The Undergraduate Students Association Council Elections Code is
badly outdated and inconsistently applied, a fact demonstrated by
the bitter controversies of the last two weeks’ elections.
For years, USAC has applied piecemeal tweaks to the code, but next
year’s council should break with the past and consider a
sweeping reform.
The current Elections Code does very little to ensure fair
campaigning ““ yet it seriously infringes on the free speech
rights of those who wish to endorse or criticize candidates.
The code also ignores the existence of slates like Student
Power! and Bruins United, although slates have absolutely dominated
USAC politics for over a decade.
And the code’s complex rules are often applied
inconsistently, leading to legitimate questions about their
fairness.
In last week’s runoff, the On-Campus Housing Council sent
an e-mail endorsing Bruins United candidates Alex Gruenberg and
Jesse Melgares to over 7,000 students.
Last year, the OCHC sent a similar e-mail and did not even
receive a warning. But this year, the Elections Board ruled the
e-mail violated rules governing mass mailings.
And despite a lack of precedent, the punishment selected by
E-Board Chairman Nathan Lam was extreme: Both Bruins United
candidates were barred from campaigning for eight hours, and OCHC
was required to send a retraction e-mail. That e-mail included
self-endorsements written by Student Power! candidates Jenny Wood
and Jeannie Biniek.
The above story is merely one example of the code’s
inconsistency and arbitrary nature.
USAC should not rush the reform of the code with small fixes.
Instead, careful consideration should be given to a revised code
that would eliminate the complex and needless rules currently in
place. USAC should:
“¢bull; Link the existing Student Conduct Code more directly to
the activity of candidates. Anyone involved in campaign-related
vandalism ““ such as destroying the signs of opponents ““
should face timely sanctions.
“¢bull; Establish an official but voluntary endorsement process.
Students groups who wish to establish their own endorsement process
using independent funding sources should not face punishment.
“¢bull; Require E-Board members to proactively investigate
problems rather than rely on a formal complaint system.
“¢bull; Prevent candidates and their supporters from abusing
university resources for campaign purposes. For example, OCHC
should not be allowed to send e-mails to all Hill residents ““
but the rule should be clarified and consistently applied.
“¢bull; Require all candidates to disclose individual
campaign-spending amounts in a transparent manner ““ what you
spend is what you report. Establish punishments for cheaters.
“¢bull; Require a vote by the board to approve and implement all
sanctions.
Also, the council should consider changing the composition and
appointment process of the E-Board. Instead of allowing political
appointments, USAC should look for creative ways to ensure the
impartiality of board members. Options include asking Dean of
Students Robert Naples and other non-students to join in
deliberations.
Make no mistake: Previous councils have purposefully manipulated
the Elections Code to the benefit of their own slates. Next
year’s council must resist that temptation while forging
ahead with reforms. Ultimately, all students will benefit from an
understandable set of rules that maximize free speech.