True. Slate Sweeps Election
Bernell Dorrough
News Reporter
The True. slate dominated last week’s Student Union election, with members of the slate being elected to every executive position.
Justin Ragner, Jason Green, Emily Reinhart, and Cindy Chang were elected to be next year’s SU President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Secretary, respectively.
2024 students, or 37 percent of the student body, voted in the election. The voter turnout was higher than that of any SU election in recent memory.
Several of the True. candidates won landslide victories. Current SU Vice President Justin Ragner received 923 votes, more than twice the number received by Corey Harris of the 1 Campus slate.
Over the next few weeks, the four newly elected officials will make the transition to take over their positions. This transitional period will likely be most difficult for those officials who will assume the duties of their new position while closing out currently held positions in SU. Treasurer-elect Reinhart, for example, will help prepare next year’s budget while fulfilling her current duties as Speaker of the Senate.
“Within the next two weeks, Farhan [Irshad], Michelle [Purdy], Justin [Ragner], and I will be meeting to decide the allocation for the general budget. We will also be interviewing groups that received money during this allocation process, such as the new Social Programming Board and the groups that received block funding. I am also working on creating a transition packet for the new speaker because there was not one when I first took the office,” explained Reinhart.
The newly elected executives will be inaugurated on April 11, when they will officially take over their new positions.
Illegal Campaigning
Over the course of the election, SU Attorney General Christiana Shoushtari received several reports of illegal campaigning, leading to several individuals being reprimanded and another being outright removed from the election.
At least two of these cases stemmed from the fact that election rules did not specifically regulate the use of email before the campaign period. It was decided on a case-by-case basis whether emails actually constituted campaigning before the campaign period.
“The problem with the packet right now is that it is not updated to technology . Some people thought [emailing] was just talking to others. Others thought that it was campaigning,” explained Shoushtari.
Reggie Binford, presidential candidate from the Voices slate, was initially accused of sending out emails to student groups before the date candidates were to begin campaigning. In accordance with election policy, he and his slate were given a hearing to defend themselves.
Based on the hearing and the email itself, the election commission determined that the Voices slate’s actions had not constituted a violation because the email did not request support, but rather only hoped to establish times when Binford could come to speak to certain student groups.
Treasurer candidate Geoff Daush of the 1 Campus slate was not so fortunate. He was accused of illegally campaigning when he sent out emails that specifically requested the support of his friends. The election commission decided that campaigning was defined as soliciting votes, and Daush was removed from the election. Because the rest of the 1 Campus slate was unaware of his actions, only Daush was punished.
In addition to the questionable use of email, several individuals were fined for violating posting regulations. Ben Smilowitz, 1 Campus candidate for vice president, and the True. slate were both fined $10 for posting on boards which were limited to use by RAs. The Voices slate was also fined for posting an advertisement which was larger than 8.5 by 14 inches.
Block Funding
The Emergency Support Team (EST) was overwhelmingly supported in their block funding request, while KWUR’s initiative failed. Block funding allows a group to bypass the standard process of receiving SU funds and receive funds directly from the student body through an increase in each student’s activities fee.
EST received 1638 votes in favor of their block funding, which called for a 99-cent increase in activities fees. KWUR was denied block funding with only 687 out of 1873 students voting to support their request, which called for an $8 increase in activities fees.
“I couldn’t really understand why someone would vote “no” for a student organization.It was surprising because I thought originally that it wouldn’t be much of a problem,” said Nithin Bhojraj, general manager of KWUR. “One huge reason why people voted “no” was that people saw our name right next to E.S.T., and we were asking for $7 when E.S.T. was asking for just 99 cents.”
SU Constitutional Amendment
The SU executive compensation amendment, which has been on the ballot the past few years, was also denied. Previous years saw student support of the amendment gradually increasing and nearing the majority of votes needed to make the proposed amendment to the SU constitution.
Support this year dropped dramatically, as 66% of those voting opposed the amendment. This opposition was foreshadowed when the Senate originally voted against putting the amendment on the ballot. SU President Michelle Purdy, who authored the amendment, later brought it back to the Senate where it was approved for inclusion on the ballot.
During her original presentation of the compensation amendment, Purdy pointed to similar practices at comparable universities, as well as the large amount of time that executives spend each month working for SU.
Opposition to the amendment came in many forms. Some noted that certain appointed officials, such as the Speaker of the Senate and the Attorney General, also invested a great deal of time with SU, but would not be compensated under the amendment. Others complained that the maximum amount executives would be paid was twice the maximum amount that work-study students earn in their programs.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Related Posts
Print This Post