Juli Bongiorno | Executive Editor
Brielle Domings | Incoming Executive Editor

The recent decision by the S.A. to withhold vote totals has prompted us to look into this issue further. After a lot of digging, we still find ourselves left with a lot of questions. The recent actions have shown a blatant disregard for the S.A. constitution and a general misuse of power.

Our first concern is with the unconstitutional proceedings of the 2008 S.A. elections.   

In the S.A. constitution, the Student Elections and Oversight Committee (S.E.O.C.) is established to “coordinate, regulate, and be responsible for the Fall and Spring elections.” The S.E.O.C. is chaired by the Secretary of Student Policy, Gary Levante.

According to the constitution, “If any member of the committee has the intent to run for an elected office during that election cycle, they must step down from the committee, and will be replaced at the discretion of the Executive Board.”

Since Levante was running for Vice President, he should have stepped down. In fact, Levante told us that all but one member of the committee was running in the election, so no one stepped down. They sat as lame duck representatives, and according to Levante, “Alex [Monahan, S.A. President] and Mallory [Wood, Vice President] ran the show.”

The Echo consulted with Gabriel Pendas, president of the United States Student Association (USSA) to get his perspective on this situation.

“That’s a weird power to have,” he says. “It has the potential for being taken advantage of.”

A former student at Florida State University, Pendas was Student Senate president there. While in office, an independent elections committee oversaw the elections, he says. He never had any access to the numbers first-hand as Wood and Monahan did in our election, he says.

Why did Monahan and Wood take over the election process? Replacements were at the discretion of the E-board, so who else was checking their power?

Monahan and Wood should have appointed a new committee rather than taking the process into their own hands. As President and Vice President, to appoint themselves to run an election is a conflict of interest.

Our second concern is over the deletion of voting records, performed by the two people overseeing the entire election.

We’re appalled that Monahan would use executive privilege in the S.A. election as a coddling mechanism.

If we were the candidates, we would be embarrassed to be treated this way.

We believe that the S.A. should hold the constitution in the utmost regard. The decision to use executive privilege should be used only when deemed absolutely necessary and when one has exhausted all other possibilities. The matter of a candidate’s feelings is far from a legitimate justification.

“This is the first time I’ve ever heard of a situation like this,” Pendas says. “Elections are fundamentally a public thing.”

In the April 22 article of The Defender, Monahan and Wood maintain that they did not print out election results before clearing the system, insinuating that no record remains. Web site developer Travis Daly says otherwise. The votes, though cleared after three days in accordance with site design, are still available in “an encrypted archival backup location,” Daly writes in an e-mail.

It is relevant and imperative that the S.A. take responsibility and request that Daly look up the results given this information.

As college students, we are at most three years from entering the real world; some of us just weeks away. Such a call wouldn’t be tolerated in the real world so why tolerate it on our campus?

How many Americans would be infuriated if President Bush decided to exert his executive privilege to spare candidate’s feelings over the results of the presidential election? How many Americans have already been infuriated by his misuse of executive privilege over the last 7 years?

While we agree with Wood that the Echo should have covered the S.A. election results, we too have a responsibility to question when government is in bad practice. It is not something to be taken lightly and it is an issue.

Our third concern is the S.A. not recording certain conversations during S.A. proceedings, which constituents should have the right to access later.

At two meetings throughout the semester, Monahan announced that important discussions would be omitted from the minutes. Both discussions were regarding the leadership of next year’s E-Board.

On April 15 the Senate interviewed the E-Board nominees. The interviews of the candidates were not recorded in the meeting minutes.

On April 29, the same thing occurred. Every year, before summer, the Senate traditionally votes a transfer of power to the President and Vice President-Elect. This year there was some objection to the leadership ability of the current elects. A couple of students expressed concern whether power should be transferred. At the end of the meeting, Monahan again announced that the discussion was not recorded and that it should “stay in the room.”

When students question the leadership ability of our future President and Vice President, as we vote to give them full power for 12 weeks, it is imperative that the information, and those specific concerns, be made public. 

As incoming executive editors of the Echo next fall, we believe that these actions are inexcusable and should be examined. It is our responsibility to hold our student government accountable. We must and will push for our government to act professionally and uphold the St. Michael’s College S.A. constitution. The President and Vice President running elections, the misuse of executive privilege, and the omission of public information in meeting minutes are unprofessional and unconstitutional.

Perhaps all of this coverage will discourage future S.A. E-board members from abusing the power that this campus bestowed upon them.

St. Michael's College
Box #1776
One Winooski Park
Colchester, Vt. 05439
magazine@smcvt.edu