Combining job roles creates conflict

As a former IUSA senator, I find it amazing that IUSA has sought to combine the positions of its chief justice and its election coordinator, and by such a large margin of votes. (It would seem that one person in all of Congress had the good sense to vote no to this idea.) Has it occurred to no one that the group that is supposed to oversee the Elections Commission is the Supreme Court, and that by making the leader of one also the leader of the other, IUSA is creating an undeniable conflict of interest? \nIf the election coordinator fouls up in a decision, the wronged party must petition to another board run by the same person. Even if the election coordinator/chief justice agrees to abstain (which is the least he or she can do, really), it places his fellow judges in a terrible conflict of interest. \nHave the mistakes of our national politicians taught us nothing, that IUSA would place into the chaos of an election the one IUSA position that is supposed to be above concerns of the election? What about checks and balances? What about impartiality? What about common sense? \nThe only reason I can think of that IUSA would do this would be the same reason that the "Executive Review Board" was never filled by last year's IUSA executives: "No obvious interest in the position." But, as I recall, the election coordinator is a paid position! If no one wanted it, it was only because it wasn't advertised well enough; if more people had known of it, I'm sure there would have been someone out there interested in making a little money if nothing else. All in all, this decision by the IUSA Congress was a very bad one for its own future.\nOf course, I'm not really upset about that aspect of it, as I tried to abolish the whole organization on more than one occasion for being ineffective at representing students interests. But if IUSA is going to persist despite my better judgement, the least it could do is recognize conflict of interest when it is very apparent.