Exec silence was calculated, reasonable
Dear Editor:
While I applaud the staff of Student Life for not dismissing the upcoming executive compensation amendment without second glance, I must admit that I am appalled by the declaration that Student Union has been secretive with this issue and my representation as a fearsome, clandestine ogre.
The criticism of my actions failed to mention motives beyond trying to “restrict access to information on the issue.” As I had explained, and was reported in Friday’s edition, having executive candidates express opinions on the amendment allows them to claim they will “do it for free” and that they “don’t need the money,” providing a direct challenge to the fairness of the election for both executives and the amendment. You claim that candidates refused to comment out of fear of breaking a potential election rule.ÿThis is blatantly false-candidates cannot campaign, verbally or otherwise, before the campaign period begins.ÿAs fear-inducing as I may be, candidates were simply following a basic and established rule. ÿ
As you correctly reported, the candidates themselves unanimously agreed not to comment on the issue.ÿAgain, somewhat conveniently, motive was deemed unimportant.ÿ The candidates are afraid that personal preferences will be used against them, by either other candidates or Student Life, to polarize the candidates and cloud the legitimate reasons to vote.ÿThat being said, why would they go contrary to “the interest of transparent government?” I most certainly agree, as does Student Life, that those with power should be held accountable for their beliefs and actions.
Unfortunately, more information that I provided was selectively omitted from your critique. Armed with the Student Union constitution and a rudimentary level of common sense, it is verified that executives have no influence whatsoever on the issue of executive compensation. Rightfully so, a president cannot set his or her pay.ÿThus, what a candidate believes has no bearing at all; the only use of expressing such an opinion is negative.ÿWhy would a candidate want to express an opinion that can only be opportunistically seized by a rival or spun out of proportion by Student Life?ÿ Furthermore, why would a voter want to base his decision on things a candidate cannot constitutionally do?ÿ
With these fears out in the open, it should be fairly obvious why there was a secret ballot at the Senate session.ÿThe ballot was used to protect those executive candidates who also happen to be Senators from indirectly expressing their beliefs to the audience, including Student Life reporters.ÿI would like to praise the executive candidates for being so vigilant in protecting the fairness of this election.ÿAlthough I wish I could commend Student Life for giving a thoughtful critique of this issue, this terrifying ogre cannot help but choke on the disinformation upon which, unfortunately, a frightful amount of students will base their voting decisions and opinions of Student Union.
Spencer Young
Student Union Election Commissioner
Execs respond
Dear Editor:
We, as the four outgoing senior SU execs, would like to clarify some issues before you vote today or tomorrow. Monday’s Student Life staff editorial presented information regarding executive compensation (seconnd Constitutional amendment on the WebSTAC ballot) in a biased and misleading manner. Particularly, we want to clarify that we are making every effort to be transparent and open (not “secretive”) about this change because it is legitimate and critical to the validity of our student government. If we wanted to be secretive, we would have created a special election-which is less publicized and has much lower voter turnout. Instead, we timed this with the Spring SU Election-our most visible, most publicized election with the greatest voter turnout.
Also to clarify, the candidates for executive office chose not make this amendment a campaign issue for two reasons: (1) ultimately, if elected, they have no say in setting compensation (that falls to Senate and Treasury) and (2) we would all rather see the amendment delayed than watch campaigning turn into “Vote for me-I’d do it for free.” The purpose of this amendment is to allow ALL students, regardless of financial circumstances, the ability to serve you.
Contrary to what was presented in a letter to the editor, CS40 executives are indeed compensated, to the tune of $7,000 (free room of their choice on the S40).
We are disconcerted that Student Life would choose to oppose this amendment so strongly and with such little research, since the Student Life editorial staff receives biweekly paychecks for their work on the paper. This allows them the luxury of relaxing work obligations in order to participate in the paper and serve campus.
The four of us are available to talk to you about any concerns you have before voting via email, IM, or in person.
Michelle Miller, SU President
Kenneth Edwards, SU Vice President
Rob Stolworthy, SU Treasurer
Justin Huebener, SU Treasurer
Editor’s Clarification: Student Life staffers are indeed paid, but their payment comes from ad sales, not the student activities fee or other University funds. SU executives, if the compensation amendment passes, would be paid from the student activities fee.