1. Some have suggested that the election be postponed, and started over. That is obviously the least preferable option.
2. The Eagle wants all of the candidates to run as write-ins. That would certainly make things fair, but getting all of the candidates to agree to do that would be impossible. And, since this mess isn't really their fault, they are not at all obligated to do so.
3. The BOE could just let Nirvana back on the ballot, and let us have our choice of all four candidates. Personally, this would be my choice.
4. We continue with the way things are now, with Nirvana running as a write-in and the other three candidates remaining on the ballot. This is probably the most likely to take place. But it doesn't seem fair at all for Nirvana to be off of the ballot for an email, and for Nate to remain on. Even if he had nothing to do with the email that was sent out (and I'm sure he didn't, because he could not be that stupid), it is a very similar situation to Nirvana's. Her controversial email was not sent out by the candidate either. Even though her friends admitted to sending it out, and Nate doesn't know who sent his (I'm guessing it wasn't anyone who was his friend), the basic "violation" seems very similar.
5. The BOE could kick Nate off the ballot, too. This would obviously be ridiculous, and I'm pretty sure it won't happen. But with the BOE, you just never know.
Another interesting question in all of this is whether or not there should be anything done about Anthony's alleged conversation with the former Chair of the BOE/JB about Nirvana's punishment. Does the blame for that fall solely on the former Chair (who obviously should have known better), or did Anthony need to do more to avoid the situation? Should he be punished in some way? Does this justify a return to the ballot for Nirvana?
I will be happy to share what was discussed with anyone who would like to know. As the Chair of the Commission on Constitutional Review, as well as former Parliamentarian of the Student Government, I am often found discussing matters of the application of SG policy. Now, the issue of "discussion with Chairwoman Zois" is being blown out of proportion to the level of a backroom deal in private.
ReplyDeleteI discussed my opinion on the public facts on the case, as well as possible applications of the regulations and bylaws. I did not advocate for any particular ruling, but rather discussed all the options from the ruling being upheld to being overturned, which was eventually the case. Now, I will admit that doing so with the Chairwoman in the room was not the most tactful idea, as a candidate; however, I was not violating any election regulations, within my rights as a student speaking freely, and was merely giving an opinion based upon my knowledge of the rules.
Again, I admit that it was not the most tactful idea to discuss such matters in her presence, and I most certainly apologize for its appearance. Yet, it was opinion based upon facts...not coercion, not intimidation, or threats...and I stand by my rights to share my opinions.
My suggestion is simple: LET THE STUDENTS VOTE.
ReplyDeleteWhile this whole situation has been an embarrassment for the SG, what is most disheartening is the fact that students who are already under the impression that SG is worthless now are even more disinterested. I have been fortunate throughout this process to get to meet the candidates, and here's the deal - no matter who wins we are going to elect a great president. All four candidates have great ideas and proven records of experience. They all genuinely care about improving our university and are fairly well in tune with the needs of students. So I say, let's have a vote, with all four candidates on the ballot. Lets stop talking about e-mails and start engaging with the students that we all seek to represent. This election has exemplified the problems with SG that have to change.