Editorial: SGB changes should focus on efficacy

As the Student Government Board’s final public meeting of the year drew to a close Tuesday night, a troubling theme in discussion arose: efficiency over effectiveness.

In March, Elections Committee Chairman Aaron Gish began to propose revisions to the SGB Elections Code. The proposed changes included eliminating the current slate system as part of the campaigning process. Without slates, students would have to run independently for their positions on the Board. Furthermore, abolishing slates would afford any student with a desire to become part of the Board the chance to be elected.

The Board had the option of either voting to accept Gish’s proposal, or supporting Governmental Relations Committee Chairman Robert Beecher’s petition for a referendum to the SGB Constitution. The petition calls for a referendum to decrease the number of candidates placed on the ballot ­— from six to four — for student selection. These four votes would include three Board members and a president.

SGB decided to reject Gish’s proposed changes and to back Beecher’s petition.

Criticisms surrounding the proposal to remove the slate system revolved around the need for efficiency.

Board members argued that the slate system is necessary because student groups would not want to use their weekly meetings to entertain the candidates’ pitches separately. This is a reductionist argument. The Board must consider students’ role in the elections process. While it may not seem the most efficient way to conduct platform pitches, individual campaign stops would allow students the fair chance to consider the merits of each candidate and play an honest role in the voting process.

SGB members also argued that the removal of megaslates would not promote an efficient process as the Elections Committee Chairman and members would not have the capability of supervising several instances of collusion that would surely arise between the slates. This thought process perpetuates petty campaigning behaviors and lazy code enforcement. The Board and the Elections committee must pass a code that demands its candidates to act with integrity, police inappropriate behavior and requires the members of SGB to do the jobs for which they were elected.

If the petition receives signatures from at least 5 percent of the undergraduate student population, or about 900 students, it will become a referendum on the 2013 SGB ballot. At that time, students will be able to vote to keep the current slate system or to adopt Beecher’s suggestions.

According to Beecher, SGB decided on the petition route in order to allow the student body to be conscious of the changes and to make the changes appear as reliable modifications to the Election Code.

If students adopt Beecher’s referendum, it would mean limiting their votes in order to eliminate the harmful effects of megaslates. The slate system would, however, remain in place.

But it shouldn’t have taken Beecher’s proposal to facilitate changes in the Elections Code.

While it is true that the Elections Code is put in place to ensure efficiency, the Board is overlooking two other aspects of the Committee’s mission ­— to facilitate a fair and honest campus-wide election. If SGB plans intends for the student body to take its members and authority seriously as leaders of Pitt’s campus, it should begin self-policing. If there is a problem within the Board, Board members should be the first to address it. The Board needs to stop equating efficiency with easiness and keep in mind the role of the student body in the elections process.

Although Beecher’s proposal isn’t perfect, it’s still a step in the right direction. Limiting students’ votes will urge them to assume their efficacy, consider their votes and thoroughly assess individual candidates. Supporting this ballot initiative is integral to ensuring fair SGB elections in future years.