The end of campaign season for the SGA Executive election last week was not pretty. On the night before voting was to take place, a less-than-enthralling debate downplayed the fiasco that was taking place behind the scenes.
It was rumored that three of the four tickets were in danger of being disqualified, and there were allegations of sabotage, that some teams were attempting to report as many campaign violations as possible to strain the chances of their opponents.
The Board of Elections naturally had a miserable time with all of this, attempting to placate Residence Life after several residence halls were vandalized with campaign stickers, while at the same time preparing to evaluate the eligibility of teams, some with up to 11 points of violations.
The evaluative process by the Board was opaque, to say the least. The lack of transparency with the Newswire was particularly disconcerting. We at the Newswire were cut off from any official decisions at the same time as outdoor campaigning was cancelled. More importantly, though, the student body was nearly left blind to important decisions the night before elections.
The lack of communication was unfair for the student body. Even when a situation is complex and delicate, it is the responsibility of the Board to allow (and perhaps promote) the dissemination of information about executive tickets and the state of affairs at the end of the election.
This campaign season was challenging in many regards, and in the future there need to be more definitive policies in place to promote transparency to secure the little democratic power that students have.