News analysis: Elections Board mishap trend

To longtime observers of ASPSU, the postponement of this year’s student government elections and the subsequent firing of Elections Board Chair Ingrid Castenella should not be surprising, nor is it anything new.

At least for the past six years, a variety of embarrassing miscues, both large and small, have plagued the election process, angering candidates and turning off students.

In 2004, the entire election was invalidated by the university administration after one candidate was told she couldn’t campaign on campus.

The next year’s elections were relatively calm. While 32 violations were reported, they dealt mostly with allegations that some candidates had posted campaign fliers in locations that were not allowed.

The 2006 election saw student government officials miss the deadline to get constitutional revisions on the ballot, and while there may have been mitigating circumstances, the result was the ASPSU constitution didn’t get its annual facelift.

Then, the 2007 election was riddled with controversy.

Three of five E-Board members quit just a week before it began. The new board then canceled the election because they could not find documentation to prove that several candidates had attended an orientation, a requirement to run. Rudy Soto won the election after it resumed three weeks later, however his opponent, Patrick Beisell, filed a complaint with the board claiming that Soto was not enrolled in enough credits to qualify. Soto’s victory was later upheld.

Last year, instant run-off voting was used to elect Student Fee Committee members. IRV voting may only be used when there can be a single winner, such as the presidential contest.

Where does this problem stem from?

The answer is two-fold. The Elections Board is in many ways the neglected stepchild of ASPSU. Being a member is not a glamorous job, nor does it hold much day-to-day power or influence. The job—especially E-Board chair—requires an ability to plan, coordinate with Student Activities and Leadership Programs and candidates, and understand the complexities of the ASPSU Constitution and Elections Board Bylaws.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, finding quality people to fill all five positions proves an annual challenge. It often seems as if the E-Board is one of the last committees to start functioning—indeed, this year’s board wasn’t formed until winter term. This is especially counterintuitive considering that much of ASPSU’s training occurs over the summer.

The second problem, the one that has most hampered this year’s election cycle, is a lack of oversight. Simply trusting the board to fulfill its duties is a foolhardy tactic. Part of the responsibility of any executive staff, especially the president, is to manage your employees.

This is made more important because the E-Board is an appointed body, meaning that voters get no chance to sign off on who is selected.

In theory, a solution should be fairly simple: Hire smart, motivated people and then provide enough institutional support and follow through to ensure their success. While in practice the people hired are never a 100-percent guarantee, an administration has no excuse for not providing enough oversight to make sure the job gets done.

And that job is quite clear: execute a fair and smooth election.

Problems through the years
2004: Election results invalidated
2005: More than 30 violations reported
2006: Deadline for ASPSU Constitutional revisions missed
2007: Several major problems, including postponed election
2008: Instant-runoff voting used to elect SFC members, which is illegal
2009: Election postponed after faulty ballot