ACLU suggests changes to BoE

ACLU suggests changes to BoE

By Patrice Hutton · The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · November 4, 2004

Members of the Hopkins chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union proposed a plan for student election reform to members of the Board of Elections and several administrators last Thursday.

The presentation, led by JHU-ACLU Co-President Morgan MacDonald and Treasurer Atin Agarwal, came as a result of the JHU-ACLU's claim that past Student Council (StuCo) elections have not run as they should have.

"We've been working for a while on student voter accountability," MacDonald said. "We felt it was important to have a comprehensive proposal and plan."

The JHU-ACLU's proposal outlined both the reasons for reform and the necessary methods before an audience comprised of Dean of Student Life Susan Boswell, Director of Student Involvement Jeff Groden-Thomas and Director of Multicultural Affairs Ralph Johnson.

In their "Student Election Reform Proposal," the JHU-ACLU listed late notification of ballot access, disqualification of candidates, failure to advertise both new positions and the election and actual voting procedures as necessary reasons for reform.

After listening to the presentation, Dean Boswell noted that the proposal "is very much in the direction of what we want."

"All three faculty members at the meeting support all or most of the proposals, there are a ton of students who support them, and hopefully StuCo will be able to support [the proposals]," MacDonald said, "or a referendum will most likely take place."

The JHU-ACLU presenters cited the 2004 StuCo executive presidential election as a primary reason to reexamine the student election policies, listing a series of problems with last year"s elections, including the lack of an executive president by the completion of the 2003-4 school year.

The presenters claimed that the BoE failed to properly advertise the elections, had vague campaign rules and inadequate candidate disqualification procedures.

The JHU-ACLU also criticized the lack of a BoE oversight panel, and noted problems with spending and rejecting protests without meeting students.

Atin noted the need for improvement as a result of the most recent election.

"After this election we think it's important that the BoE tell students about what went on in order to hold the BoE accountable," Atin said.

After the recent fourth presidential and freshman elections, the JHU-ACLU further criticized the election process. The group noted that the BoE had improperly notified students of the election timeline and again failed to advertise sufficiently on campus.

Members also criticized the reopening of the presidential election to candidates other than the run-off candidates from last year, and noted the confusion over informational sessions and candidate debate times, the lack on information on the BoE web site, and the low voter turnouts due to the decision to hold the voting over Fall Break.

In a section of the proposal titled 'Necessary Reforms,' the JHU-ACLU recommented that the BoE better publicize elections, develop a structured plan for handling campaign violations, and create a consistent procedure for candidate disqualification.

JHU-ACLU members also recommended that the BoE form and set procedures for a BoE Oversight Panel to review their election procedures.

Groden-Thomas, the faculty member who works most closely with the BoE, said, "The BoE had gotten to a point where they were the only ones able to make decisions," and that although "the BoE is owned by the StuCo, a lot of people feel that the BoE operates too much behind closed doors."

The proposed BoE Oversight Panel has been designed to remedy this.

Co-Chair of the BoE Michael Seibert discussed the likelihood of adoption of the proposals.

"I think that some of them are very valid and of course we're going to take a look at them," Seibert said, "but a lot of the things they asked about we do anyway - specifically the notification a month prior and a reminder three weeks, two weeks, and then one week ahead of time."

Seibert also said that the BoE send out e-mail notifications to StuCo, who then passed them along to the student body at least five weeks before the election, with additional follow-up e-mails.

"I think that a lot of it will pass, but all of it would be hard to implement. It's just a matter of presenting what's feasible, logical, and presenting alternative solutions," Seibert said.

He added, "It's just a lot of work - the greater advertising policy, extending the appeals board is pretty difficult, postering takes several man hours to do. No matter how much advertising you do it's difficult to get every student to vote."

MacDonald stressed the importance of ensuring for continued efforts towards student involvement.

"We've gotten to the point where voter turnout is so low that we need to do everything possible to increase it," said MacDonald.

Seibert said that he and the BoE are "hoping to have BoE procedure work done by the end of the semester."

MacDonald noted that the JHU-ACLU had a clear role in becoming involved in developing a plan for student election reform.

"One of the things that we deal with is voting rights," said MacDonald. "We thought that with every election the procedures were pretty horrible."