Board tables Election Code revisions

In a 6-2 vote, the Student Government Board chose once again to table revisions to the Elections Code.

Board members Mike Nites and John Cordier voted against the motion to table an official vote during next week’s meeting.

“I didn’t feel comfortable [voting] without discussing it with the Board,” Nites said.

Elections Committee Chairman Aaron Gish proposed 40 code revisions before 50 people, who gathered in Nordy’s Place of the William Pitt Union during public meeting Tuesday night. 

The current proposal stands as the second time Gish has approached the Board with proposed changes.

On Tuesday, April 9, Gish presented a portion of his 100 proposed revisions to the Elections Code, chief among them the removal of the slate system. The removal of slates — groups of two to three students that run  together for Board positions — would force students to run as individual candidates.

The Board, which is responsible for allocating the more than $2.3 million within the Student Activities Fund, initially approved the motion to table the revisions, but unanimously voted to reject Gish’s original proposed changes April 16.

The revisions currently awaiting a vote by the Board do not include any mention of the removal of the slate system.

Gish’s proposals include reducing the number of Board candidates a student organization can endorse. Under the proposed changes to the code, each organization will be allowed to endorse three board member candidates and a presidential candidate. 

Under section 201.06 of the proposed code, “Endorsement is the active promotion of a candidate by any University of Pittsburgh student organization or individual with the exception of academic departments.”

According to Gish, under the current provisions of the code, there is no limit to the number of candidates an organization can endorse.

“We did not want to scare off organizations from endorsing candidates because some slates did not consist of a presidential candidate, just three Board members,” Gish said, referring to the decision to allow for four endorsements.

Nites said that he voted against the motion to table the vote for the code changes because he felt that certain aspects of the proposed code were not made clear enough and that he found issue with late changes made by Gish after the Board discussed the changes Sunday.

“I drew issue with the organization’s endorsement specifics [in] the election proposal,” Nites said.

He said that he voted against tabling the motion because under Gish’s proposal, an organization that endorses a slate that includes a presidential candidate would be able to endorse another candidate as well, mixing candidates from multiple slates.

SGB President Gordon Louderback agreed with Nites that the campaign endorsements make for a confusing new elections code.

“I believe that organizations should only be able to endorse one slate, not candidates from multiple slates,” Louderback said.

Board member Dave Rosenthal said he liked Gish’s proposed addition to the the code because the measure would prevent collusion between slates. 

Rosenthal argued that the proposed change allowing organizations to make four endorsements — three Board member candidates and a presidential candidate — could help to prevent two slates from teaming up to secure six endorsements. If all members of such a megaslate were elected, they could form a majority on the Board.

“I also think if he draws a staunch line and tells everyone that if there is any evidence of colluding, he will immediately investigate it, and that should hopefully prevent megaslates from forming in the upcoming election,” Rosenthal said.

Gish said that the decision to leave the slate system in the elections code “was something that all members of the Elections Committee and all of the members of the Board could get behind and support.”

According to Gish, both groups were looking “to have everyone on the same page when the election comes [on Nov. 21].”

“In the interest of keeping this election civil and efficient, we will be working to regulate some things that haven’t been regulated in the past,” he said. “At the same time, we still aim to give the candidates the freedom to campaign themselves openly and fairly.”

Gish said that the changes proposed at the end of last academic year met negative reactions, which proved that much of the changes could not be accomplished during the upcoming election cycle, which begins Oct. 31. 

The Board voted to approve the movement to table the Elections Code revisions, which will be put to a vote during next week’s meeting. If the elections code is not approved within the next two Tuesday meetings, it will not be active in this year’s SGB election. According to Section 101.03 of the Elections Code, the chairman cannot propose any revisions during the period beginning eight weeks before the election and lasting until its conclusion.  

Gish is also proposing a $1,200 limit on what each slate and individual can now spend during SGB campaigns.

Gish said that he is fairly confident in an approval of the proposed Elections Code changes during the Board’s upcoming vote.

“It is important to find a way to find common ground between competing viewpoints and find a way to make it work,” Gish said. “For me personally, I feel a lot better about having a code that the Board and Elections committee are both confident in.”

Allocations Requests

Pitt Club Cross-Country requested $800 for this year’s National Intercollegiate Running Club Association’s conference. The Board approved the request in full in line with the Allocations recommendation.

Pitt Musical Theater Club requested $3,100.19 for funding to put Spamalot on campus. The Board approved the request in full.

The Chinese American Students Association and the Vietnamese Student Association jointly requested $1,244.50 for their annual midautumn festival. The board approved $1,095.50 and denied $149 for a second Pitt News ad.

The Board has allocated $6,930.33 from the Student Activities Fund so far this semester.