Union Board vetoes election overhaul elections

Union Board rejected a motion Monday for a new committee structure which would allow students to run for a director position with a specific platform instead of being placed on a committee or position after being elected to the board of directors.

The Union Board directors present at the meeting were nearly evenly split on the
motion.

The proposal was rejected by a vote of eight for and nine against.

Currently, Union Board elects 16 student directors through two different methods, Cultural Events Director Kelsey Padgham said.

Eight directors are elected through a campus-wide vote in December.

The other eight directors are appointed through an internal interview process, Padgham said.

Each of the elected directors are named to lead one of Union Board’s committees after the election.

The new board would have contained four executive positions including president, vice president of finance, vice president of internal affairs and 12 committee director positions.

The proposal was hotly contested at Monday’s meeting.

Board members said they did not have enough time to discuss the proposal given that it would be enacted in time for the next elections.

Erin Brown, Union Board Director of External Affairs, said in the board’s discussion that she voted against the proposal because she thinks the new process would take power away from the future board to make a decision about what committees they would like to have.

She said she fears the changes were proposed too quickly for a thorough discussion and decision, and the changing committees would create a division in the board.

“I worry that changing committees will create factions within the board and create decision-making routed in self-interest,” Brown said. “I think we would be doing an extreme disservice to students, future boards, and our organization.”

The proposal was first introduced to the Board last week by Union Board President Jared Thomas.

Anu Kumar, Union Board election and selection commissioner and former IDS reporter, said the new election process would have allowed members to choose the position they’d like to fill instead of being placed in a leadership position they may not really want.

Instead of voting for names that sound familiar, students could vote for a platform idea they support, Padgham said.

Thomas, Kumar and Padgham were the first to propose the idea to allow for platform-based elections and changing committees.

“The changing committee is a way for us to, hopefully, connect more to what the student body would like to see us program,” Thomas said. “They are actually running on a platform instead of as an individual. Whichever platform or committee programming area gets the most votes is added to the Union Board.”

Brown said she agreed changes need to be made to the Union Board election process. However, she said she did not think the Board had yet explored all viable options.

“I believe we should exhaust all options before making radical changes that are long term, far-reaching, and severe,” she said.

After the meeting, Thomas said he understood other’s concerns and was reevaluating his proposal.

“The spirit of these changes was in the best interest of what we felt was for the board and give students on this campus a more active part in this process,” Thomas said. “In retrospect, we could have taken more time to evaluate it.”