By Albulena Shabani and Angelique Sharpe

During the Student Association elections this year, the Independent Panther candidates were doomed to fail from the very beginning.

On March 13, two political organizations were issued charters by Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) in order to become registered student organizations. The first was SUFC (Students United for Change).

According to an e-mail from Tom McGinnity, dean of students, a complaint was filed by a student organization member that SAC members were also members of SUFC and Social Science Graduate Student Union (SSGSU), which is a violation of their bylaw that no more than two members of SAC can be in another organization together.

After these SAC/SUFC/SSGSU members approved their own charter, they continued to grant SUFC $450. This money may have been used by SUFC for campaigning purposes during the election, which is illegal according to IEC bylaws, which state “any student organization that takes state funding (including SAC money) for the purposes of campaign is prohibited from running as a political party”.

The second group that was issued a charter was the Campus Democracy Coalition (CDC), which, last semester, was an actual coalition of roughly 30 student groups that organized to expose embezzlement. These students included a number of Independent candidates who led the CDC last semester but were never recognized as a registered student organization.

On March 27, SAC cancelled a meeting scheduled months in advance without an official public notice. The Milwaukee Panther Party (now the Independent Panthers), was pending a charter approval that would allow us to meet a deadline with the Independent Elections Commissioner. The same SAC/SUFC/SSGSU members that issued their own charter and granted themselves $450 cancelled this vital meeting. We are bold enough to confidently state that this should be a violation of viewpoint neutrality, a federal law.

The next day, the administration stepped in to issue the Panthers a charter to allow us to run as a group in the elections. However, the IEC was forced to overturn this decision due to a complaint filed by SUFC members. Go figure. So why was one group of students given such an extreme advantage?

During the week of elections, SUFC had a number of advantages over the Independent Panthers. SUFC was the only party allowed to be in the dorms during elections. Someone campaigning on behalf of SUFC sent out a mass e-mail of campaign propaganda to UWM students from a Yahoo account, which is currently under investigation.

SUFC was the only party on the ballot and, more importantly, the only group that students could cast a straight party vote for. Students have complained that the ballot itself was confusing and caused a number of students to come out of the election wondering if they had in fact voted Independent. Directions for things such as senator at large said "vote for ten senators," as opposed to "vote for up to."

Furthermore, there have been more allegations about the IEC's "independence." She is allegedly dating a prominent member of SAC/SUFC/SSGSU.

IEC rules regarding nominations were very strict. Students who signed nomination forms were discounted if they followed the directions of the sheets, which say " I.D.'s last four #'s." Many students followed this correctly and wrote down the last four numbers, which included the two highlighted numbers on the student ID, which in fact are not part of the student ID (even though they are part of the last four numbers).

This made their signatures invalid, which ultimately disqualified many candidates who were running with the Independent party to make the ballot.

The ballots were not counted in a precise or fair manner. All counters were hastily trained on the spot. There was no emphasis on accuracy. A couple of the counters were resident assistants (RAs) at Sandburg Halls and had ties to Rob Grover, then SUFC presidential candidate, also an RA at Sandburg.

Both parties were allowed to observe this process, but there was no close examination from either side. There are still unanswered questions surrounding the ballot count.

This information is meant to demonstrate how uneven the election process was this year. Were our student elections corrupt? You decide.

If yes, then take action and make your voice heard. Bottom line is that our campus has been dealing with corruption for too long!

Come to a rally. Sign a petition. Send an e-mail to the administration. Tell your friends about what happened. Talk to your classes. Organize.

Ultimately, we think it’s past time for students to demand the rights given to us by Shared Governance, state statute 36.09(5), which gives us the power to determine what will happen on our campus. Student Association belongs to the students!

> Comments