Sam Powers | Student Life

Joint Session

During the joint session, newly confirmed Election Commissioner, junior Constantin Carrigan presented the proposed election packet for the upcoming cycle alongside three other members of the elections commission. 

The most notable changes to the election packet were focused on policies about candidates campaigning alongside one another. For the first time in SU election history, candidates can now campaign alongside one another, including holding events together, having a shared social media presence, or endorsing one another. 

There are certain restrictions that apply to this policy, though, as candidates for SU who already hold a position can not state that they are a sitting member of SU when endorsing someone else. 

An additional facet of this change is that candidates who are campaigning together are not allowed to pool their allotted $50 of campaign funds. Furthermore, candidates campaigning together will remain separate on the ballot. 

Other changes included adding protections for candidates to avoid discrimination based on caste system, including regulations on outside influences to avoid the use of Super PACs, and changes to certain dates for expenditure reports. 

Executive Board Updates

At the end of the joint session, members of the executive committee gave updates on the work that they have been doing. Max Roitblat, Vice President of Finance, gave an update on the general budget meeting that had been postponed a week prior, saying that the tentative date is now March 25. 

Emma Platt, Vice President of Engagement, said that the Mental Health Coalition will be meeting with Vice Provost Jen Smith to discuss creating mental health days and work on a definition of academic compassion. Platt also said she has begun work on SU’s annual report, which has not been published since 2019. The report provides an opportunity for SU to share the work they have been doing. 

Additionally, Miri Goodman, Vice President of Programming, reassured members that WILD will be happening this semester, with confirmation that Rob Wild, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, is on board with it.  

Treasury Appeals

Four total student groups appealed for funds totaling $25,992.47, at the treasury meeting that were all approved, Feb. 28. The groups included WashU’s Quiz Bowl team, men’s club basketball, Chabad, and club fencing.

Men’s basketball appealed to fund two different tournaments, however, one was funded as a backup in case they did not qualify for the other. Their preferred competition is a NCBBA Nationals tournament in Erie, Pennsylvania, which they requested $8,992.78 for before receiving $7,552.68.

Their backup tournament is the NIRSA Nationals in Maryland, for which they requested and received $7,419.68. 

Chabad requested $3,300 to celebrate Purim, a traditional Jewish holiday, by hosting a dinner and  carnival. After the Treasury team eliminated certain aspects of the initial request, they were funded for $2,630. 

Finally, club fencing appealed for funds to go to Club Nationals, requesting $4,316.40. The club initially requested three SUVs and three sedans in order to transport 24 members as well as the significant equipment required for fencing. 

Treasury representative Leena Rai recommended that the group be funded for a UHaul van as well as five sedans because it would be cheaper but still allow them to transport their materials. Although a representative from the group expressed apprehension towards driving a UHaul van, an amendment was made to the motion in order to reflect the cost of a UHaul, eventually funding the group for $4,099.40.

Update on Policy Disagreement from Feb. 21

At the start of the joint session, Carrigan took a moment to address a disagreement that occurred in the joint session held one week prior, on Feb. 21.

The argument that Carrigan referenced was a discussion during the Feb. 21 meeting about his proposal for a statute change that would end the mandate for a forum to occur during SU elections.

“The big things are [that] no constituents showed up and less than half of all of the people running for all of these offices showed up,” Carrigan said, regarding previous debates.

As the issue of the debate continued, Treasurer Saish Satyal and Carrigan went back and forth over certain aspects that they disagreed on, as Satyal’s vote was needed for the proposal to pass. 

“The debates are not well attended, but it’s our job to fix it,” Satyal said. “The election commission is saying, debates haven’t worked, we haven’t tried anything else, can we have the option to give up this time. I just don’t like that.” 

In his apology for how he responded to Satyal’s pushback, Carrigan referenced his friendship with Satyal and said he would hold a higher standard of conduct going forward. 

“First and foremost, I want to apologize to everyone for losing my cool last session; that was completely unprofessional of me,” Carrigan said. “Specifically, Saish and I have a friendship that goes well beyond Student Union and I got a little bit of tunnel vision, just viewing myself as arguing with Saish, which is something we shouldn’t be standardizing, so I’ll promise that won’t happen again.”

In a follow-up interview with Student Life, Carrigan emphasized that debates could still occur after the policy change.

“We’re not necessarily precluding a debate from happening, just not making it a mandatory part of the commissioner’s role,” Carrigan said. “Essentially the goal was to say, think about whether this would be beneficial or not based on the candidate’s running and the political activity happening on campus at the time.”

Carrigan stated that there were no personal conflicts between him and Satyal as a result of their disagreement over the policy, which Satyal echoed. 

“I appreciate his apology, and I thought it was no big deal,” Satyal said. “I knew he didn’t really mean it and he wasn’t mad outside of SU.”