Skip to content

Anonymous

My feedback

1 result found

  1. 370 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Campus,

    First of all, USG would like to apologize for all of the confusion and our error over the elections. It was determined after elections closed that the ticket that held David and Stephanie’s name was actually ineligible. USG made the mistake by putting them on the ballot; we knew the election packet was turned in late, but we did not realize it was a blatant violation of our bylaws. If we would have known this prior, their names would not have appeared on the ballot. Due to this mistake, and the fact that the ineligible candidates won the election, we are reopening the elections for the Student Body President and Vice President positions.

    This election is open to any students who are interested in the positions of Student Body President and Vice President. A new timeline has been created, and is as follows.

    April 16th: Election packets available for…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    I don't think anyone is disputing that they could have been disqualified earlier had that been the decision at the time.

    With that said though, USG failed to fully staff the elections committee (the real authority in the situation) so it could not, and still cannot properly conduct business without a 3rd member. So the real authority was out of commission, the parliamentarian has massive conflict of interests and in lieu of them the Director of Student Actuvities advised that Dave do the next best thing. Yes they violated the letter of the law, but not the spirit. It's not like turning it in late gave them some advantage, if anything it hurt them. But the intention of the rule is to give a deadline so that all parties know who's in the running by a certain date. Both sides still knew exactly what was going on so the spirit and the intention of the rule were absolutely still intact.

    If at any point prior to the election, even just prior to the public announcement of the winner for God sakes, this had been brought up, and dealt with, I don't think anyone would be this upset. But the whole rule this is all hinging on just says 'you can't be on the ballot if you turn the packet in late', not 'you can be forcibly removed from office at any time if you turn your packet in late'.

    It's completely ridiculous for USG to not have any sort of the same deadline accountability that they are so mercilessly enforcing on everyone else.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Let me begin with this, I hope to not point fingers or place blame on any of the parties reading this post, it is simply my goal to voice my opinion as a highly involved student who cares dearly about this campus, and the students it houses. It has come to my understanding that after the official announcement had been made at the Ore Cart Pull, the winners of the 2015 USG elections have been removed from office due to some apparent violations of the USG by-laws. Now in a effort to obtain an objective stance and base my opinion on fact I have done some research into the USG by-laws and would like to point out this.

    First and foremost, the violation in question was public knowledge and if the Parliamentarian acted with the same diligence during the election period as after the announcement was made I believe this whole scandal would of been avoided, not to mention the by-laws would have been adhered to. More specifically, if I understand the by-laws correctly, the election committee is responsible for the rule and regulations for the duration of the election, Article IX.A.2.b, yet the election committee allowed the candidates to proceed with the process under full knowledge of the late packet.
    Secondly, after the official announcement had been made the removal of an officer no longer falls to the election committee. Article IV.A.7, states to remove an elected officer or appointed officer it takes a vote of three-fourths of the entire voting membership.

    Now based upon the above citations of the current by-laws, it seems to me turning in an election pack less than 1 business day late is magnitudes smaller than the violations that have since occurred in removing the officers elect.

    To finalize, the winners of the election do not matter to me, I find that the students at this school are hardworking and driven people who would do a good job no matter what. However the benign neglect for the by-laws set out for the organization that is supposed to represent our student body is bafflingly unacceptable. The future of the confidence that the student body reposes in USG hangs in the balance of this decision, and it is my strong recommendation that those that were officially announced and elected be reinstated.

    All the best,
    A Concerned Mines Student

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    James, I have a couple questions, but first please correct my timeline if I have this wrong.

    As I understand it, Dave contacted Jenn Mazzotta the Director of Student Activities when he lost his running mate and she told him to recollect signatures and submit the packet 1 business day late. He did, and neither you, the Parliamentarian--who as I understand it are in charge of making sure all the rules are followed--nor the Elections Committee objected. They won the popular vote, the announcement was made at which point you yourself congratulated them and asked that they still consider you to be reappointed as parliamentarian. Then you submitted a complain that the Article IX.A.3.b had been violated, and the Elections Committee (composed of Lauren Schumacher and Gerald Miller) informed them they did not belong on the ballot to begin with and stripped them of their victory.

    So looking over your bylaws it looks like the Elections Committee is in violation of Article IX.A.2.a by not having a 3rd member. So my first question is how can the decision to invalidate Dave and Stephanie's ticket be valid when its not even being made by a fully staffed committee? It seems a little hypocritical for one rule skirting group to penalize another.

    Once the announcement had been made though wasn't the decision officially made? It seems like Article IV.A.7 which reads that "By affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the entire voting membership for the senate taken at a regular meeting, to remove any elected or appointed officer.." would require a 3/4 vote to remove them now that the complaint has been filed after the fact. So shouldn't they still the President Elect and VP Elect until the senate decides otherwise?

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base