The Observer, April 4, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 23
Class of 2009 elections "unfortunate"
To the Editor:
In spring 2007, the Class Officer Collective (COC) approved new bylaws, including a provision stipulating that the senior class president must have one semester of COC experience. While I understand the COC's intent to keep their bylaws consistent with similar campus groups and to have a leader with proper experience, the process by which they conducted these elections was sloppy, unprofessional, and self-seeking.
Without publicly publishing their bylaws, they expected potential candidates and the Election Commission to know that they had this bylaw provision. They neglected to inform the candidates or the Commission until three full days after campaigning had started. "The collective [felt] strongly that it would be unwise to disregard one of [their] own bylaws," yet they seemed to disregard them throughout the election process, until now, when they realized that one person, who has leadership experience, did not have the specified one semester of COC experience. The bylaws, approved by the Collective (not by the classes), were passed a year ago, but were still not public to any student by any means, except those already on the Collective.
Many students have agreed that the Class Officer Collective has been less than impressive this past year in their events, citing trips to local restaurants where only 40 of more than 1000 students could be admitted to attend. I felt that the Collective has room for improvement, and was ready to take on a role to facilitate this change. It was no secret to the junior class that I had no previous COC experience. Why not let them decide whether I was qualified to be their president? It seemed that the COC bylaw directly benefited only those who had been in the organization, disregarding any other person who has the desire and will to further the organization and positively effect change.
Additionally, the class officers disregarded the opinion given by the Election Commission, a neutral party comprised of USG and COC members entrusted to govern the election process without conflict of interest. "[T]he election commission voted unanimously on the following ruling: [...] The Class Officer Collective should issue a formal public apology to Ms. Cortez and the student body to be published in The Observer for not publicizing their bylaws and candidate requirements; Ms. Cortez should continue to be allowed to run for the class of 2009 president position, pending the approval of the Class Officer Collective." This was the statement given by the Election Commissioner, yet the class officers voted 8-2 against letting me run.
The COC were not running their own elections (though they should have been as per a funding agreement with the Student Executive Council). So even though the Commission stated, "it was up to the Class Officer[s] as how to solve this bylaw violation situation of their making," they should have complied with the Commission's proposal. This postponed election may have been best for all parties involved. Unfortunately, I still cannot run for senior class president, and I still have not received an apology from Class Officer Collective.
Elisse Cortez
Undergraduate student
