I’m writing in response to Brad Vehafric’s letter to the editor on Tuesday [May 1]. The fact that Vehafric leads off with false information is indicative of the majority of his letter.
Still childish and misinformed
I’m writing in response to Brad Vehafric’s letter to the editor on Tuesday [May 1].
The fact that Vehafric leads off with false information is indicative of the majority of his letter.
Having attended both the candidate debates and the Judicial Board hearings, I feel more than confident in repeating the refrain that the editorial board ironically published over a week ago [“Vanguard endorsements,” April 13] in regards to Vehafric’s ideas and answers: “[they] were childish and misinformed.” In the course of the election I have heard nothing but petty and illegitimate arguments come from Vehafric, whose public appearance strikes me as being that of an ill-fated adviser rather than an effective leader.
The Judicial Board is, and always has been, an objective and viewpoint-neutral body. To claim that their decision was predicated on cronyism and outside relationships (when Rudy Soto ran his own girlfriend for the SFC), is obviously misinformed and appears to students as an unsightly grab at rhetorical straws.
I feel confident that the Judicial Board began the hard process of righting the wrongs of the Elections Board. Now this Thursday, hopefully the Elections Board will own up to their duty as student government leaders by declaring Rudy Soto ineligible and ensuring that we have a legitimate and experienced executive branch next year.
Racist claims serve no purpose
I’m writing in response to the comments made by Ben Sand in the Vanguard’s letters section on Tuesday.
Mr. Sand, not a PSU student or affiliate, begins his letter to the editor with a tearjerker of a story about the coming-of-age story of a young Idaho man. However, one’s ability or inability to overcome environmental hurdles hardly has any pertinence on one’s ability or inability to enroll in enough credits.
Mr. Sand writes that “the four-week add/drop period is designed to offer students flexibility in deciding how they craft their schedules. Instead of honoring this rule for all students (including those running for student government), Rudy Soto has been discriminated against…again.”
This blatantly offensive, not to mention libelous, remark is simply unfounded. To declare that the Judicial Board’s decision was predicated on racism shows a clear lack of any understanding regarding ASPSU, its processes, or what has happened recently. While it is true that the four-week add/drop period is designed to accommodate students, it is also true that Rudy Soto was unable to follow a simple rule that over 30 other candidates were able to follow (not to mention two of whom were declared ineligible because of the rule less than two weeks earlier).
The last section in Mr. Sand’s opinion can best be described as inflammatory. There are no loopholes being abused, there are no constitutional revisions being debated, and there is certainly no “courageous leadership” coming from Rudy Soto–a candidate who has shown himself to be more prepared to throw parties than advocate for students.
Stop blaming the candidates
I’m writing in response to the comments made by the [Vanguard] editorial board, as well as some of the letters to the editor in Tuesday’s paper.
The fact that ASPSU finds itself in the situation that it is currently in is the fault, solely, of the Elections Board.
It is patently unfair to maintain that the current mire of eligibility requirements is the fault of Patrick Beisell, an obviously concerned and informed student who simply, in my opinion, wants to follow process and ensure that–in an election cycle dominated by sensationalist media coverage and mired by irresponsibility and ignorance–the outcome of this year’s election is both legitimate and fair.
Conversely, it is not the fault of Rudy Soto that this is happening. It is true that Rudy Soto dropped below the credit requirements stipulated in Article III, Section 5 of the ASPSU constitution, but it is not his fault that student government is in its current position.
It is the fault of the Elections Board.
Upon discovering an ineligible candidate, the Elections Board should have declared them ineligible. Whether it is a senator, an SFC member, or a president should not have any bearing on the decision to simply abide by our highest governing document.
Hopefully the Elections Board sets things right in this election by holding themselves accountable and reversing their decision to validate Rudy Soto as a candidate.