Today
81/64
Wednesday
76/58
Thursday
Friday
76/59
80/65
Exclusive content
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
www.southerndigest.com
Volume 60, Issue 15
SGA, Election Ethics in question Evan Taylor
The Southern Digest Questions still loom over the recent Student Government Association Election. After contesting the results of the 2013-14 Election due to a failure to communicate contents of the ballot before election day, a request to contest and complain was denied. Elections Commissioner Eugene Williams was presented a letter April 17 during the runoff election, requesting that the committee lodge an investigation into the election and the passage of Referendums 1, 2 and 3 and Constitutional Amendment 1. As stated in the Election Code of the Southern University and A&M College Student Government Association (last revised July 2, 2001), “The Election Committee shall have the power to interpret and apply this code.” The Committee’s deputy, Ginea Pride did just that, in her response. Pride wrote, “This letter is to deny your request for a formal complaint against the results of the 2013-14 Student Government Association Election. There will not be an investigation due to your inadequate information about the constitution, by-laws, and elections code of the Student Government Association.” Referendums are only cited once in all the governing documents for the Student Government Association, never addressing the time period in which students should be notified, or even if they should be notified at all. This leaves the implied and implicit meaning and interpretation in the hands of Student Government Association and their entities. In the Student Government Association Constitution Article XIII it states, “All referendums passed by majority vote of the Student Senate that create, authorize, or enact new student self-assessed fees, student selfassessed fee increases, student self-assessed fee renewals, and/ or reallocation of funds generated from an existing self-assessed fee shall be enacted by the majority vote of the voting Student Body in a General Election.” While this is the only stipulation for the Student Government Association to assume the authority over any student selfassessed fee or funding, there are more stipulations over candidates who are vying for elected positions.
See SGA Ethics page 3
Page 1 of the Letter submitted to Eugene Williams, SGA 2013-14 Elections Comissioner to contest the results of the 2013-14 Election. Cited in the letter is Article XII of the Student Government Association bylaws concerning the documentation of SGA be public record.
Page 2 of the letter submitted to Williams with those CC’ed in the administration of the letter hand delivered to Williams. The letter was also sent via e-mail to all parties involved. The argument to contest the election was the last minute notice of referendums and amendments on the ballot.
Page 1 of the response from Ginea Pride, SGA Deputy of the Elections Committee. The letter denied the request to file a complaint and contest the Election. The letter also confirmed the Elections Committee believed the Election was conducted properly citing a misinterpretation of the constitution’s explicit language about referendums.
Page 2 of response from Pride concerning the denial of the contest and complaint for the Election. Pride directed us to SGA for documentation leaving the looming question whether the Election Committee, the governing body of the 2013-14 Election was informed or provided documentation that the student body and The Digest has yet to see.
the official student newspaper of southern university and A&m college, baton rouge, louisiana