We leave executive office with a sunny disposition. The future holds much promise if we base it on the achievements of the past. If we changed the life of only one student, then we have succeeded in our motivation for student government. Consider the accomplishments that the Michigan Party has achieved in the past few years. We are glad students passed our three ballot initiatives: ex-officio membership, community service and an opposition to the LSA 10-term rule. We are comfortable in the k nowledge that they will change student government for the better.
We believe we set MSA on the right track. But MSA has not reached its potential yet. We leave an MSA that is more efficient and student-friendly - and this is just the beginning. We hope to see MSA take its next steps in the same direction. We will continue to work on what we will feel directly affects students' lives: a student ward in Ann Arbor, preventing a 1-percent tax from being laid on students and reducing the costs of education through initiatives like the online textbook reporting sy stem.
An author whose name we forget once said: " Two roads diverged into the woods, and I took my weedwacker and made my own path." We followed those words through the forest, and now face another fork in our paths.
We congratulate our opponents on the their victory and hope to work with them to form a unified student voice and we will continue the improvements we have made in reforming student government. Let us roll up our sleeves and get started.
Probir Mehta
LSA junior,
MSA vice president
Dan Serota
LSA junior,
MSA general council
Yejide Peters
LSA sophomore,
Chair, academic affairs
Making assumptions is extremely dangerous and she makes many in her letter. For instance, she states that the 34 other candidates did not respond because it is "an election issue." What right does she have to say we did not respond because it was a n election issue? Did we ever give her any indication that we did not respond because of that? Does she even know us? Has she ever talked to us?
Also, she should never state that we are unresponsive to constituent inquiry. Just because we did not respond to her equivocal letter does not mean that we are unresponsive. She bases her allegations not on fact but rather on complete speculation. She only sent one single e-mail two days before the election to ask us if we would support her cause. Has she ever heard of the phone? We are all listed in the campus directory. We had a question about an ambiguous part of her letter that could easi ly have been answered over the phone.
Despite that, if she had sent the e-mail a week earlier we would have had time to inquire about our question. She did not; therefore, how does she expect us to fit time into our schedule during the three or four busiest days of our year when we are working 19 hours a day?
Her irresponsibility in this matter is disappointing and we recommend that before she accuses 34 people in front of more than 50,000 people she sends out more than just an e-mail. We hope that she runs her organization more effectively then the way she conducted her research.
Jason Korb
LSA sophomore
Vamsi Bonthala
LSA first-year student
Neel Chokshi
Engineering sophomore
However, the world of MSA campaigning is far from ideal, and I don't think it is very realistic to suppose that most candidates would voluntarily impose a limit on themselves. In this past election, for example, while some of the candidates agreed t o a voluntary limit, the majority did not.
The legislation MSA will be voting on tonight has been developed by a number of people (including myself) and has received constructive input from even more. It is truly a cooperative effort, and thus is well thought-out and practical. A similar spe nding limit is in place in many other schools around the country, and it works. Further, this legislation allows improved enforcement of other elections rules. Under the current code, candidates may be "fined" by the Elections Court for campaign rul es violations (such as postering illegally or improperly labeling campaign materials), but - short of legal action - there is no way for the Elections Court to get this money. Is it worth it to bring suits against people for $5 here and $10 there? C urrently, there really is no enforcement of campaign rules short of disqualifying a candidate. The proposed code changes turn these fines into deductions off a candidate's allowed budget. This effectively encourages candidates to obey campaign rules - since the more rules they break, the less they may spend.
Many people object to spending limits on the grounds that it violates First Amendment rights. Without getting into the details of the debate, suffice it to say that a spending cap only limits quantity, not quality or content. If a candidate wanted t o make $500 worth of posters, and each said something different, we might have a First Amendment problem. But we all know that candidates instead make hundreds or thousands of identical posters and plaster the campus with them. Spending limits would simply serve to limit the amount of times candidates can say the same thing. In addition, spending limits most certainly do not apply to other aspects of campaigning that are free, such as putting materials on the "inform" web-site or just plain ol d going out there and meeting people. Spending limits do not give anyone the advantage because not only is everyone allowed to spend the same amount of money, but let's face it, $500 (the proposed limit) is an awful lot of money to spend anyway. Doe s anyone really need to spend more than this?
Further, the proposed code changes include an option for candidates that would make them immune to the spending limit if they agree to run as a write-in ... thus no one can argue they are being denied their "right" to spend ludicrous amounts of mone y.
Campaign finance reform is an issue on many people's minds these days. If this legislation passes tonight, it will be a good example of that often-scorned "bloated cadaver of inefficiency" - MSA - actually doing something constructive to make itsel f more efficient and more accessible to all students. Hmmm, if we can do this in the space of two weeks, maybe there are other constructive things we can accomplish as well. So all you full-time MSA detractors, take note. Maybe we're not that bad af ter all.
Josh Trapani
MSA representative, Rackham