For those who closely followed the Student Government Board election last November, the campaign season will not be one remembered for its good sportsmanship. In fact, former SGB candidates are calling it one of the most “petty” in recent memory.

According to a Pitt News investigation published in today’s news section, the campaigning process that led up to the election of the 2013 Board — nine Pitt students responsible for allocating the $2.3 million of the Student Activities Fund — was fraught not only with charges of an unusually high number of elections-code violations (called “infractions”), but also with a disturbing SGB first: a truce between the election’s two “mega-slates” that effectively absolved their members from facing any hearings on the allegations of infractions filed against them.

Even more regrettable: The truce took place with both the knowledge and encouragement of the chairwoman of the SGB Elections Committee, which is “responsible for conducting a fair, honest, and efficient campus-wide election in accordance with the SGB constitution and the elections code.”

The truce, detailed in today’s news story, is not explicitly disallowed by the SGB elections code, nor were the withdrawals of previously filed infractions that resulted from it. 2012 SGB Elections Chairwoman Annie Brown was not technically breaking any rules by allowing such an agreement to take place. Yet the truce disadvantaged candidates not running on one of the two mega-slates — involved parties all agree. If infractions had not been withdrawn due to the truce, members of the Forbes and Fifth and the Steel and Stone mega-slates — including former Forbes slate member and 2013 SGB president Gordon Louderback — may well have faced hearings that could have resulted in significant (and potentially election-changing) punitive deductions from their vote counts on election night.

Eight of 12 mega-slate candidates won seats on the nine-person Board. One of six candidates unaffiliated with the mega-slates was elected.

But although fully explored infraction allegations could have had the potential to alter election results, the candidates’ final vote tallies are not our primary concern. What is overwhelmingly of concern to us — and should be to all non-College of General Studies Pitt undergraduates governed by the Board — is the unbridled contempt for the integrity of an election that seemingly ran rampant among many Student Government Board candidates and their supporters when it became clear that they could exploit weaknesses in the elections code and judicial processes.

Two issues seem to have been the primary contributors to this unfortunate set of circumstances: an elections code and enforcement structure too weak to prevent candidates from being put at clear disadvantages and former candidates all too willing to take advantage of these weaknesses. Students shouldn’t stand for either.

First, it’s paramount that the SGB elections code be revised. Brown and Kenyon Bonner, Pitt’s director of Student Life and SGB’s chief liaison within the Pitt administration, agree. Although Brown revised the code only this past year, it clearly needs greater scrutiny by the Student Government Board before it can effectively prevent questionable agreements between candidates or the abuse of other loopholes from dictating an election.

The ability for students to forge mega-slates — which was permitted for the first time this year — is certainly also in need of further examination. After the events of this election, it seems all but perfectly clear that such arrangements are detrimental. Large slates hurt the chances independent candidates have of gaining a seat on the Board, and as such, they’re likely also a hindrance to the inclusion of new ideas and perspectives that new arrivals to the realm of student government might offer. And in the case of the truce, some members of the four slates involved now say they agree that it disadvantaged others.

Perhaps most pressingly, the precedent of allowing the withdrawal of filed infractions needs to receive a long, hard look, and the position of Elections Committee chairperson needs some sort of additional oversight. Ideally, those filing infractions should not be permitted to withdraw them, and the Elections Committee should be held accountable for investigating all infractions to its fullest capacity. Stress from the election and simply wanting to end the process — two oft-cited excuses for lapses in the judicial processes this past year — are not adequate reasons to allow infractions to go without formal judgment.

We at The Pitt News find it disheartening that even in a college environment — widely known for its would-be social idealism and disillusionment with the usual disappointment, trivialities and lies associated with modern politics — aspiring student leaders would not hold themselves to a higher standard.

Somewhat ironically, Brown said in an email to candidates before the election that accepting the proposed truce would “say a great deal about the integrity of the candidates and SGB as a whole.” This election has demonstrated a poor example of the overall integrity of the Student Government Board, and students have to decide if they should accept a Board that couldn’t fairly campaign. Because now this Board is expected to fairly govern the students.

Bonner told The Pitt News in an interview conducted during the week of Jan. 13 that it’s up to the student body whether to accept this group of leaders as its legitimate government.

As we should remember with all elections, it takes more than a vote to get your voice fully heard. It’s imperative that students pay attention to their government and hold their representatives to a high standard throughout their terms.