SGA Election Unprofessional

Student Government Association elections have been over since two weeks ago, but you wouldn’t know it. It has yet to be made clear who has won, by how many votes, or whether certain Student Government Association members violated their election guidelines.

During an unannounced 9 p.m. meeting Wednesday in the SGA suite, inquiries made by a Whit reporter were met with flippant dismissals by the SGA executive board. According to the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, all citizens have the right to have adequate advance notice of all public meetings and the right to attend those meetings when business affecting the public is discussed or acted upon.

Unfortunately, the incident ended with a door being slammed in the Whit reporter’s face by SGA members in front of their two advisers, Richard Jones, Dean of Students and Carol Gruber, Associate Vice President of Student Engagement. The door slamming was uncalled for and unprofessional. Hopefully SGA and its advisers do not condone similar treatment of fellow students.

In The Whit’s March 12 issue, a story ran that recounted Phil Castro’s confusion over when he was allowed to distribute campaign fliers promoting his re-election.

According to a press release, the SGA executive board, excluding Phil Castro and his opponent Liz Palmer, convened at 4:30 p.m. that afternoon and unanimously voted to disqualify Castro.

He will be appealing the decision at a March 30 SGA meeting at 7 p.m., and the proverbial smoke the incident has given off has led The Whit to continue its investigation into SGA policies.

During spring break, it came to our attention that two other candidates also had varying understandings of election guidelines. The confusion that permeates the SGA suite about the rules is troubling.

If the governing body that creates the rules can’t agree upon an interpretation, how can members of the campus community hope to hold their representatives accountable?

For example, recently re-elected SGA Vice President Nicole Mershon sent a campaign e-mail message to 96 of the campus’s club presidents, touting her candidacy and urging them to share the campaign information in the e-mail with their club members. As of 9:40 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25 SGA guidelines clearly stated that no mass e-mails may be used as part of campaigns.

The rule simply outlaws mass e-mails, with no mention of how many messages constitute a “mass” e-mail or if the 96 split up into smaller groups — say five or six at a time — would be an acceptable alternative. The wiggle room here is both alarming and dangerous to the democratic process.

It also seems the actual reporting of election results failed on two counts. No apparent effort was made to announce the outcome of the elections not being contested. Excuses for this from SGA have been to allow Castro time to appeal the decision to disqualify him. What this has to do with the rest of the races remains unclear.

Additionally, queries regarding actual vote tallies have yet to be answered citing SGA policy. Apparently the policy keeps the actual vote tallies private to spare the feelings of the losers.

To be blunt, anyone seeking to hold a public office should be as prepared to lose gracefully as they are to win triumphantly. Keeping the vote tallies of a public election private is wrong. It does nothing to encourage trust between students and their elected officials, and leaves the losing candidates wondering how close they came to their goal.

We would be remiss in our duties as student journalists if we did not call into question the lack of transparency exhibited by our elected SGA executive board. It’s a careful system of checks and balances that the press and government engage in, here on campus and elsewhere. Ideally, the two entities act in the best interest of the people and regret when it comes to pass that they do not.

Rowan University students deserve a well-organized and consistent SGA executive board that treats them with respect. At no level of government is it common practice to keep the outcomes of political races from the constituents who take the time to vote and put money in the candidates’ pockets.

Students would do well to remember that the SGA controls a $800,000 account made up of student activity fees to be apportioned among student clubs and organizations, including The Whit. Also, the SGA president, vice president and chief financial officer are compensated for the full value of their tuition. The senate chair receives compensation for half their tuition, and as recently as last year it was voted that the recording secretary and public relations director would increase their office hours to 10 per week and receive compensation for a quarter of their tuition.

Yet, students have not earned the benefit of full disclosure when it comes to the results of a public election. The implications of this practice are appalling and insulting. Confusion over election guidelines aside, students should demand to know in a timely manner whose tuition bills they’ll be shouldering for the upcoming two semesters.