There’s a point when tragedy turns to comedy.
The upcoming undergraduate student government election has people falling to the floor in laughter.
In less than a week, the campus will be graced with leaflets, bright-colored custom T-shirts and an abnormal number of happy faces on Bruin Walk. Currently featured on the ballot: 11 uncontested positions and at least two unfilled seats. Only two positions have any semblance of competition.
And that’s the best of the news.
The Undergraduate Students Association Council’s Election Board, responsible for managing the election, has lacked manpower, time and institutional support in putting on the impending elections. Through a series of late-game personnel changes, the board managed to lose access to its email and social media accounts – its main means of contacting candidates and student groups – and has had to push back essential outreach efforts to the community.
Worringly, student organizations – the Daily Bruin included – have had conflicting information about everything from who’s on the ballot to when historic events like candidate debates are being held. It’s not far-fetched to ask whether there will even be an election next week.
The dumpster fire of a situation springs from a long list of egregious sins.
Needless to say, no one in USAC has clean hands. And the problem starts at the top.
In fall quarter, council members appointed Richard White, a former USAC presidential candidate and member of the Community Programs Office, election board chair. This was despite the council’s clear reservations about White’s fitness for the job.
Their concerns proved correct, as White failed to truly engage the campus in staffing his board and ginning up interest in the election, contrary to what he had boldly promised during his embattled appointment meeting.
Yet, USAC agonized for weeks about what to make of White’s blunders.
The council eventually reached boiling point and fired the election board chair after he outed a current USAC member running for office in the upcoming election – taboo for someone meant to be an unbiased arbiter of the election.
The election board has been reeling since. White was replaced by a student who has no experience managing an election of this magnitude. As a result, annual election events have fallen woefully far from their pre-approved dates, some seemingly not happening at all. Candidates who, by the council-approved timeline, missed the deadline to run for office, still have their names on the upcoming ballot. And White has embraced the role of saboteur, commandeering the election board email and social media accounts he formerly managed and frequenting council meetings to berate USAC for his own incompetence.
The bodies meant to keep USAC in check have failed in their jobs. The judicial board, responsible for upholding the student government constitution, has taken to rubber-stamping the whims of both the council and election board, flip-flopping on whether candidates who submitted their ballot applications late should remain in the running.
And administrators who are meant to de-escalate crises have resigned themselves to poking away at their iPads and laptops in USAC meetings instead of proactively aiding efforts to retrieve election board’s electronic communications.
Of course, this account might seem like unproductive Monday morning quarterbacking. But retrospection is important – especially given that 2019-2020 USAC will need to pick up the smoldering scraps left behind by the current council.
We students cough up millions in fees and hope, at the very least, our student government operates.
Instead, though, we’re left wondering if the inferno will end by Friday of week five. The joke is starting to get old.