Next week, students logging online to vote in the SGA elections will find one party essentially absent from the ballot. STARE Party campaign manager Kenton Stalder missed a 6 p.m. April 1 deadline to file forms with the Student Government Association Elections Board by about 45 minutes, setting off a wave of actions resulting in the word ‘STARE’ disappearing from the virtual ballot.
Although the original members of the STARE ticket, including presidential candidate Natalia Cuadra-Saez, are still allowed to run, the elections board has declined to recognize the party due to its refusal to pay a late fee of $500. Additionally, Cuadra-Saez was fined an extra $120 earlier this week after referring to STARE as a “party” in a Diamondback article about her candidacy, an apparent violation of election rules.
It’s not clear how this decision will impact STARE members’ candidacies, but it’s easy to imagine students getting confused. Although fault does lie with STARE for missing a deadline, and it did willingly refuse to pay a fine, the actions of the elections board have raised serious concerns about the transparency of the election process.
In our attempt to get explanations about STARE’s punishment, we’ve hit nothing but brick wall after brick wall. The simplest of questions have gone unanswered in the midst of campaigning as one party stands all but crippled by the monetary punishments levied against them.
First, how was the $500 fine determined? You’d think this question would be easy, but the elections board’s website specifies no such fine nor the consequences of an offense such as a late form on its list of election offenses. The elections board too has refused to comment, saying only in an unsigned e-mail that the five members of the board would answer questions after the election so as not to “compromise the validity of the elections process.” It did not elaborate on how exactly explaining its decision-making process would compromise the election. Even more absurdly, the board has refused to answer questions over the phone, and board members are barred from doing so, according to SGA spokesman Joel Cohen.
This policy change is a sharp turnaround from previous years, when elections board members were ready and willing to answer questions about the process. Even the reasons for and details about this change are murky, since the board didn’t respond to e-mailed questions.
The refusal of a board of students to answer questions concerning basic operational procedures about elections, one of the most transparent and democratic activities at the university, is deeply troubling. Few students are familiar with the complicated rules and procedures of the SGA electoral process and to follow them, and the candidates being punished in the dark does not show a concern for outside political influences but a disregard for accountability. The board’s willingness to ignore such inquiries reflects the broader lack of communication in an organization that has demanded transparency from the administration repeatedly this year.
STARE’s case is relatively clear-cut, and Stalder admits he missed the deadline, and the party made the decision not to pay the $500 fine. But last year, a mess of cheating accusations levied against members of the Unite UMD party had to be untangled. If a similar scenario happens this year, will the board remain silent?
The SGA presidential candidates have their own opinions. Incumbent Steve Glickman, who appointed the members of the Elections Board, said he couldn’t comment on the situation but agreed the board’s decision-making process should be conducted “without outside influence.” SKYY Party candidate Andrew Steinberg took a different stance, arguing the election process should be as open as possible to ensure fairness to every candidate. Cuadra-Saez agrees, asserting the board has too much free reign.
That the Elections Board is appointed by the SGA president, who in this case is running for re-election, also leaves an open door for abuse of power. Internal politics and back-scratching can no doubt occur in an organization that operates in secret. It isn’t necessary for its meetings or discussion to take place in the open, but students should at least be allowed to expect a thorough explanation of the board’s decisions.
Certainly, the Elections Board should operate independently and not curry favor with one candidate or another. But that independence can still take place, if not more so, through a transparent decision-making process. The refusal of the elections board to so much as answer a phone call or explain the rules that govern its decision-making leaves us with only one question for its members: What are you hiding?
