Dear Fox Students:
This week there was an election for the officers and members of the next UW Fox Student [Government] Association (SA). To say they threw a party and no one came is a bit of an overstatement, but not enough people came. The SA has a provision that says the election of an officer requires the winner to receive at least 75 votes. That did not happen and as a consequence, another election is necessary or you will be without leadership in our shared governance process.
To think that a campus of 1700 students has a voting turnout as low as our last election is disappointing. This time I think I saw more quality electioneering than I have in recent memory. I think you should care and here’s why you should care – it’s all about your money.
Each year the students you elect make decisions about how a whole lot of your money is spent. $281,000 to be exact. This is the amount of money that comes to Fox from you via segregated fees. And it is the SA that pretty much controls how that is to be spent. They decide how much you are going to be taxed in segregated fees. So you have a vested interest in making sure the students who make the decision are the people you want to make that decision.
In addition, this year, SA is spending an additional $86,000 to buy new furniture, and they have come up with a plan of where and how the students will be lounging. One of the candidates (who did not get 75 votes) reminded me that my blog post on the brown couch situation generated 106 comment, more commentary than any other blog posting I have done. You must have some interest.
The University of Wisconsin has the strongest tradition of shared governance in the nation. Shared governance means students participate in all our decision making processes except personnel decisions (like merit for faculty and promotion and tenure decisions. ) The people on SA represent you.
We just came off of a national presidential election where I believe where young voters made a difference in the outcome. There are people in the world who literally are willing to die for the right to vote. It’s a hallmark of our nation. It means representation!
Voting matters, be it for the President of the UW Fox SA or for the President of the United States.
So why is it that so few students are deciding to be participants?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Well conveyed. I certainly hope everyone gets out and votes the second time around! And for everyone who voted the first time around (regardless of who for)thank you!
ツ
I'm not going to say that no one cares, because that simply isn't true. I didn't know when the voting day was, firstly, so that makes it a little harder to vote =/. Secondly, I didn't know either of the candidates, what their positions were, etc. Maybe if they had done a little more political nagging, I would have been able to make a decision. I don't like to vote just for whoever everyone thinks is cool because that person might not be the right person for the job (as you can see I take voting very seriously). The best way to get more votes, in my opinion, is to have the candidates really enforce their positions and to make sure to make them want to come in and vote for them, much like in the national elections. Oh, and telling us when the elections are wouldn't hurt either ;)
If people don't vote, maybe it's a sign that the student guvmn't doesn't hold enough power to make changes students want. Basically, candidates aren't able to distinguish themselves and so elections become popularity contests. That's not all bad though; if a candidate is outgoing enough to meet students in the hallways and tell them to vote (not just the day of the election), there's a likelihood that candidate's ambition will carry over to his work in office and therefore be deserving of a vote. The problem, as I see it, is that candidates don't do the kind of campaigning that might make one 'uneasy' - i.e. making personal connections. Candidates stay under the protection of making posters, so long as the competition is content with doing the same. Is that a characteristic of students here, where even the 'involved' are uninvolved?
The Student Government here does hold a lot of power concerning much of the money I spent to go here, and yours as well. Lack of political nagging may or may not have been the issue, I can think of two candidates who advertise to my while I'm drying my hands, (and not in a mean way).
The reason I think no one voted was because,
a) for the most part the candidates didn't give compelling reasons to vote for them, or give any reason at all.\
b) Only one candidate actually said what he planned to do after he was elected and
c) I think this is the most important, a handful at best actually knew why they should even give a damn before this blog. I voted, but the truth was for all I knew the Student government didn't have any more power then to change the color scheme in the Union or something like that.
I'm all for another election! I can relate to Keith about not knowing all of the power the student government held until now. Perhaps candidates could compose e-mails to be sent out as well. A lot of students aren't on campus very long during the day, whether it be a commuting reason or not. That would be one way for students to know more about them. Also the home page of the UW FOX site could be altered with a political tab or something. Just some ideas...
As a candidate that ran for election and is now getting ready for a re-election, my perspective is from the other side. Yes, as Keith said, the majority of people who run do not explicitly state why they students should vote for them, or what they hope to do. Some restrictions are soon to be enforced this Tuesday that might even further limit such things as poster advertising and flyers as well as restricting many locations from being used. However, there has been talk about attempting to get a discussion together, and this has the possible effect of forcing candidates to get their viewpoints out into the open through face to face contact. I believe it is our role as Candidates to get both the word out about voting as well as what we stand for. Hopefully we will be able to do more to motivate and inform the student body in the following weeks.
I do have to say that I voted...yet I was bribed with soda for this person to get my vote...I did not know any of the people running and trying to brib students made everyone around NOT vote for them. This made the election more of a joke then a real matter.
Absolutely, we need to hear from candidates in a discussion/debate format. Dean Perry: as students, we care about the student government's responsibilities; without candidates distinguishing themselves, though, why should we vote?! I'll never endorse voting simply for the sake of voting. We need to vote because we are educated about the duties of the officials we cast ballots for as well as the differences between candidates. You make a point about how much money the SA handles, but how does that even matter? The candidates will probably have very similar plans for that money - If I'm wrong, a forum needs to be held so students can distinguish one candidate's plan from another's.
In defense of all the candidates, no matter what position they are running for, it is a difficult task for anyone to say what they will do if elected. Many of the Executive’s duties are unpredictable. When I ran for Treasurer last year I had no idea that SA would take on discussions regarding Mental Health or a campus smoking ban. Nor did I know that the other three Executive members would choose to step down from their positions.
I believe it is more important to look at the leadership traits of an individual vs. the promises that are made. Do you feel that the candidate is honest, hardworking, a team player, etc?
It is up to the individual candidates to campaign for their position. I agree, if you don’t know enough about each candidate, don’t vote for any of them! At the election table (across from the cafeteria April 28,29,30 from 10:00-2:00 & 5:00-7:00) each candidate has filled out an application that states why they feel they would be best qualified for the position that everyone is encouraged to read. Once again, it is up to the individual candidates to campaign for their position and get their name out to the students. However, if students would like to see an email sent out providing a statement from each candidate about why they are qualified, SA can make that happen. In the past, SA has been discouraged to send out mass emails because so many students say they never check their campus email.
Please email me if you would like more information about the elections or any part of SA (irvie1179@uwc.edu).
Just in case you didn't catch it in my last comment...
The Student Association Election for the President and Communications Director will be held
April 28, 29, 30 from
10:00am-2:00pm and 5:00pm-7:00pm
(across from the cafeteria)
Please Vote!
I think it is ridiculous that Jesse was disqualified from the election. He ran the most successful campaign on this campus and was punished for it based on some BS. I think that we need someone like him as President so things actually get done around here and the students know about it and can have a say. You are fools who need to grow up.
I appreciate the support you have shown Jesse.
However,
“the Student association has set up an Election Campaigning Code of Conduct, which is a list of rules on how candidates can and cannot campaign during the election to ensure a fair and balanced election.
This Code of Conduct has a zero tolerance policy on election days to deter overt or accidental breaking of the code. Any violations on election days are reviewed by an Elections Committee, and if deemed a valid violation a suggestion to disqualify the violator from office is passed on to be voted at a Student Association meeting.”
-Election Commissioner
The Election Committee, as well as the Student Association, held an emergency meeting to discuss any election violations. This was to ensure fairness to students who may vote for an ineligible candidate. All students were welcome to attend these meetings and express their opinions.
Since a violation had clearly occurred, and was acknowledged by Jesse, a majority vote from the Student Association deemed Jesse ineligible for office. While the Student Association truly appreciates the obviously strong campaigning effort, they cannot overlook this violation. Jesse has been encouraged to remain a member of the Student Association.
If anyone wishes a more detailed explaination or a copy of the Election Campaigning Code of Conduct, please email me (irvie1179@uwc.edu) or the Election Commissioner, Kevin Johnson (johnk2206@uwc.edu).
We all know that he got screwd by the faulty system he was trying to fix. if you ask me he is the reason that half of the people who even voted in the first place actually voted. If you ask me I say it is an outright travesty that a guy with no experience in student affairs can come into the picture, want to make a difference, give 110% compared to 0%and get shot down because of fine print and the obvious BIAS. I just don't understand the thought process that goes on. Have we become robots?
It might be noted that Jesse did finish behind one of the other candidates in the popular vote. Granted this might have been because he was declared ineligible prior to the final day of voting, but the final day was the lightest day of voting and in spite of his disqualification, Jesse’s name remained on the ballot and he did receive some votes on the final day. In short, he might have lost anyway.
SA could have justified a decision to keep him on the ballot or to remove him. Their decision was to follow their rules as written. Jesse made the error and finally accepted responsibility. Both the Election Commission and the SA Senate voted to disqualify him. He was given and accepted an opportunity to state his case to both bodies. Not sure I see a big travesty of justice here.
Hello all,
I appreciate all of your support in regard to the issues surrounding our recent election. Do I think that there is an obvious problem with the way things were handled, yes. Am I disappointed with the result, no. I am grateful to have had the opportunity in participating in such a stimulating process.
Note: Let's leave the hypothetical out of the story shall we? It is what it is.
To clear up any rumor as to the way things were handled I will state my version of the chain of events:
In the middle of the election a set of rules were made which changed the way that candidates were allowed to campaign. As a result many campaign materials were to be removed. In addition there were other rules that were made which prevented specific issues from becoming a problem to other candidates, students and staff. One of the rules was that in order to put up a table a candidate must do as usually required and get approval from building and grounds. However in addition to this, with the new "guidelines" one would be required to get some sort of "approval" of the communications director. Unfortunately our previous communications director was unable to continue their duties and Emily Irvine (SA's treasurer and Acting President) also became the acting communications director. This is where the confusion unfolded. I had produced my new campaign materials and sought her personal approval of their statement in a conversation between her and I. I filled out my request form for the table and submitted it to SA's adviser, Jeff Kuepper. I proceeded to do what I understood to be the newly enacted process for campaigning and contacted building and grounds 5 days post turn in of my request form to Jeff Kuepper. On Monday April 27th building and grounds set up the tables for me. I assembled my materials in the middle of the student union and showed the commissioner of the election committee (the head honcho of the new "guidelines") what I was working on and got a thumbs up if you will for my efforts. At approximately 10:00 A.M. that Monday I set the boards on my 2 tables. It wasn't until the next day at about 11:00 A.M. (one hour after the polls opened) that I was informed that I was missing the "official" seal of approval from the acting communications director Emily Irvine. I see the suspicious actions surrounding all of this as do the many who have conveyed your concern to me.
As someone who was in the SA office for a month straight trying to learn what I could, I overlooked something as trivial as getting someone to say the words "yes, this is okay". Yes it was my fault, however I do think that the way the entire election was handled was somewhat improper. That being said, I do not blame anyone for what happened other than myself. They did a fantastic job given their circumstances.
Looking back on the series of events surrounding our recent SA election, for which I will never forget, I say this: WOW. I am honored to be in the presence of such a dedicated, participatory campus. I am grateful to have earned the esteem of my classmates in carrying out the simple task of commanding attention where attention is required. Often it is difficult to stand up for what you believe is right when you can feel the glare of the masses bearing down upon you. When you can set aside your fear and see the bigger picture, taking the first step is a breeze. From there perseverance makes anything possible. I would like to thank all who voted in the election for making your voice heard. As promised, you made a difference. I would also like to thank Dean Perry for his participation, as well as give much due credit to Jeff Kuepper and SA for their hard work and long hours in pulling this election together and making it the most vibrant this campus has seen in years in spite of the many challenges faced. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to get to know them.
One thing I will remember in pertinence to this election and of my campaign are the poignant words of Mahatma Gandhi:
“Be the change you want to see in the world”.
This is useless no new posts in months. Must be very busy over at UWFox that nobody can post anything new...sad.
I was directly involved with the election and the vote counts (I was the election commissioner).
As a Student Association, we were actually pleased by the turnout of votes, which exceeded that of the previous election noticeably.
The minimum of 75 votes was not met because the votes cast were nearly split equally between three candidates. Such a close race between three is rarely seen, let alone at UW Fox Valley. I was very pleased by the campaign all three ran.
While a larger voter turnout would have been nice, we actually were quite above average turnout compared to other state schools.
I know this comment is a bit late, but I hate to see the results painted as poor student participation when the strong campaigns made by the candidates actually made it otherwise.
For those who didn't know, the reelection did meet the minimum 75 votes to elect an officer.
-Kevin Johnson, former SA Senator
Post a Comment