As The Collegian reported on Friday, Fresno State students passed a referendum creating the position of Vice President of External Affairs by a vote of 268-202.
Consequently, the Senate failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority vote to pass an updated election code, which would have provided guidelines for students campaigning for the position.
According to Associated Students, Inc. President Selena Farnesi, the new election code will pass anyway on a technicality, but she was still enraged enough to call the Senate an “embarrassment” for its obstruction.
We agree with Farnesi.
The senate should have passed the new election code. The three senators who voted no ”” Jose Luis Nava, Victoria Partida and Oscar Perez ”” and those who failed to show up to vote ”” Parmita Choudhury and Fernando Moreno, with Breannah Evans showing up late ”” shirked their senatorial responsibilities.
Those who failed to participate in the vote have no excuses. This is a paid position. The least they can do is show up for their job. If a state senator failed to show up for a necessary vote, there would be consequences. As it should be with the Senate.
Senators who failed to show up for a vote are committing an act that is dishonorable to the very students who voted them into office.
Those who voted against the measure, however, weren’t dishonorable ”” their misguided sense of activism only hampered their supposed causes.
For this was clearly a protest vote: these senators did not like the result of the referendum, so they aired their grievances in the Senate. Nava said as much to The Collegian. For him, the referendum results were not representative of the campus as a whole, and campaigns should be given more opportunity to advertise.
“I believe that here, at Fresno State, our elections are very limited,” Nava said. “Other CSU campuses are more, I guess you can say, democratic in the essence of campaigning.”
Besides the fact that all students are given the opportunity to vote, and that they are reminded of this fact by the university in several emails prior to each election, Nava’s no vote did nothing to advance any democratic ideal in ASI senatorial campaigning.
Had the new election code not passed on a technicality, the campaign for the new position would be the only one not regulated by the school.
For every other ASI position there are rules to which each candidate must adhere, such as how many campaign booths can be set up, where posters may be placed and whether the candidate can use vehicles to campaign. For this new position, there would be no rules. Indeed, the nominee would be able to freely flaunt the rules in his or her attempt to get elected.
There would be an inherent unfairness to such a situation. It has a ”” dare we say ”” undemocratic quality to it.
If these senators found this issue so pressing, they should have introduced a new election code that would change the rules for each position, not merely obstruct the passage of a new one.
While Farnesi’s language is undoubtedly harsh, in this case, it may be warranted.
Collegian editorials represent the views of the editorial staff, not necessarily those of the faculty or the university. For news updates, links to articles and more, follow The Collegian on Twitter @thecollegian.