April 21 , 2006

Senate elections raise serious concerns

By PAUL RUTTER
rutterp@marietta.edu

Student Senate officer elections for the 2006-07 year have raised serious concerns about the way elections are run and the constitution and by-laws that govern Senate.

The Senate, in its meetings, has concluded that while elections were fair and accurate, many of the guidelines and procedures for holding an election were not strictly followed.

An issue was raised by a candidate for office on Friday, April 7, the last of the three voting days. The candidate expressed concerns over the campaigning of a rival candidate, the character of that person, and whether the Senate correctly followed the constitution and by-laws.

“Megan and I reviewed everything on Saturday after we received it and we felt that the election was fair,” said Student Senate President Mike Joliat, referring to the Senate Secretary, Megan Schreck. “But, because of the severity of the issue we felt like it was a decision we shouldn’t make alone.”

Issues raised at emergency meeting

The Senate President called an emergency meeting for Sunday at 10 p.m. in the Trustees Room of the Dyson Baudo Recreation Center. While initially open to the public, the meeting quickly went into executive session at the request of witnesses to the complaint.

The witnesses, four campus RA’s, related separate stories of the candidate soliciting votes while voting was occurring. The campaigning occurred in the same building and in some cases, in close proximity to the voting table.

There is no official Senate rule against candidates campaigning in close proximity of where votes are being cast. “It’s been more of an unwritten rule,” said Joliat, “But we have enforced it in the past.” Due to the “unofficial” status of this rule, the complaints were dismissed.

Other issues were also raised at the meeting. A by-law concerning the time frame for which candidate packets were to be turned in was violated. The Judicial Board later ruled the law contained a typo. The by-law stated “Candidate packets must be turned in by 5:00 p.m. two weeks before elections are to be held.” The word ‘weeks’ is actually supposed to be ‘days.’ This typo has been in the bylaws since 1998. Due to the typo error, the Judicial Board ruled that no there was no violation.

A complaint was registered against the Senate President and Secretary for serving on the Judicial Board. Both stepped down and new board members were appointed. Joliat contends that during a meeting he proposed he and Schreck fill the positions on the Board vacated by candidates. No objections were raised, which according to Robert’s Rules implies consent. Other members of the senate, however, contend that a true majority vote on the issue should have taken place and that their service on the Board during elections was in violation of the Constitution.

A third complaint was raised over a poster left up on the 3rd floor of McCoy Hall after the election.

“It is required on the candidate packet that posters are removed before an election begins,” said Joliat.

Last fall, two candidates were disqualified for leaving multiple posters up during voting. This year, however, the Judicial Board ruled the candidate packet is not a legal document of the Senate, and thus, cannot disqualify a candidate. The ruling also cited the isolated nature of the violation.

A final concern was raised over the time allocated for the election. The Senate constitution is interpreted as allowing 48 hours for elections, from the first ballot being cast to the last. Because voting was spread over three days this year, this time allotment was exceeded by 42 minutes.

Senate considers rerunning elections

Discussion at the Sunday night meeting continued until 1:30 a.m. At that point, the Senate decided to redo elections. However, after the meeting, more discussion cast doubt on the wisdom of this decision.

“A big reason the discussion went the way it did during our decision to redo elections was that we broke a lot of rules and we needed to be careful not to break anymore,” said Joliat. A decision to redo elections, however, threatened to break even more rules.

“It was determined we needed another emergency senate meeting the following night to correct the constitutional issues with our decision,” said Joliat.

At another emergency meeting on Monday at 10 p.m. in the Andrews Hall Emeritus Chamber, the decision from the previous night to redo elections was ruled out of order. Senior Senator Cate Weber cited that according to the constitution, elections must occur during the first week of April, that there was no mention of redoing elections in the constitution, and that there would not be enough time to complete the process constitutionally.

The issue of the validity of the election was turned over to the Judicial Board. The Board dismissed all other concerns. However, the Board raised one new issue about the way votes were counted. After a recount resulting in the same outcome they decided the election would stand.

Long-standing issue becomes next year’s agenda

The election raised larger concerns over the Senate’s ability to
follow its own constitution and by-laws.

“Student Senate has never run an election according to our constitution and bylaws,” said Joliat.

“In my opinion, does it void this election? No. Because we’ve been doing it so long, and in my opinion, as long as everyone is operating under the same rules, it’s a fair election.”

According to Joliat the current constitution is burdensome and incomplete. It is also, however, extremely difficult to change.
Under the current situation, the Senate can only amend their constitution if an absolute majority of the student body votes for the proposed amendment. This would be quite an accomplishment seeing that only 30% of students voted in the latest election, and even fewer in the fall.

“We have to be able to amend the constitution to fix these issues,” said Joliat, who proposes putting a more reasonable section regarding amendments up to a campus vote.
In other schools where such issues have arisen, the administration temporarily revokes its recognition of the Student Senate as the official governing body of the students. The Senate then has a chance to remake their constitution. Once it is in order, they are recognized again. This is just one possible scenario.

“While I feel bad leaving this for them, this is a big issue to leave for them, I am excited for them because this is really going to allow them to take this on and shine with it and set their agenda,” said Joliat.

“They have a challenge ahead of them, but I’m sure the executive board is up to the task to successfully tackle that issue.”