|
|
|
 |
Election
confusion prompts changes
By
Kelly Fitzgerald
Assistant Editor
The 2004 Creighton Students Union Elections showed candidates
and officials that vague election policies need to be updated.
Both presidential candidates, victor David Black and runner-up
Justin Johns, along with current President of Creighton
Students Union, John Schwietz, argue changes need to be
made in the election process.
“
Overall the policies that need to be looked at are very
old, very generalized and I wouldn’t say they’re
very comprehensive,” Black said.
Schwietz said Student Services became aware of problems
in early September, based on the factors of the specific
candidates running, Creighton’s unfamiliarity with
competitive campaigns and most of all the complete lack
of established policies.
“
We had an option to immediately come up with some, but
that was thrown out because that would have looked like
we were trying to tweak the system right before it [the
2004 election] began,” Schwietz said.
Chief concerns included no cap on campaign budgets and
an unclear policy on when candidates can start campaigning,
including confusion on what truly qualifies as campaigning.
Schwietz recognizes that no limit on campaign funds was
a concern for both candidates and Creighton students.
“
I can’t tell you how many times I heard comments
about ‘buying the election’ or ‘why isn’t
there a cap on this?’ If they [Creighton students]
think someone is trying to buy their vote, I think they
could be put off by that, whether or not they’re
correct,” he said.
Black, along with running mate Arts & Sciences sophomore
Abby Bruning, victor for CSU vice president, jointly spent
about $500 on their campaign. Johns spent about $800.
“
We’re a university that wants to give students equal
opportunities for everything and I think in this situation
you do need to look at the resources that are available,” Black
said.
Most of Black’s and Bruning’s funds went toward
printing expenses, as their graphics and videos were student-produced
free of charge.
Johns spent much of his funds on printing as well, including
personalized koozies. He recognizes that campaigning on
Creighton’s campus is relatively cheap, because posting,
Jay TV and e-mails are free. The only things a candidate
has to pay for are printing and promotional items, he said.
“
Students need to have the opportunity to hear all sides
of the candidates, but on the same note, all candidates
as well need to have an opportunity to present their case.
And if spending becomes a limitation or hindrance for someone
running, then that becomes a need for concern,” Johns
said.
The CSU ad hoc committee is now considering a $750 cap.
Another concern involves the campaign schedule. Besides
regulations on when signs can be posted, there is no strict
policy on when campaigning can begin, Schwietz said.
Some candidates, like Johns, began two weeks before the
Election Day, as the sign policy states, but others, such
as Black and Bruning, began earlier because policy does
not clearly restrict them from doing so.
Black and Bruning began their campaign at the end of September
by spending a lot of time speaking with student groups.
Once official campaigning began, they had printed materials
and a Web site, and spent most of their time going door
to door in residence halls.
Johns believes this policy needs to be examined.
“
The students shouldn’t be overwhelmed by the election
and should be able to make an informed choice while candidates
have an equal opportunity to present their case,” he
said.
Johns said one big difference between the 2003 and 2004
elections was the number of professional students who voted.
Last year fewer than 50 professional students voted and
this year over 200 votes were logged.
“
No matter how much you try to campaign and get your word
out over there, it becomes a very controlled audience and
it becomes a very difficult market to reach,” he
said.
Student governments provided incentives for their students
to vote, such as the Pharmacy School, where students received
pizza if their class had the best voter turnout. This presents
ethical concerns, Johns said. Allegations have been made,
which Schwietz is looking into.
“
Some of these organizations used incentives to post one
candidate and if these incentives came in the form of money
from CSU that we give them, we consider that a major ethical
issue because CSU funds should not go toward supporting
one candidate or another,” Schwietz said.
After reviewing the election and statistics, Schwietz reported
that it is the unanimous consensus of the committee that
the professional turnout did not decide the election.
For the 2004 election, Schwietz formed an election committee
to make ad hoc decisions on issues as they presented themselves,
but each is being addressed more formally now.
All Jesuit school presidents have been e-mailed and asked
for their election rules so that Creighton can accumulate
the responses to better guide its decisions. The University
Committee for Student Life will rule on the proposals for
them to be set as Creighton policy.
“
I hope this becomes an annual event where we have this
degree of enthusiasm and quality of competition,” Black
said. “Whatever the limits of the policy are, I hope
we can maintain that.”
The ad hoc committee is reviewing all bylaws and policies
regarding election rules and will likely present a package
deal of changes before next year’s election.
“
It will be a radically different process next year, I can
tell you that much,” Schwietz said.
|
|
|
|
