May

7

GSSC Elections (Without Voters) Voided

Written by

In a shocking twist to the elections that about seven people voted in, three GSSC election results have been overturned by the GSSC Judicial Committee, overruling a previous decision validating the elections from the Elections Committee.

University Senator (no longer) elect Paul Zachary, VP Policy winner Scott Jurkowski and fallen Academic Affairs victor Richard Adams have all had their victories revoked for campaigning on Facebook through their statuses after the campaigning deadline had passed. Just for some perspective, Adams was the only person in his race to receive any votes, and don’t we all know that someone running unopposed can do whatever the hell they want? Plus, only 79 total votes were cast in Jurkowski’s race, of which he nabbed 50. A lot of the possible positions didn’t even have candidates to run for them. Apathy: because you can’t commit voter fraud if there are not any voters.

The three candidates will not be barred from attempting to regain their offices next year, when, according to a Judicial Committee report, “each of these candidates, as well as any other students who desire, will have the opportunity to apply for appointment to office when the GSSC reconvenes in the fall of 2009.”

The judicial committee added that “the importance and challenge of the work done by the Elections Committee cannot be understated, and as students and Committee members we are grateful for their service.” We’re just going to do the exact opposite of what they said. 

-DJB

Tags: , ,

43 Comments

  1. Paul  

    Zachary is a d-baggy.

  2. GS'er  

    BWOG, you really got it right this time. The GSSC is so full of shit -- these people volunteer to give of their time do serve the student body and look at how they get "rewarded". Shame, shame, shame on you GSSC... and whoever in the GS administration it is that empowers you to carry on in this ridiculous manner. Can someone form an "Alternative GSSC" and stop all this bullshit???

  3. another GSer  

    While I agree with the righteous stance Bwog is taking here regarding the disenfranchisement of the candidates, it would be *ever* so nice if they would quit mocking the turnout of our elections. I still have yet to see any article impugning the CC student body for their similarly dismal *proportional* turnout for their elections. Apathy is universal at this university, and is not a GS monopoly. Other than that, yes- the GSSC elections board really fucked this one up. Thanks guys. Glad I'm graduating in May.

  4. Disenfranchised GSer

    I voted for two out of the three people who got booted off the Council. I don’t care about some stupid Facebook update. Having watched it for the last few years, this Council has a lot bigger problems than some silly Facebook thing. They should be happy anyone cares to vote at all.

    Of course now that I see that my vote can be revoked by some group of assholes who seem not to have a lot to do with their time, why bother voting at all. For that matter, why bother having a GS Council at all!

    Creeping fascism, huh?

  5. Recent GSer  

    Certainly, Facebook updates are insidious and coercive.

  6. Still a GSer

    Who gives these people authority to usurp election results? Is there a personal grudge being played out here? Who ARE these people? Or are they afraid to reveal their identities?

  7. Hmm...

    Annoying that this wasn't dealt with better, but...

    The elections rules set out in the Constitution are extremely clear on the issue of campaigning after the deadline. Does anyone really want someone who either 1) can't read the rules or 2) doesn't think they need to follow them as their University Senator, VP of Policy, or Academic Affairs rep?

    Am I the only person desperate for a time when I no longer have to question whether people are breaking rules due to malice or stupidity? Is even a modicum of competence and professionalism too much to ask for?

  8. Facebooker

    Beware FACEBOOKERS! The GS thought police are everywhere!

  9. Anonymous  

    Well, David, I'm sure we all appreciate your abilities to reduce what has developed into such a complicated situation down to a few ad hoc contentions that completely ignore its substance, but you missed the opportunity to expose what is really at issue here, which is the complete ineptitude of the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee is correct: You cannot, in fact, "do whatever the hell you want," despite what Stephen Colbert says. But if we're going to hold anyone to that standard, then we shouldn't stand idly by while this adjudicating body icompetently uses that very standard to justify forgoing all rules and procedures themselves, and supposing that they could ever remove these candidates from their positions via completely illegitimate and invalid measures. The story here is not that "GS students don't care and don't matter, so who cares what they do"; the story here is that, even though there are several (proportionately equal to, if not greater than CC, by the way) students who DO care, their wills are being undermined due to nothing more than the staggeringly poor intellectual and interpretive capacities of those on the Judicial Committee, which is, by the way, much more of an attractive possibility to hope for than would be the level of arrogance and draconian power abuse that would be necessary for them to have done what they did, which was in total violation of every rule regarding elections, as well as regarding their own duties and powers.

    Instead of constantly bitching about the lack of unity or the apathy of the entire GS student body, who are themselves being screwed over here, maybe you should put a little more effort into exposing facts, and objectively presenting the circumstances as they are. Then perhaps you would be justified in passing judgment on the situation, and facilitating the defense of those people in GS who actually give a damn, instead of indicting both the perpetrators and the victims equally.

    Also, this is at least the third time, by my count (I'm sure there are several other instances), that this publication has irresponsibly published, or allowed to be posted, highly sensitive personal information or at-some-level-classified information that could possibly hurt someone else or compromise the integrity of an ongoing process. How long can you idiots keep up the "GS is a bunch of insignificant losers, and we're going to use every chance we get to talk about what losers they are" dynamic? What you've done by posting this information is act as puerile and amateurish as those you've condemned, and possibly damned those affected even further by making it impossibly difficult for them to seek legitimate redress.

    So thanks, on their behalf, you bitching, elitist, ignorant little children.

    • THIS IS BWOG. DUH.

      Are you Michael Rain???

      • Over it!

        Michael Rain needs to get out of CU for the good of all. He is the personification of all that is evil in the world and all that is stupid about GS. Not to make this personal, of course.

    • Gray

      Dorian,

      Your jumbled thoughts don't make sense beyond the fact that you insult people for posting an e-mail. In your attempt to sound more intelligent than you are you have in fact come across as insecure.

      Let's use some plain thoughts here. First CC is larger than GS, I know, what a concept. So even if the proportion of GSers who care is higher, guess what? The absolute numbers are lower. I know, I call it math. So do not construct some haphazard reason to dig at CC in the middle of your argument to prove some point? That GS can have people that care? I don't think that was ever up for dispute. The problem is that the people who care (you, MRain perhaps) seem to obfuscate the fact that you need to build leadership before you can improve the image of the board.

      Don't give me some mumbo jumbo about how you are older and know how to do it. GSSC is an instituton unlike corporate groups because it is based solely on volunteerism. Further, if process takes over passion for the school then there is a disconnect between being helpful and being bureacratic. So take this impression away - GSSC has acted for the past four years as a group of older students who want to engage in the false politics of high school, replete with its social cliques, backstabbing, unnecessary politicking - all or what? Your egos? Your resumes? Certainly not for GS because perhaps you would have a big tent philosophy then and allow anyone and everyone to join council instead of have multiple spots open and have exiting council folk void election results. Maybe you should turn to building leadership and encouraging membership over your exceedingly verbose diatribe.

      If you don't think that GSSC is in trouble, wake up and smell the coffee. For every success that is made, the council takes ten steps back with another scandal. Gosh, this stuff is worse than a soap opera. If you want to have a conversation on how to get that higher percentage of GSers involved and how to create a culture of collaboration and not contestation, well there is something there. But if you are just planning on writing these long complaining messages about damning students, well concern yourself with the fact that the GSSC has damned itself.

      • The Portrait of  

        I've met Dorian (I'm sure this is him and that he's posting his real name) and found him to have a sense of mission about his "role" at GS.

        God save us from the do-gooders.

        He's an embittered (surprisingly) young Marxist who doesn't seem comfortable without engaging in windmill tilting with The Man. He doesn't speak for me, he doesn't speak for GS. We'll be better off when he's graduated and out of here.

        • Anonymous  

          Nice sussing-out of the fairly obvious reference, but wrong. We've never met, I can only assume, as "Dorian" is not my real name. Although, somewhere there is a picture of me getting angrier and angrier.

      • Anonymous  

        Just because you don't understand what I said, doesn't mean it's jumbled. And yes, proportional turnout is more important than absolute numbers, or are you completely retarded? And throwing out cliches like "big tent" and "wake up and smell the coffee" gets nothing across other than your lack of creativity, something which is further displayed by your creation of straw man arguments I never made. I attacked the irresponsibility of this site, and the ineptitude of the JC.

        And to anyone else who thinks that simply "breaking the rules" is grounds for dismissal, then perhaps you belong in a totalitarian country that feels justified in determining whether or not the rules were broken without ever questioning or even notifying the individuals who supposedly broke them, and then sentencing them without giving them the courtesy of a rebuttal, and notifying them after the fact. But facts, such as the fact that whoever initiated the complaint is as guilty of the same infraction about which he complained (on two different issues), and that one of the voided elections was uncontested, and, in the other, both candidates did the same thing, and the "loser" (for lack of a better word) graciously conceded, are irrelevant, arent' they? The problem with what the JC did (since you people think you know what the constitution says) is that nowhere in the constitution does it say they can do it. Furthermore, it specifically says they can't. But who's counting?

  10. check spec

    for the real story. problem in the usenate race wasn't facebook, it was a write-in candidate who posted unsanctioned fliers and campaigned after the deadline, and who possibly acted as a spoiler in the (previously) two-person race.

  11. YAY!  

    This means that we might be able to get Paige Lampkin back as the GS University Senator.

  12. GS Senior

    According to the SPEC report, it is all the fault of this Nathan Miller character (who lost the race for University Senator). What a major ass-hole douche bag sore loser... Hope his karma comes back to haunt him in a big way. Jerk.

  13. Smart Dude

    You all are missing the point. The three people removed BROKE THE DAMN RULES! The JC remedied that.

    All of you whining about turnout and stuff need to understand that having a fair election is the goal.

    I bet many of you are the same who cried foul in 2000 in Bush v. Gore, yet in this case, you want rule breakers to go free.

    • Normal Person

      Someone seems to have a rather inflated view of one's self...

    • GS'er on the ins

      My understanding is that two out of the three were write-ins who were told by the EC that "the rules" did not apply to them. If the EC and the JC can't decide on what's what, and if there are no clear set of rules... who can blame them for making a mistake in this kind of vacuum. Looks like the rules change from day to day. Personally, I congratulate them for even trying to make sense of this process. However, I do think they are dumb if they persist. Time to take take their toys and go home. Let the crippled GSSC stew in its own self-justifying glory.

      • No clear rules?

        The rules are pretty clear, and they're written down (in the constitution, no less).

        The fact that the JC can overturn an EC decision is also in the constitution.

        The real issue here? Neither these candidates nor this year's EC gave the rules more than a perfunctory read.

        • Richard Adams

          With all due respect, I (one of the disqualified election victors) specifically asked for clarification of what rules applied to me from a member of the EC in the GS Lounge. I was told "not to worry" and the EC member expressed gratitude that I cared enough to ask. So much for clarity.

  14. GSer with a real life  

    God, I thought I'd gone nearly a year without the assclowns of the GSSC drawing unwarranted negative attention to a larger student body who aren't actually represented by them. What a pain in the ass.

    I find it curious that the official election results omitted reporting the numbers of us who wrote in "None of the Above" as protest votes. More of us voted than most of you have been led to believe.

    • Richard Adams

      I don't know who you are, #20, but I have to say -- I agree with you. In my naivete, I thought I would give Council one final try. I thought that in my Senior Year that with the knowledge and experience I had accumulated here at CU I could actually do some good for my fellow-GSers, and specifically in the Academic Affairs Rep position. Clearly my hopes were mis-placed and I will now retreat into the great unspoken for majority that really is GS. Thanks for articulating what so many of us actually feel!

  15. A novel idea

    There appears to be an emerging consensus (actually it was probably always there, just that this latest bit of clownish behavior has really brought it to the surface) that GSSC represents no one and does nothing. Is there any way GSers can "opt out" of being "represented" by the Council and, thereby, opt out of having to financially support it? Maybe that is one sure way to get the message across to them (and to the administration as well).

    Just a thought, but a serious one!

  16. Council nitwits  

    If you're in GS and interested in the high school activity of student council, you pretty much deserve ridicule. I used to think otherwise, but everyone I've met who lusted after a council seat turned out to have some kind of glaring personality flaw, later magnified in the Council echo chamber by their peers.

    Council is a magnet for losers. Interesting that so many of them are poli sci majors.

  17. Whatever  

    what about your decision concerning Empanada Joe's in the GS Student Lounge. That makes your opinion irrelevant.

  18. spyder

    Seriously. Why the fuck are you guys making this such a big fucking whining stage? You guys are all little bitches, and seriously need to work and focus on what you can control and not the stupid opinions and social blogs like this one. Hiding with tails underneath their legs under cloaks of anonymity. It frustrates the hell out of me how every motherfucker on this blog is trying to prove some fuckin point only to overcompensate on their lack of ability to motivate others about what they care about. Take your issue to the arena where is matters! out where the people! fuckin goosequill warriors!

    • Anonymous  

      I don't even . . . I can't . . . Did you bother to edit that? Complete sentences, people. They follow complete thoughts. It's a process - respect it.

  19. Finally a good idea  

    I heard that in a way to increase student participation, the GSSC plans to give a one-time $25 credit on Dining Dollars to anyone who volunteers for a place on Council. Finally... some courageous thinker steps forward. Yay!

  20. Gray

    You had a 123 word sentence, with numerous grammar infractions. I am not pretending to write "good" English as this is a blog response. Alas. You did decry the poor JC in that winding one sentence retort and still manage to make some dig about how GS has equal/proportional representation as CC. Wow, that was brilliant. But it was too wordy, came across as pretentious and lacked substance. Brevity is best.

    But re: proportional. Let's say that 2% of the student population at each school cares. At GS that would be 36 people (I gather that is too high given the lack of people running in elections, the fact that many GS folk do not leave near campus nor have pretense to consider themselves 'college students'), but for sake of argument let us use that number for comparison. CC would have 82 people who really DO care. Twice as many folk as GS. In a sense twice as many people to get things down, twice as many people to appear on the bwog OUTRAGED at things. Absolute numbers always matter unless you are dealing with something that is so large or so small as to render the differentiation meaningless. 82 to 36 is not meaningless I would say.

    And as campy and cliche as I can be, consider the fact that these 'lovey dubby' concepts of community and harmony would do GSSC well if it wishes to be taken legitimately.

    • GSer  

      Posts like that one seek only to obscure the issue. Let's get back to the real problem. A small clique has overturned election results and have decided to rule by fiat. I do not buy into conspiracy theories, but it sure seems that because some GSers were not happy with the election numbers they simply decided to invalidate them in a process that violated word and spirit of election rules. And they paint themselves deeper and deeper into their corner of irrelevance.

    • Anonymous  

      So, let's see: simply stating that I've done something (which I didn't do; I'm inscrutable. You cannot scrute me for love nor money.) without substantiating it is how we're going to argue. Check. Absolute numbers are more relevant than relative numbers. Check. (So, if 50 out of my 100 people vote, and 75 out of your 1000 people vote, then your 75 people are more "meaningful" to your group than my 50 are to mine.) GOT IT! That's all I needed to know. I'm going to go slam my head in a car door for about 3 hours straight so I can begin to function in this world without being too confused.

  21. coup d'etat

    So it seems that some nameless body calling itself the JUDICIAL COMMISSION or some similar silly name has pre-empted the democratic process, tossed out properly cast votes and made the GSSC seem even more ridiculous than before (it that is at all possible). Show your faces JC, name your names, take a bow... Kudos to you all for marginalizing GSers even more on campus. You have done our school proud and if I ever find out who you really are, I will deliver a bag of warm excrement to your home.
    Jerk-offs.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.