Herald Editorial: Western Student Association quickly losing all credibility
Western Herald
The Western Student Association is suffering from a deficit of credibility.
The WSA recently held one of the most severely mismanaged student elections to follow up last year’s embarrassing fiasco which, as many may remember, resulted in no less than three separate election announcements, each declaring different results.
The 2009 elections were rife with controversy as a result of ambiguous rules that set the stage for exploitation and confusion. Complaints resulted in the expulsion of one campaign, the Knappen-Putnam ticket, from the election, but an appeal of that decision declared the previously disqualified campaign the winner.
It should be hoped that such an experience would be a wake-up call for the WSA. In a sense, it was, but probably not in the way most would have imagined.
The circus of appeals and bitterness that followed last year’s election was public and painful. Looking at the way this year’s election was handled, it seems the only thing the WSA learned was that when things go wrong it’s better to just try and sweep them under the rug.
The story of the 2010 WSA elections is that of an organization which consistently put its public image before actual solutions.
Instead of fixing the handful of flaws in last year’s rules, they were replaced with an entirely new election code.
Nevermind that the new code is more than twice as long, more convoluted, and filled with even more loopholes and ambiguities than the old rules, just so long as it appears that something has been done about those dastardly, problematic old rules.
Instead of following the rules that the WSA agreed upon for itself they were effectively ignored with impunity.
Despite a variety of perfectly legitimate complaints filed against campaigns, and the Booth-Blaszczyk campaign in particular, by the end of the election neither side had a single standing demerit counted against them.
These were not instances of confused interpretation either. Rules were explicitly and unquestionably broken, but no one was held accountable simply because when it came time to enforce the rules they were decidedly undesirable or inconvenient in the eyes of the Judicial Council.
Neve mind that these were the same exact rules that they had almost unanimously approved just a few weeks prior.
Compounding all of these problems is the consistently dismal student voter turnout. This year’s election had a positively anemic 7 percent turnout. In a student body of over 24,000 the new student government was elected by less than 2,000 people, with the winning campaign earning just over 100 more votes than their opponents.
When less than a tenth of the student body shows up to vote, elections are especially vulnerable to undemocratic influences and unfair practices. A set of well-written rules executed without compromise becomes absolutely necessary.
The ease and effectiveness with which a single sorority, fraternity, or student organization could influence the results of any given election is startling enough on its own, but take into account the WSA’s decision to let candidates promise cabinet positions to other student leaders by way of an expanded slate, as the Booth-Blaszczyk campaign did, and there is a votes-for-favors scenario simply waiting to happen.
The WSA also lacks transparency. A prime example is their reluctancy to provide access to budget information that is public information. Information such as the allocation of the student assessment fee, which comes out of the pockets of those they supposedly speak for.
This year’s chairman of the Election Control Board, Alex Roman, decided to lock students and press out of Judicial Council appeals hearings related to the election. This was only after he had previously announced his intention to keep the proceedings open. Roman explained he changed his mind in order to “avoid any confusion” about exiting WSA President Nate Knappen’s role in the hearings.
Knappen represented the Booth campaign at the hearings, though officially it was claimed he did so only as a student rather than a representative of the WSA.
While it was within the legal authority of Roman to keep the public and press out of the hearings, the argument that doing so would actually avoid confusion rather than raise suspicion is difficult to understand.
Ultimately these disastrous elections are only a symptom of the real disease.
The WSA, as an organization, is its own worst enemy. Its leadership simply refuses to face the serious problems at hand. Problems that range from a convoluted and confusing constitution and set of bylaws, to a highly centralized structure that at times reduces the Senate, the body set up to provide students and other organizations with a voice, to a mere advisory role second to the Judicial Council.
This is not to say that the mission of the WSA is anything less than a good and noble one worth fighting for. The establishment of a powerful representative student government is a good idea, but only if that government can consistently prove itself viable and credible as a representative body.
At present, it’s clear that the lack of oversight or transparency and the accumulated carnage left over from years of amateurish bureaucratic wrangling are now robbing the WSA of its credibility and getting in the way of its original mission.
And last night’s fiasco was no exception.
In a way, this is all perfectly understandable. Solving the WSA’s problems would require a heavy dose of honest self-assessment and a host of painful changes. Myopic as it may be, ignoring things is relatively painless and easy unless someone deliberately makes it hurt.
In a rather ironic twist, the only chance to ensure students are getting fairly represented is for the student body to act on the WSA’s oft repeated slogan, ‘Speak up, WMU!’, even if that means speaking out against your own student government.
Short URL: http://www.westernherald.com/?p=16714
Posted by heraldstaff
on Apr 14 2010. Filed under Editorial, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
http://HeraldStaff
Loading ...
Thank you,
and thank you again. I recently wrote an article for Her Campus in which I expressed views also attacking the WSA and unfortunately I was not as professional and made a significant factual error. Even after correcting the error, I was attacked and my article was torn apart. I cannot blame the WSA, and their supporters, for doing this, as I would have done the same thing… However, I call that the same attackers try to discredit this impressive piece. I only wish that I had possessed the talent to write such an amazing editorial expressing my views. I thank the author very sincerely. Lets see what happens next…
John Ellis
First of all, writing a negative editorial after your endorsed candidate loses the election is just poor sportsmanship.
Secondly, if you want changes actively participate. Complaining about it does nothing.
Thirdly, this is a student organization that helps people learn leadership skills and mistakes are part of learning.
Finally, proof read your article before you publish it. Developing those skills may be a better use of your time than just bashing those who are trying to be involved. Do not hide behind your keyboard, get out there and make things happen.
Ok this article drives a lot of good points but to be honest I’m glad somebody wrote it. I am a part of the WSA and like most governments and RSO’s its not perfect. This type of awareness will ultimately benefit the WSA because at least it will draw attention to issues and maybe even spark people to come have their voice heard and help improve whats wrong. To be honest only 7% of the entire student body voted, and who knows what percentage of people even read the Herald, but we have to come up with some way to get awareness out there because more involvement is crucial in the advancement of the WSA. We cant just sit back and point out flaws all the time. There comes a time when people need to take action not just tear stuff apart.
“Korey”,
Stop acting like HerCampus is a legitamate source of news. It’s a joke.
Kerri:
HerCampus is a women’s interest magazine, not a hard news source and has never claimed to be. As a writer of HerCampus I will say that all HerCampus has ever claimed to be is to provide the women of campus articles they want to read based on suggestions from women around campus.This article is nothing about HerCampus so stop attacking it. Shut up about it already.
Thank you, Western Herald. You have, in this single article, restored my faith not only in the common sense of the students of our campus, but also of humanity. I am so glad that I’m finally not the only one complaining about these problems. Now here comes another diatribe:
I’d like to respond to a previous post made earlier today, and while I do my absolute best to stray away from attacking personalities I must say this: Those who take an ACTIVE role in the organization have every right to critique. Those who took a backseat and whose performance was unremarkable, at best, do not. Its understood that you were a Booth-Blaszczyk supporter, and that’s fine. But this article was a long time coming, and you must ask yourself how “actively” you participated when you were involved.
Let’s get serious: The Herald didn’t write this editorial because the candidate they endorsed lost. There can be no more hair-brained idea. Rather, the Herald accurately portrayed the recent goings-on of our organization. I have to disagree with one thing this article says, though. Anyone who knows me will understand that as last year’s Election Control Board chairperson, I will go to my grave insisting that last year’s rules were in no way ambiguous. This mystified “ambiguity” comes from individuals who didn’t read the SEC thoroughly, didn’t understand it’s language, and most importantly: didn’t ask the ECB for clarification before they broke the rules. But I will agree with the Herald when they say that the changes that were made (much to my own personal pleas to leave the document as is with only minor, germane changes) were unnecessary and opened more loopholes for candidates to exploit. A demerit system? Changing the rule to disallow campaigning within 100 feet of a polling station to “in the vicinity of…”? A formal process for endorsements? Ridiculous.
A member of the previous Judicial Council would probably have said that the senate, then, didn’t pursue “due dilligence” in changing those rules before they were approved. But ah-ha! The senate DID attempt to change them, only to be quelled by certain parlimentary limitations.
I am so relieved that I no longer must carry the burden of being the only, single, solitary individual to insist that during both the 2009 and 2010 elections, the rules were “effectively ignored with impunity.” Thank God that I’m no longer alone in screaming that “These were not instances of confused interpretation either. I feel like I’ve been made out as a radical who constantly whistle-blows for no reason…but there are real problems going on here. Rules were explicitly and unquestionably broken…” Why did this happen? The blame lies entirely with the Judicial Council, and its inappropriate relationship with the executive cabinet. It was exactly this relationship that led to the collusion between those two branches, and the state of the senate that this editorial references as being “a mere advisory role.” A course in government is much needed for the culprits, as everyone must realize that the agenda must and should be set by the senate. Its okay for an executive cabinet to have goals; that’s a standard. But they musn’t interfere with the will of the legislature. Clearly, this year’s Committee on Elections control made some totally stupid decisions and interpretations; declaring that it was okay to campaign in the “food tube” because it “isn’t a building,” to name only one. But ignoring the absolute slew of other violations was the fault of the JC and its leadership. Interesting that while this editorial rightfully puts much blame on the JC, it fails to note that some of the leadership carried over from last year into this year, and we encountered the same ill-founded, short-sighted decisions.
I must also ask myself why, how, what, was going through the minds of the members of the MC when they allowed the president to represent a candidate during an election appeal? Or why the former president’s apparently most trusted advisory, an individual who has asserted that she knows the rules of the WSA and the SEC better than anyone, and the candidate himself were called as “expert witnesses” in these hearings. Isn’t an the definition of an expert witness one “who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person?” I mean that definition comes from Black’s Law reference, so it might be incorrect. Maybe its okay to let someone who thinks that paper ballots are the primary means of running an election, or that the ECB chair has to leave the university the next year be an expert witness. Maybe its okay for a candidate-defendant to provide “expert testimony” during an election appeal. Did you even think to ask the person who acctually wrote the rules, and clearly has a better understanding of thier practice than anyone on this campus?
Thank you, Western Herald, for realizing the dubious operations by the past year’s Allocations Committee. Thank you for admitting that during the past year, the senate has taken a backseat to the agendas of the executive cabinet, and, most especially, the Judicial Council. I don’t agree that the constitution or bylaws are confusing. Convoluted? Yes. But only a few minor items need to be moved around. The document, on the whole, is sound.
Thank you for telling the students of our campus that speaking out against the problems of our student government is OKAY. When senators respectfully, without attacking a person’s personal character, express dissent that someone may not be fit for a position, they should not have reason to be the subject of profane remarks, or threatening gestures. That kind of behavior, as has historically been demonstrated on more than one occasion, is not that of a student body leader, but of a pre-schooler. I will admit that as a senator, I was disappointed yesterday when individuals persued tangential discussion regarding personal ideas. I agreed with the President when he made the comment that things being said about campaign ideas were out of line. He was right. But to classify the repeated disrespectful editorial remarks, and screaming after adjournment as a “fiasco” is an understatement.
The Herald is right. There isn’t anyone who loves the WSA, nor believes in its mission more than I. I am hopeful that things will change with the new leadership, but I am incredibly scared when ideas like “fused powers” of the executive and judicial branches are being tossed around on a whim, and that senators feel threatened even after respectfull discharging thier duties…even when they don’t concur with everyone else. Isn’t that what our student government is all about?
I’m sorry to reference Hercampus….But who cares?
WSA is just a student organization to help build leadership skills. Right on for those who want to participate, but myself and the 23,000 other people that didn’t vote dont care about the WSA and what ground breaking legistlation you have approved for a budget I’m never going to see or what color trashcans are on campus.
I dont have time to care about the drama of WSA I want to graduate. I trust that the people who are passionate enough to be involved do a good job. Please stop flooding the Herald with articles no one is going to read about WSA.
John Freye, 100+ people don’t fill a room for two hours every Wednesday because they hate it. There are people who are proud supporters of the WSA who do indeed love it dearly. Are you involved because you don’t want to stop being a has-been? Or is it because you love it?
Jon Freye,
You are such a joke. No one reads your long comments here or on facebook. If you truly believe that you didn’t screw up the elections as ECB chair last year, you are sadly mistaken. We even needed to have the Dean of Students from K College come in and mediate. What did they find? You mishandled it!
Jessie, I didn’t say I was the only one who cared…did I? Furthermore, if you call being diagnosed with epilepsy, and coming back to WMU to try and change my career while still being a concerned student a “has been,” then okay…I guess.
Justin, I don’t even know you. You’re not my facebook friend so who even asked you to read it, fool? Clearly you still have no idea what went down though, seeing as it was ruled that the JC and thier infinite stupidity screwed things up, not the ECB. Furthermore, the K college team only came in at the request of the SALP director, who thought he should, in good conscious, abstain. You obviously, like 89.6% of the student body, didn’t take the time to understand the real issues. You, sir, are the joke.
…how was that for length?
First of all I too would like to thank the author of this article in that it truly exposes the misdoings of the WSA, as far as the election of the president, so thank you. Second of all, they are not “poor sports.” Although the candidate they supported lost this year, I am nearly a hundred percent positive that they supported the last president, with the article including reference to last years debacle. I have to say I am glad someone finally brought to attention the clear and blatant violations of established policy that has been committed in the last two elections. The fact is that these violations were not small, unseen acts, but ones that completely swayed the election in the other direction. The fact that there is so much “interpretation” of rules that are clear cut and leave little or no room for it. There needs to be a change, and with the newly elected president, I hope he realizes that and we can all move on.
And for those who keep bashing the article and other comments, please get your facts straight before you post. Understand the rules and the situations that followed them. Mr. Freye, I know you didn’t screw up last years election, kudos to you for even after the blatant rule violations and misconduct, you still believed in student leadership and correcting the system.