The Associated Students of Portland State University Judicial Review Board approved a motion on April 22 to amend the student government elections timeline and reopen candidate registration. The timeline was amended in an effort to ensure that an accurate ballot is available to the student body and that opportunity is extended to allow for a diverse pool of candidates.
The motion states, “The purpose of the motion is to provide for a full democratic process and to ensure that each PSU voter has the opportunity to have their vote count by having access to a complete and accurate ballot.”
The current ballot has been closed and all votes cast have been annulled. Current candidates will transfer to the new ballot and new students will be able to register.
The amended elections timeline is as follows:
April 22: Campaign packets available at aspsu.pdx.edu
April 28: Campaign packets due at 5pm
April 29: Candidate eligibility confirmed
April 30: Updated ballot confirmed, candidate meet-and-greet/orientation
May 1: Polls open
May 7-8: Any infractions addressed
May 9: Results announced
For more information and future updates, visit psuvanguard.com
“The timeline was amended in an effort to ensure that an accurate ballot is available to the student body and that opportunity is extended to allow for a diverse pool of candidates.”
“The purpose of the motion is to provide for a full democratic process and to ensure that each PSU voter has the opportunity to have their vote count by having access to a complete and accurate ballot.”
Please disclose and explain how and why original the ballot was inaccurate.
Please describe the facts and circumstances that led the Judicial Review Board (JRB) to conclude that amending the timeline would create an “opportunity . . . to allow for a diverse pool of candidates.”
Do any of the statues, regulations, rules, codes, contracts or any other documents applicable to the ASPSU elections:
a) Require a “diverse pool of candidates”?
b) Provide a definition or set standards that would allow the JRB to evaluate whether the candidate pool is sufficiently diverse?
c) Establish standards, definitions, rules or guidelines by which the JRB can determine whether or not a ballot is complete”
d) Require that JRB proceedings to evaluate the diversity of the candidate pool or completeness of a ballot be documented in any way, such as through the creation of minutes or resolutions?
Did the JRB make a finding that the candidate pool was insufficiently diverse, and/or that the ballot was incomplete? If so, is this finding documented in writing, and where is it available to PSU students and to the public?
If the JRB’s written finding is not available to PSU students or to the public, why?
Please provide an explicit description of the relationship between the facts and circumstances surrounding Tony Funchess convictions (“the Tony Funchess Incident) and the JRB’s decision to amend the elections timeline and reopen candidate registration.
Among other matters, please identify any meeting minutes, resolutions or other documents that document the JRB’s deliberations, discussions or other oral or written communications regarding the Tony Funchess Incident and the decision to amend the elections timeline and reopen the candidate registration.
Please state where these documents are available to PSU and to the public.
Did the JRB seek the advice of counsel prior to deciding to amend the student government elections timeline and reopen candidate registration?
Alan Coogan
PSU student concerned about:
1) The lack of transparency on the part of the JRB and the PSU administration about the Tony Funchess Incident and the facts and circumstances that led the JRB to reset the election.
2) The lack of coverage in student media about the who, what, when, hows and whys of the decision to reset the elections. Simply parroting the JRB’s opaque statement isn’t good journalism.