Student Senate sanctioned after delayed elections

After investigating the delayed 2010 Student Senate elections, Director of Student Activities Dan Napolitano sanctioned Student Senate on March 20 to review and improve bylaws and election policies by October.

“I sanction that the Alfred University Student Senate, under the leadership of their current Vice President, conduct a review of their bylaws and policies in order to improve the competency of the process for future elections,” Napolitano said in the March 20 report received via e-mail by the Fiat Lux. “Specifically, the Senate will be required to create an elections appeal process, develop a comprehensive timeline and further review campaign funding and posting policies. This sanction is to be completed by October 1, 2010.”

The investigation and sanctions were the result of a complaint sent anonymously by former Student Senate president candidate Nate Martell, who was unable to comment to the Fiat Lux in time for publication.

Elections were delayed by a week this year due to a “miscommunication” between the Elections Committee, a standing Student Senate committee with no official oversight, and the Student Senate Executive Board. Other delays, such as technical issues with Blackboard, also plagued the 2010 elections.

Martell’s complaint charged that several parts of the Student Senate constitution “were grossly and negligently violated in the contested election, overshadowing the validity of the supposed winner of the election.” He also charged that secret ballot voting rights were violated since some students were required to request access because of technical issues within BannerWeb, which could be viewed as a form of harassment since e-mails had to be sent in order to set up a ballot.

“I am calling for the resignation of the [p]resident and a new election in accordance with the student constitution,” Martell stated in the complaint.

Findings in Napolitano’s report concluded that the Student Senate and Elections Committee failed to follow procedures, including “proper protocol for electing, replacing, and training election committee members, insufficient planning leading to delayed voting and access denied to some students [on the BannerWeb] voting system, poorly communicated expectations such as collection of petitions and enforcement of solicitation and posting polices.”

Napolitano also found, however, that the “flaws were unintentional and did not give advantage to one candidate over the others nor did they serve to bias the voting pool in favor of any one candidate.”

Napolitano recommended that the Elections Committee, which had inconsistent membership this year until the Feb. 10 Student Senate meeting, be formed at the end of the fall semester and that members should be required to meet weekly with the Student Senate adviser, Director of Student Activities or other administrator.

Concluding his report, Napolitano gave his thoughts on this year’s elections process.

“These missteps could have easily derailed the election at many junctures,” Napolitano said in his report. “The Student Senate, as a voice of the student body, must pay greater attention to the intricate details required for a credible election. Lastly, I commend the anonymous student for lodging the complaint in an effort to improve the process’ integrity and transparency.”