Every government must secure means for its own preservation;
therefore, the Undergraduate Students Association Council created
the Elections Code ““ a set of rules that lay out how council
elections take place. To ensure fairness, the code is written to
establish the rules of the election while the unbiased Elections
Board manages and enforces these rules.
But over the past year, the Elections Code has been perverted,
and students’ rights to vote have been defaced. Many articles
have been written on the subject, but there is one matter that
deserves further scrutiny: the Internet protocol address delay.
The IP delay dictates that any off-campus Internet connection
used for voting will only be allowed one vote every five minutes.
(This means that if you share DSL with a roommate, the two of you
will have to wait five minutes between your votes even if you are
on different computers.)
As the former E-board chair, it was my responsibility to enforce
this regulation. But here is where the facts become hazy. Contrary
to popular belief, the IP address delay is not an actual
regulation.
No official documents ever mention it, and aside from a
“special regulations” section restricted to one
election two years ago, the council has never voted on officially
having the delay. Basically, the IP address delay was enforced
without ever being on the books.
The E-board has never even been authorized to enforce the
delay.
The only reason it exists is that the majority of the council
wishes it to exist. The reason it is being enforced by the E-board
is that the board has enough to manage without fighting the
council. That is the reason it was enforced last year. The position
of E-board chair is a demanding job; there isn’t enough time
to question the council’s mandates.
Now, with time to reflect, I am frustrated that no progress has
been made. But this year, the delay will not be enforced like it
was last year.
A rule cannot be enforced if it does not exist; this is a
fundamental principle of society. The delay rule does not exist in
any document or vote of the undergraduate council. A majority of
the council may support a delay, but a vote was never held on the
issue.
For that reason, enforcing the delay calls into question the
whole reason for having the council votes. If rules can be created
simply because everyone likes it, then the council would never have
to vote on anything, and all decisions can occur over informal,
closed-door lunch meetings.
Votes exist to establish a concrete position. Those willing to
take the oath of office should have the conviction to sign their
name for or against any issue that does not cause a conflict of
interest. The student body can demand no less from the people who
meet with administrators and help create policies on everything
from the hours of the Wooden Recreation Center to parking to
student fee allocation.
Without the proper authority to enforce the delay, the E-board
should not do so. To have the board create its own policy is risky
and is a terrible precedent to set. Being that the last council
meeting before the election Tuesday night ended early ““ for a
very good cause and reason ““ there remains no more time for
council to alter the Elections Code and add a delay to the
regulations.
Even if the council did call a special meeting to change the
rules, it would be irresponsible to do so less than a week before
the election.
The code has been set for this election, and no mention of a
delay is written anywhere. In no previous meetings has the council
authorized a delay for this election. If an IP address delay is
enforced, then the student body should avail itself of a strong
governing document and stop this theft of our rights.
Vardner is a former Elections Board chair.