2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor: Botched SGA elections threaten choice
Issue date: 4/7/08 Section: Editorial
In 1924, the Student Government Association (SGA) was founded to serve as the united voice of the undergraduate student body at Northeastern. SGA, on its very own website, claims that "every undergraduate student is considered a part of SGA," and students are encouraged to participate and let their voices be heard. The direct election of the SGA president was designed and implemented last year to give the student body a voice and the power to elect their leadership.
The majority of the senators in SGA agree and work toward that mission. They care about the student body and listen for the opinions of the students. They are in SGA for the right reasons, and are great student leaders who I am proud and honored to have worked alongside.
Unfortunately, there are senators in SGA who want to take the choice away from the student body. These senators are the ones who hope that the direct elections process will fail and that SGA will not achieve the 20 percent vote required for a valid election, sending the decision back to the Joint Senate and disenfranchising the more than 2,100 students who already have cast their votes. In an effort to avoid such a situation, I have suggested and will make a motion at the Joint Senate to override the Direct Elections Manual and allow the student body's vote to count regardless of the 20 percent threshold.
I have been told by fellow Senators that they intend to object to the motion. Rather than allow 3,000 votes to decide the election - or even 2,000 - these Senators want 50 votes to be the deciding factor. Could it be that these Senators want this because they feel more powerful being 1 of 50 than being 1 of 3,000?
Should the direct election be derailed or fail this year, it will likely mark the end of direct elections for a long time. If students end up seeing that the students' votes didn't matter this year, what incentive will they have to vote next year?
And how can SGA call itself an advocate of the student body and encourage participation when it hides -- or attempts to hide - matters, where no student privacy concerns exist, behind the veil of an executive session? By doing this, no students-at-large can give their input on these matters, nor are they even able to properly hear about the proceedings? In the past week SGA held almost an entire Rules Committee meeting in executive session and there was an attempt, which luckily failed, to hold the motion to block Senator Dan Kamyck's nomination in an executive session.
The majority of the senators in SGA agree and work toward that mission. They care about the student body and listen for the opinions of the students. They are in SGA for the right reasons, and are great student leaders who I am proud and honored to have worked alongside.
Unfortunately, there are senators in SGA who want to take the choice away from the student body. These senators are the ones who hope that the direct elections process will fail and that SGA will not achieve the 20 percent vote required for a valid election, sending the decision back to the Joint Senate and disenfranchising the more than 2,100 students who already have cast their votes. In an effort to avoid such a situation, I have suggested and will make a motion at the Joint Senate to override the Direct Elections Manual and allow the student body's vote to count regardless of the 20 percent threshold.
I have been told by fellow Senators that they intend to object to the motion. Rather than allow 3,000 votes to decide the election - or even 2,000 - these Senators want 50 votes to be the deciding factor. Could it be that these Senators want this because they feel more powerful being 1 of 50 than being 1 of 3,000?
Should the direct election be derailed or fail this year, it will likely mark the end of direct elections for a long time. If students end up seeing that the students' votes didn't matter this year, what incentive will they have to vote next year?
And how can SGA call itself an advocate of the student body and encourage participation when it hides -- or attempts to hide - matters, where no student privacy concerns exist, behind the veil of an executive session? By doing this, no students-at-large can give their input on these matters, nor are they even able to properly hear about the proceedings? In the past week SGA held almost an entire Rules Committee meeting in executive session and there was an attempt, which luckily failed, to hold the motion to block Senator Dan Kamyck's nomination in an executive session.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 5
Sarah Newpaltz
posted 4/07/08 @ 5:10 PM EST
I can't agree more with the editorial writer. I voted in the election, and I want my vote and the other students who voted to count. It will upset me if SGA decides to send this election to a small 50 person Joint Senate meeting instead of letting the student body be heard. (Continued…)
A Senator in SGA
posted 4/08/08 @ 11:03 AM EST
I was upset that last night a motion to override the Direct Elections Manual was not permitted to be heard by the Joint Senate. I hope SGA gets the 20% -- but I also think the student body deserves the peach of mind of a backup plan should that 20% be missed. (Continued…)
W
posted 4/08/08 @ 1:37 PM EST
I turnout fails to meet 20%, the results of the election should still be made public and the Joint Senate should defer to the voters expressed choice. (Continued…)
Post a Comment