THE UNIVERSITY Board of Elections has been a failure. Since its inception in 2003, the organization has drifted away from its duties and established procedures with disastrous results. Fortunately, a new board will be appointed on April 1 and current student leaders have the opportunity to hold the UBE to its constitution and demand changes in its operation. Students who think constitutional rules are mere technicalities need only read recent headlines to see what the effects are of the UBE acting without checks. The chaos surrounding the Unity Project referendum is only the latest symptom of a deeply flawed system, but hopefully it will serve as a wake-up call to those who can restore rules to the UBE.
As everyone who voted in last week’s election undoubtedly noticed, the Unity Project referendum could not be voted on. The Cavalier Daily reported last Tuesday that there was a “glitch” causing the choice between four possible options to be reduced to a choice between “yes” or “no” on the ballot. This oversight forced Student Council to resort to an online poll on its Web site as a substitute. Without the resources of UBE and the security of their voting system, however, that poll is now entirely useless, as students are permitted to vote an unlimited number of times. What is most maddening about this error is that it was not a “glitch” at all. As UBE Chair Alisa Abbot explained in an e-mail interview, “This error occurred because the UBE failed to recognize that the computing system that we use can only support Yes/No questions for referendum.” This is not a new system facing the UBE. It is the same system used last year, and even then the UBE has had an entire year since last year’s election to familiarize themselves with it and make sure they understood how it works.
The UBE even had a full 20 days to review and prepare the Unity Project referendum, since it was submitted to them on January 27 and voting did not begin until February 16. Unfortunately for the thousands of voters who will be denied the chance to vote on it, the UBE did not conduct a single test to see how the system would display the referendum. “Currently, the UBE does not have a system in place for testing the way the voting system will actually look online,” said Abbott. This is a gross oversight that makes one question how the UBE spent the year between elections.
Ultimately, though, the blame should not fall just on the shoulders of those 11 students who currently serve on the board. UBE has had big problems for years and this year’s struggles only differ by degree. The blame belongs equally to the current board, past boards, and the student body, which has been negligent in holding the UBE to its constitutional responsibilities.
The UBE was first voted into existence, rather ironically, through a referendum on November 19, 2003. The constitution ratified by the student body on that day still binds the current board, despite actions which suggest the contrary. That constitution requires that each new board be selected by a panel of five students: “the outgoing Student Council President, Honor Chair, University Judiciary Committee Chair, Fourth Year Council President and UBE Chair.” These students are tasked with reviewing the applications of prospective members, listening to input from each school council’s president, and appointing a board of 11 members. This selection committee is further directed to endeavor “to provide each school with representation on the Board” and “ensure that four of the eleven Board members shall be graduate students.” Current practice violates almost every single constitutional requirement.
The most flagrant violation is who currently chooses UBE’s members. According to Abbott, “The people who selected the current members were last year’s Chair and co-Chair Neha Kumar and Le-Anh Bui, respectively.” Instead of rectifying this mistake and reinstating the selection committee, Abbott says, the chair and vice-chair will select this year’s new members. With UBE handpicking its own successors, inevitably, the mistakes of the past few years are likely to be repeated. In fact, the current system has no democratic check at all. If students are fed up with the mistakes of the UBE they have no elected representative to complain to, nor can they contact the members of the UBE whose names appear nowhere on their Web site. To restore the democratic link set up in the constitution, the heads of Student Council, the Honor Committee, the University Judiciary Committee, and Fourth Year Trustees must demand a seat at the table as part of this year’s selection committee.
Furthermore, UBE should once again be constituted of a diverse group of students, as constitutionally required. The current membership consists of two Darden students, one Law student, one Nursing student, and seven College students, according to Abbott. The constitution clearly states that four UBE members must be graduate students, while currently only three are. The constitution also calls for “each school” to have representation on the board, yet the UBE has no members from the Engineering, Commerce, or Architecture schools, to name only the most populous omissions. If you doubt whether this is a relevant provision, consider that many school councils allow the UBE to run their elections without any representation or say into how their own elections are conducted.
That the UBE is failing has been an open secret for some time. Our elected leaders, who are the constitutional safeguards on our democratic rights, must band together and assert their roles to restore balance to the system. With their successors already chosen, and this year’s election concluded, it would be a well-appreciated final addition to these leaders’ legacies.
Isaac Wood’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 36 minutes agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
