Oracle Online

Most essentially, the process has not been fair. Because of a literal absence of publicity regarding the deadline for candidates to file the required paperwork, students who intended on running were caught off-guard and found themselves unable to meet the requirements. They have since bowed out. One team, however, headed by Michael Elliot, did submit the materials by deadline. Elliot’s runningmate, uneasy about his rushed decision, later had second thoughts and withdrew. A replacement was found and Elliot elected to continue with his candidacy.

That is, until the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) ruled that Elliot effectively voided his ticket when he switched partners. They ruled that he may still run as a write-in, but will not appear on the ballot. He and Ed Elfmann are now campaigning to do just that.

The problem with this ruling is twofold. First, there is no legislated requirement or precedent to back the Committee. Therefore secondly, one must examine the circumstances. In an e-mail to the executive board last week, I wrote that the plight of Elliot, while not entirely without personal accountability, was largely the fault of our failures as a congress. As a body, we should not compound these errors by removing Elliot from the ballot. Restoring his ticket is the least that should be done.

The poor conduct continues. There has been one sign advertising the formal and informal debates, and campaign infractions have gone unaddressed. During the final days leading up to the deadline to submit paperwork, candidate teams were unable to reach PAC for inquiries. Their questions were defrayed instead to other members of the student congress who are not part of the elections process.

I have formally called for the release of PAC Chair Jeana Blomme from her duties of running elections, and the full resignation of Public Affairs Committee Chair Sarah Elston, whose committee’s sole purpose is marketing and promotion. The mishandling of elections is significant, and the inaction by those charged with making the process known to all who would like to participate is inexcusable.

Today I will be submitting a formal resolution of No Confidence to be voted on by the General Assembly. The resolution calls for the reversal of a PAC decision to remove Elliot from the ballot, and censures the two committee chairs for their poor conduct. Elections would still take place as scheduled. Upon passage, confidence would be restored.

This situation is relevant to the average student because it affects both Hamline’s integrity and your wallet. Hamline is seen as having one of the healthiest student congresses in the region, and this is a direct result of the actual undergraduate body. The annual operating budget of the student government is over $300,000, levied entirely from a student fee.

It should be noted that other members of the executive board have performed admirably and stepped in to provide backbone when needed. While the student government is competent, this process has had serious flaws. By a moral consciousness and respect for the institution, I refuse to let it continue unabated. We shall see if the General Assembly heeds this call.

-Tim R. McDonald ’07
HUSC Senior Representative

Same-sex couples deserve equal rights

This week, supporters of equality at the Capitol announced plans to pass a bill that would allow (not require!) city and county governments to extend health insurance benefits to their employees’ same-sex partners. As expected, the Minnesota Family Council and other conservative evangelicals denounced the bill and unveiled their own plans to lobby against it.

Given the success of Democrats in the recent elections and the ever-increasing public acceptance of equality for gays and lesbians, groups like the Family Council are becoming increasingly extremist and their rhetoric reflects their desperation. Case in point-Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage, was recently quoted in the Star Tribune as saying, “The sponsors of this bill are attempting to give homosexuals special rights by granting them marital privileges without the responsibilities of a marital contract.”

Really? The label “special rights” indicates these rights are not available to other employees. In reality, these rights are already available to heterosexual married couples.
Therefore, the extension to same-sex couples of these rights is not an example of us being afforded “special” rights but rather of equal rights.

Furthermore, by pointing out that same-sex couples in Minnesota do not have recognized marital contracts and their attendant legal responsibilities, Davis leads us to believe same-sex partners have willingly not obtained such contracts and aren’t capable of behaving towards each other in responsible ways. Again, reality intervenes when we are reminded that the federal and Minnesota governments prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying and that same-sex couples care for each other and their families in the exact same responsible manner that heterosexual couples do.

Davis and the Minnesota Family Council inflict far more harm on our democracy and civil rights with their distortions of truth and misleading rhetoric than the loving commitments of thousands of same-sex couples in Minnesota. As we continue to battle religious extremism and its divisive effects in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be well advised to recognize and confront these same forces at home.

-Jason Schellack ’04