucratic quagmire that this one has become. Whoever is elected to the next Executive Council must address electoral reform head on.
The new Constitution may allow the Council to avoid some of this, but it will largely depend on the individuals who will be chosen in these elections and the rules they implement. There is much to be done for the SGA, but first the government must make sure that it is a fluid, fair and legitimate democracy.
