Read the Jan. 28 article about student congress and the Open Meetings Act here.
In recent weeks, Student Congress has received a lot of bad press. Most of the negative media coverage can be traced to a campus group called Students for a Democratic Society, SDS for short.
After eight semesters of serving students in Congress, I cannot recall another group that has stirred up so many emotions as SDS has. I think it is a good thing.
Neither Student Congress nor SDS has made the best of choices when dealing with each other. Yes, Student Congress should have set an election date for the constitutional amendments SDS proposed sooner. And yes, SDS should have engaged Student Congress in a much more positive and constructive way.
Notwithstanding the conflicts of the past, Student Congress voted almost unanimously last week to set an election for SDS’s amendments. In doing so, we have been accused of violating the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act (OMA).
The OMA requires all public bodies to post an agenda, listing all of the business that will be transacted, twenty-four hours prior to their regular meetings. After Student Congress posted its agenda on Monday, January 25th, the UOSA Superior Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against UOSA that was filed by an SDS member because election dates for the amendments proposed by SDS had not been set.
The Court’s stern reaction at the hearing prompted the leadership of Student Congress to introduce a bill establishing election dates for the SDS amendments to occur during the spring general election on March 30st and March 31st. The OMA allows public bodies to discuss and take action on “new business,” matters that cannot be reasonably foreseen after the agenda is posted. Student Congress, as a whole, did not “reasonably foresee” the election date legislation prior to posting the agenda. That is why members voted unanimously to consider it under “new business.” These actions were well within the parameters set by the OMA.
As for the election dates, in its lawsuit against UOSA, SDS asked the Court to set the election for the proposed amendments prior to the normal spring general election. However, this would be all-but-impossible because the UOSA Code Annotated, (UOSACA), mandates a certain time frame for election procedures.
The process begins with the appointment of an Election Chair. This involves an application and interview process of potential candidates. Once chosen, the legislative branch must approve the appointment of the Election Chair. This process, in its entirety, takes approximately four weeks. Furthermore, the UOSACA prohibits elections from occurring within three weeks of the appointment of the Election Chair.
In adherence to the UOSACA, the earliest any election can occur is seven weeks from now. If an SDS special election happened, it would occur a mere week before the spring general election.
Does it make sense to hold two campus-wide elections within a week’s time? It would be a waste of students’ time and money. The Election Chair, Election Board, and Poll Operators must be compensated for each election they administer — thus these officials would be paid for two elections.
The SDS crusade against Student Congress is predicated on the idea that the legislative branch is weak, ineffective, and apathetic to student concerns. In truth, none of these assumptions is accurate.
Student Congress meets every Sunday and Tuesday to discuss what students are thinking. Each week, we continue the work of advocating student ideas and concerns to the administration and beyond. Student Congress is always open to new and constructive ideas. Indeed, we can only do our job by working for what you ask of us. This means there must be an open dialogue between the student body and Student Congress. Contact any member of Student Congress, come to Coffee with UOSA meetings, drop by Student Congress meetings, stop us in the halls. Tell us what you want. We will fight for you. Make no mistake about that.
Joseph Ahrabizad
Political Science Senior
Student Congress Representative – Social Sciences District
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
soonerboomers 2 years, 3 months ago
All false. The UOSACA provides that if there is no election chair, the General Counsel will serve as the election chair. This means an election can be held in three weeks.
The UOSA was at least 5 weeks past due on the last possible day they were to set an election date for the amendments (which I might mention were submitted in September) when the court finally managed to hold a hearing on their unconstitutional delay. They were not unaware of this fact as it was made aware to them multiple times.
They delayed hoping to be able to force it onto the general election because they do not want SDS to be able to resubmit the amendments for a second time if they lose in the special election. This is cold hard Machiavellian politics. They can try to wrap it up in all of the excuses about how utterly incompetent they were and how they can't count weeks, but it is nonsense plain and simple.
It does not take 7 weeks to put a yes or no question up to vote for the entire student body. If it does, this branch is more of a failure than SDS has said it is.