Students express frustration with Board during open floor

Zach Virshup didn’t intend to speak to the nine members of Student Government Board last night, but after hearing his peers express their frustration with the way Student Government Board elections are run, he delivered an unprepared speech.

The junior said that he attempted to run in the last election, but when he saw the list of candidates and the slates they had formed, he knew his only hope of winning a seat was forging campaigning alliances of his own.

“When I tried to go at it, it was very intimidating and unnatural,” Virshup said.

Unfortunately, he received only one uninterested response to emailed requests to other unallied candidates seeking to form a slate.

“I have a 0 percent chance of getting on Board if I’m not on a slate,” Virshup said.

Virshup, who didn’t end up running in the election, was just one of many vocal students at Nordy’s Place last night for SGB’s final public meeting of the semester, which experienced an unusually high turnout. About 75 people sitting and standing around the lounge and stage area listened to the usual meeting proceedings before about 10 students stood up to share their own thoughts with the room during the open-floor portion of the meeting.

The Board provided updates on their initiatives, but the focus of the 1-hour-and-45-minute-long meeting involved the conduct of the Board in its treatment of proposed Elections Code revisions, which Elections Committee Chairman Aaron Gish began addressing in March and ultimately came up for a Board vote at last night’s meeting.

The Board voted unanimously to reject Gish’s proposed revisions to the Elections Code, which were tabled for a week prior to last night’s meeting.

The Board faced two different options in addressing how to improve the current elections system. One option was Gish’s slew of revisions that were proposed last week, which include the abolishment of slates in favor of all interested students running independently.

Gish spoke to the Board directly during his report prior to the vote, stating that the Code revisions incorporate several of the Board’s ideas and further challenging the members to provide constructive criticism on ideas they did not agree with.

“On other issues, you have simply sat in a room with me for hours and berated my committee’s ideas and stances,” he said to the Board. “That does not constitute constructive criticism.”

Board member John Cordier said during the meeting that Gish misrepresented the way the meetings went.

“We provide criticism, but we also provide ways to improve things,” Cordier said after the meeting.

Cordier said that he and the Board have been very willing to compromise, while Gish has remained insistent on the changes recommended unanimously by his Elections Committee.

Board member Dave Rosenthal said the Board hadn’t had time to consider all of Gish’s proposed changes to the Election Code because it had not been informed of the changes prior to Gish’s first reading of them in public meeting last week.

Upon hearing the revisions, Rosenthal said he did not agree with the changes in their entirety.

Gish said that his committee did not present the elimination of the slate system before public meeting because his committee had not felt comfortable approaching the issue of eliminating slates until the committee meeting before the public meeting where he introduced it. Gish said his Elections Committee met bi-weekly with growing frequency as the situation developed.

“Discussions of the slate system have evolved since the beginning of the semester,” Gish said.

A second option was to support Governmental Relations Committee Chairman Robert Beecher’s introduction of a petition to amend the SGB Constitution and reduce the number of candidates students can vote for in SGB elections from six to four.

“The problem with the system now is that it creates a supermajority on the Board when it comes to making propositions,” Beecher said. “If we give each person three votes, that will override the supermajority problem, because any proposition made would have to come from someone else.”

The Board opted to support Beecher’s proposal on how to eliminate the problem of slates allowing groups of people to sweep elections, which was first brought to the public’s attention last night.

If Beecher gets 5 percent of the undergraduate student body to sign his petition, then it will be added to the 2013 SGB election ballot as a referendum for students to vote on.

A referendum may be introduced to the student body through either a petition drive, requiring the signature of 5 percent of non-College of General Studies undergraduates, or through a recommendation by a Constitutional Review Committee selected by the Board.

According to Beecher, the current Board has elected to introduce the referendum via petition to raise student awareness and lend greater credibility to the movement. The Board decided to announce the launch at this time to promote transparency in regard to their intentions, and begin building a broad coalition of student groups to ensure this reform is passed in November.

If the referendum earns enough support from the student body, it will be placed on the ballot in the fall. At that time, students would be able to vote for the opportunity to retain the current voting system or approve Beecher’s vision, in which each student would be allowed to vote for only three Board members and a president.

Rosenthal said he is in full support of Beecher’s petition for a referendum.

“[Four student votes] is what I’m pulling for,” Rosenthal said, following the meeting. “I ran on an independent slate, so I know how challenging it can be against megaslates, but I do not think that eliminating the [slate] system as a whole would be effective.”

Rosenthal said that he did not think limiting students to three votes would limit their efficacy.

“Limiting students to three votes would not harm them. As it stands, allowing students to vote for five Board members and a president gives them a disproportionate amount of voting power,” Rosenthal said. “If I’m in the Democratic Party, then I’m going to listen to people who vouch for other candidates in the party. So slates work as a mental heuristic.”

After the meeting, Beecher said the petition has so far received 31 signatures.

Gish was supportive of Beecher’s referendum and said it would prove influential in future elections, but that he would not let it influence his proposed changes to the Elections Code, which could impact the upcoming election.

“The referendum should not affect the Elections Committee votes on this code because it won’t be in effect until next year,” Gish said.

Board member Thomas Jabro said following the meeting that while he has vowed to put his support behind Beecher’s proposal, he sees it as an “excellent compromise” and not an ideal solution.

“Am I in agreement 100 percent? I would say no,” Jabro said, but added, “If this is something students say they want, then I’m all for it.”

At the start of public meeting, Louderback issued a personal statement addressing the article in The Pitt News last week that identified him and five other members of the Board as Druids. In his first public comment following the publication of the article, he said the story was inaccurate, and he invited anyone who disagrees with him to contact him.

Students addressed that invitation immediately when the open-floor portion of the meeting began and members of the general student body, SGB affiliates and former Board members shared their opinions and took the opportunity to candidly express frustration at the current Board regarding several issues.

Former Allocations Committee member and former Druid Rosie McKinley asked Louderback in front of attendees if he was a Druid, and he said he would talk to her after the meeting if she wished.

Louderback told The Pitt News following the meeting that he is not a Druid and that he didn’t read the entire story, so he couldn’t cite specific inaccuracies.

“Look, I have final exams to worry about, and this is just a distraction,” Louderback said following the meeting, regarding why he didn’t address the article’s content when it was published. “Honestly, honestly, [sic] it wasn’t worth my time.”

He said that he had a meeting with the Board following the publication of the story regarding several members named as Druids, but he said the meeting was private, so he wouldn’t comment on what happened at the meeting.

Natalie Rothenberger, who ran on megaslate Steel and Stone as a presidential candidate against Louderback in last November’s election, urged the Board to remember that it is a unit.

“You need to be an honest Board, an approachable Board,” Rothenberger said. “I would urge you to come together, overcome this and move forward.”

Other students who voiced their opinions included former Board member Julie Hallinan, who expressed her disappointment with the current Board from their time campaigning through their first semester in office. Tim Larkin, who ran on the Kessler-Larkin 2012 slate during last November’s election, echoed Hallinan’s disappointment, calling attention to the many infractions filed during the campaigning process.

After several committee chairs suggested students take their concerns to SGB members’ office hours, junior Rohith Palli emphasized his belief that students do not want to go to office hours because they prefer the transparency of open discussion at public Board meetings.

Following the meeting, Rosenthal said that he was confident that the Board would have a new Elections Code voted in by the second public meeting of the fall semester. Elections Code revisions must be approved eight weeks prior to the election to be in effect during the process.

Gish said his committee still believes that they must vote on a Code that will create the fairest voting process, and not “simply because a Board is telling us to change it in a certain way. I won’t say that I won’t change my stance on slates in a future revision, but I am extremely interested in speaking with the Board on the subject.”

Gish said that his committee will work on revisions over the summer and he plans to propose revisions in the first public meeting in the fall.

“[The Board] needs to convince me that the changes they will support are not just strictly to protect the system we have now,” he said.

Allocations

Phi Sigma Rho requested $2,580.36 for registration and flights for the national convention in California. The Board approved the request in full.

The Shotokan Karate Club requested $1,400 for replacement equipment for the martial arts clubs on campus. The Board approved the request in full in line with the Allocations recommendation.

Lady Panthers Lacrosse requested $16,773.70 for registration, lodging, ground transportation and airfare for the national tournament in Colorado. The Board approved the request in full.

Panther Cycling Club requested $6,524 for registration, lodging, ground transportation and airfare for six members to go to their nationals tournament in Utah. The Board approved the request in full.

Black Action Society requested $2,418.75 for refreshments and decorations for the Black Students Recognition Dinner. The Board approved the request in full.

The Board has allocated $225,844.40 from the Student Activities Fund so far this year.

Editor’s Note: Rosie McKinley and Rohith Palli are columnists for The Pitt News.