StuCo Voting And Vs Result In Complaints

Many students have raised concerns over the Student Council (StuCo) executive board election process and the recently passed visitations policy in StuCo. As the new board turns over, uppers Matthew Robbins and Hojoon Kim and lower Jackson Parell plan to host assemblies explaining the new policy and to conduct referendums to evaluate the general consensus on any major decisions that the council proposes.

During the primaries, students voted on iPads—a system never used in previous elections. After signing in with a member of StuCo, voters proceeded to a table where three iPads were available. After the student selected his or her choices, an officiating student behind the table entered a code to validate the votes.

Many students felt that the newly introduced iPad method lacked privacy. Senior and elections committee head Thomas Chou said several students brought up concerns about the potential hacking or rigging of the iPad. “Some students thought that there could be some security issues regarding the coding that made the app,” Chou said.

“Due to the limited amount of time left in the year, StuCo will likely have to resume discussion on the policy next school year.”

Throughout the day, students reported that the elections booth was sometimes unattended or only manned by one person. In addition, a few voters were upset that the emergency alarm went off at the start of voting, and consequently, voting could only begin later in the morning.

The committee also dealt with problems surrounding the nomination of candidates. Candidates were required to collect 350 signatures and submit a candidate statement in order to become an official candidate, but several candidates did not entirely reach the requirements within the time limit. “Through conversations that included the candidates in question, we followed the rules of the Student Council constitution to make decisions that were fair and honest,” Chou said.

Senior and StuCo president Rebecca Ju echoed Chou’s sentiments. “I’m confident that we made the right decision in these cases, though some people were not satisfied with them,” she said. “However, in the future we will definitely aim to make our requirements and expectations more clear.”

To address these concerns and clarification issues, the elections committee and the executive board met with the StuCo advisers several times during the week before and after the election. Ju supported the election committee’s decisions and felt that although StuCo will definitely attempt to improve the iPad system in the future, the election was a success. “All and all, I believe we held a clean and fair election,” she said.

Lower Julia Goydan voted in both the primary and runoff elections. She did not have any issues with either of the methods, but she preferred the paper ballot.

“The iPads got a little confusing because they had to reset it each time. It probably got really busy and hectic when a lot of people came to vote,” Goydan said.

Complaints have also recently surfaced about StuCo’s new visitations policy proposal. In the fall term, StuCo voted the visitations policy as a top priority. Ju hoped that StuCo will continue reworking this policy over the years to make Exeter “more inclusive and safe for all students.” Senior and StuCo vice president Jun Park explained that concerns raised about privacy were discussed in depth. “[StuCo] is planning to pursue the policy, and hopefully the new executive board would be receptive to the idea,” he said.

Upper and StuCo secretary Joel Lotzkar commented on the issue regarding the wide-margin between student opinion and StuCo’s vote. “While I do think we should have spent more time collecting data from the entire student body and analyzing clauses in the policy like the controversial intra-dorm Vs procedure rules, StuCo did conduct several discussions about the proposal over the last couple of months,” he said.

Lower and member of public relations committee Anna Clark expressed her concerns about the goals of the new visitations policy.

Although she voted for the proposal in StuCo, she said that the policy would be inclusive of LGBTQ plus students but would not encourage much of a safer sexual environment.

“For what they’re trying to achieve, it’s definitely a step in that direction,” Clark said.

However, rising StuCo vice president Hojoon Kim said that these issues, specifically the margin separating the student consensus and StuCo’s vote, are the consequence of a deeper underlying flaw with the current board and how the council is operated. Kim said that this year’s council seemed “too detached from the student body.”

Now, the future of the policy is in the faculty’s hands. “Due to the limited amount of time left in the year, StuCo will likely have to resume discussion on the policy next school year,” Lotzkar said.

As Robbins, Kim and Parell fully assume their positions, they plan on changing the culture surrounding the council, a task that Kim explained was the job of the executive board.

To do this, the three aim to select specific discussion leaders as a “good way to make StuCo smaller and streamline debate. Subsequently, it will put more emphasis on the representatives’ responsibility.”

Next fall, Kim hopes to hold an assembly that will educate students and give the community more concrete knowledge in order to form solid opinions.

“I think the most important step is educating the public on what exactly the policy is. On the other hand, I would like to warn council from taking quick, hasty actions without considering the ramifications of their decision,” Kim said.