The recent UOSA election (see Page 1 for details) fiasco has been a debacle on multiple levels. The student government needs to dissolve the problem, get a grip and ensure it doesn’t happen again.
UOSA has made it their goal to raise awareness of itself. This, though, is the wrong kind of awareness.
The names of two students who applied to run for district seats last fall appeared on the ballot of the wrong district. The UOSA Supreme Court declared those two elections invalid, claiming they didn’t accurately represent the will of the students. The winners, though, served as if all was normal. A special re-election was held Tuesday and Wednesday while campus was closed. The special election is likely to be deemed invalid, as only 18 people voted.
There shouldn’t be another election. It shouldn’t be considered. But it most certainly shouldn’t have been considered on a day when the only people on campus were the students and faculty who live here. There was no time for candidates to campaign. There was no time for the student body to receive word of the upcoming election.
The two candidates who were placed on the wrong ballot in the fall seemingly couldn’t care less about the results – they didn’t protest or beg for another election. The winners of both of the involved districts have already served more than half of a term and have already learned how to carry out the duties of their positions. Putting their jobs on the line by putting them back on the ballot is absurd.
We understand UOSA’s desire to make right its mistake. But the mistake is too inconsequential and too far in the past to worry about, and certainly too distant to be worth the possibility of knocking someone who’s qualified for his or her position out of office. At this point, it would be best for UOSA to cut its losses and ensure history never repeats itself.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
kurtdavidson 3 years, 3 months ago
In response to the Daily's "Our View" for Friday January 30...
The elections for the two Student Congress seats in question originally occurred in November along with all other open seats. Due to a problem with students being placed in the wrong district, the UOSA Superior Court invalidated the elections, forcing UOSA to redo the election for the affected districts. The UOSA Code Annotated requires legislation to be passed weeks in advance for a special election. UOSA passed legislation approving the special election to be last Tuesday and Wednesday.
While the situation is unfortunate and the problems were primarily administrative, UOSA has followed the correct procedure as required by the UOSA Code. Ideally there would not have to be another election, but if the UOSA Superior Court invalidates an election, the hands of both Student Congress and the Election Chair are tied. We are forced to follow the rules of UOSA, whether we like them or not.
Kurt Davidson Chair, UOSA Student Congress
mburris 3 years, 3 months ago
This article is so riddled with factual errors, it's almost funny.
You just got a 50 in JMC 2033, assuming any of you ever took it. (My guess is most of you haven't, or this would never have happened.)
Errors: 1) There is no "UOSA Supreme Court." There is a Superior Court, which is what I assumed you meant. Not a big deal, as the point is unaffected, but this is bush league. 2)"The winners, though, served as if all was normal." False. The winners of the other elections were certified and, as such, were sworn in as representatives for those validated districts. Any person who won an election in an invalidated district was NOT sworn in and never served. They cast 0 votes between them and served 0 official days as representatives. Student Congress has been operating with vacant seats in the interim. 3) Not so much an error as a misunderstanding of the elections process. Elections can't just be called and then held the next day. Statutorily, they must be approved by Congress, the Graduate Student Senate, signed by the President, and then infrastructure for these elections must be secured. This process doesn't happen at the drop of the hat, and expecting it to would be to expect a haphazard and foolish election, something that the Daily would no doubt relish in pointing out.
In short, the Daily has done itself and its readers a disservice by either being maliciously lazy or egregiously uninformed about the election process and the mechanics of UOSA.
Another bright day for print journalists everywhere.