I'll never forget my first foray into student government at the University of Northern Iowa. My freshman year was the year of the infamous Cezar-Lobdell v. Bentley-Doudna election that reshaped the landscape of student government at UNI.
The electricity on campus was unprecedented. Billboards, life-size posters, fliers and commercials submersed students in the student body presidential election.
Every day, we flocked to Facebook to see who had the bigger group. The public debate turned the Union ballrooms into a standing-room-only affair. A song by Katie Kula voicing her support even picked up some fame. The campus was divided and excited – everyone knew the names Cezar-Lobdell and Bentley-Doudna.
At the end of campaigning, an astonishing 4,000 ballots were cast in the race, accounting for nearly one-third of UNI students. Cezar-Lobdell scored a slim, but decisive victory.
Then came last year – the Adam and Jake v. Trevor and Anthony election. The excitement on campus took a turn for the worse.
The Northern Iowan turned "Election Commission" and "Northern Iowa Student Government Supreme Court" into common terms in Cedar Falls. NI issue after issue was filled with internal politics, attacks and court cases.
Last-minute date changes and campaign suspensions brought voter turnout down to 2,000 and spawned an anti-NISG movement embodied by the "Boycott NISG Presidential Elections" Facebook group.
Now we come to this year. Voter turnout collapsed to 700; only 18 of 40 senate positions even had a candidate on the ballot. Most UNI students would not even be able to tell you who won – let alone who ran.
Things in NISG need to change.
This year has seen NISG take steps away from connecting with students. One of the first actions of the new senate was to end the broadcast of NISG meetings, an initiative by the Cezar-Lobdell administration to allow students to see how their senators were representing them. This pilot program was already partially funded by University Book and Supply and effective at recruiting students for senator roles. Yet, the 2009-10 Senate decided to hand back the 50 percent funding commitment from UBS instead of looking for funding sources for the other one-half.
Then came the fall special elections – or lack thereof. On last year's ballot, students voted overwhelmingly to bring back fall special elections to fill vacant Senate seats. The Election Commission this year decided not to hold them and continue the theme of allowing senate to operate within itself with little oversight.
Last week brought election time. On the last day of campaigning, Colin Sandberg and Zeke Musselman decided to throw their names into the presidential race in a last-ditch write-in campaign. Sitting senators and Joel and Emma supporters promptly mocked and berated them on their Facebook group wall for even considering such a run. The next day Sandberg resigned from his senate spot – who can blame him.
Is this the road NISG wants to take? Is this what representing students is all about? Something needs to change with NISG, and here are the changes I'd propose as a starting spot:
1. Shrink the size of the senate. The 40 senate spots consistently remain unfilled and uncontested. The few candidates there are aren't looking for where they would best serve; they are looking for uncontested races. This isn't conducive to a senate that values their positions, represents their constituents and showcases their platforms come election time.
2. End the petitions to get on the ballot. Currently, candidates are given four days to collect a designated number of signatures from the constituency they hope to represent. Presumably, this is to prevent a mob of candidates from appearing on the ballot as a last-second decision. When fewer than one-half of senate spots even get a candidate, this isn't a legitimate concern. Many senate hopefuls are applying for constituencies where they don't live and may know no one. Giving them four days to meet a constituency is an effective deterrent for potential candidates.
3. Stop pretending to be something you are not. The newest election rules prohibit the Election Commissioner from telling a candidate if their actions would violate election rules.
How intimidating must this be for a freshman hoping to get involved with NISG. This isn't the Supreme Court and we don't have case precedent to reference. You are expecting candidates to interpret often times vague language to determine if they are breaking the rules when they have no experience as to what standard procedure is. Give me a break.
I hope this can serve as a starting point, but certainly not an end-all, for a path NISG needs to take. My NISG days are over, but I fear for what the future will bring. I came to UNI with delusions of student government grandeur. I thought every year would be a Cezar-Lobdell election and the campus overflowing with excitement. Now I wonder if those days will ever return.
