BOG failed, revote in order
Nakasha Ahmad
The decision of the elections committee to consider Monday's vote final is patently ludicrous. A member of BOG stated last night that the election procedures of the board are patterned on those used for our actual government. However, there is no conceivable situation in the outside world in which a tie in a run-off would be decided by going back to the original vote. Doing this not only disregards 20 percent of Monday's voters, but also the extra 3 percent who voted on Wednesday.
The technical irregularity should not alter this. Even if the Elections Committee decided that Friday's vote should be discounted, in no way was it justified in using Monday's votes to make the final decision. That decision makes no logical sense. That decision makes no ethical sense.
In fact, this decision is unfair to all tickets. If Koelsch/Rodarte is the rightful winner, it is being cheated out of a position that it worked hard to attain. If Renner/Nagle is the rightful winner, then its presidency is tainted. In the interest of justice to both parties, this decision needs to be reconsidered.
The only fair thing to do now is to throw out all the elections and redo all the elections, with all four tickets competing. This would give all four tickets a fair chance. This suggestion was rejected Tuesday night.
To each objection, the board reiterated that the constitution was binding and that the constitution stated that the decision of the appeals board was final. Each time, the arguments came back to the bylaws of BOG.
We have always claimed to be a college that promotes ethical behavior. Elections procedures are put in place precisely for the purpose of promoting ethical policies, of giving all parties a fair chance. When the bylaws and procedures do not promote but actually block fair results, then it is required that they be changed for the greater good of all parties. It is clear that it is the technicalities of the bylaws which concern BOG.
Several times there was mentioned a need to keep the credibility of BOG. When an injustice is committed, it is more important to have fair and ethical practices than to strictly adhere to bylaws. The BOG, by disregarding the protests of the student body, has seriously lost credibility. There will be changes made in elections procedure for forthcoming years. This is the silver lining in the cloud. However, something must be done now.
BOG was elected by the student body to make decisions. However, if at any time, a significant amount of the student body disagrees with the board's decision, the board has a duty not only to listen to the students but to try to remedy the difficulty as quickly as it can, as best they can.
Moreover, BOG has a duty to treat all members of the student body with respect. Students did not feel like they were listened to last night. They felt patronized and dismissed. They were told to "get more involved" in student government if they were concerned. They were told that if they really had Saint Mary's Pride, they should be supporting all the candidates and not questioning the board that they had elected.
This is wrong. The students who were at the meeting last night were there precisely because they were proud of Saint Mary's, they thought that something unethical had occurred, and they cared enough to come to the meeting. Being proud of an institution means you try very hard to steer that institution right when you think it is wrong. The students who protested last night did have pride in Saint Mary's. Whether they are still proud this morning is a question that needs to be examined. It is those who attack the pride of concerned students are the ones who need to reexamine their own commitments to fairness.
On that same note, those who made personal attacks on the tickets or BOG members were not justified. This is an issue of policy, not personality. If you happen to take a dislike to a personality, that dislike should not be aired in a public forum or as a reason to ask for a change in procedure. Personal attacks are not permissible, not helpful and ultimately just as unfair as this election process has been.
Ultimately, BOG's final argument boils down to "The decision is final because we said so." If the board and the Elections Committee have made mistakes, then it is not fair to penalize the two tickets. A fair and clean vote should be held. However, BOG rejected that suggestion last night.
Many times, BOG has provided a voice for students to articulate their concerns. It is a valuable liaison between students and administration. But BOG has neither the credibility nor the support of a significant amount of the student body. BOG members have failed to fulfill the responsibilities that they were elected to fulfill.
Nakasha Ahmad is a senior at Saint Mary's.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Wednesday, February 9, 2000
