[1142] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Three cents...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Rezek)
Wed Mar 13 20:01:41 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020313192433.01dc8de0@po10.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:57:39 -0500
From: Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
Penny #1: I've read an above-average number of MIT and UA documents and I
don't think there are any restrictions on how the UA President spends the
Bush Fund interest. How the money is spent depends on the character of the
UA President. I believe that this lack of restriction is a good thing and
is a core part of the UA President's power.
Penny #2: Buying votes is anti-democratic. This is why all democratic
nations, states, cities, etc. have laws against it. I'm surprised that the
UA doesn't have a specific policy against it. I suppose I should have
included it in the bill I sponsored to get UA Councilors directly elected
rather than appointed. Or that it should have been included in any number
of other UA election reform bills. I think it has been assumed that buying
votes was so obviously anti-democratic that a specific ban was not
necessary, and I assume that such a specific ban will be enacted very
shortly after this election. I think that many supporters of the 'buying
votes' idea are opposed to such actions in local, state, or national
elections. The UA Judicial Review Board should decide to disqualify any
and all candidates that pay students to vote for them. This is well with
the Board's power and a good example of why a judiciary is a necessary part
of government. By disqualifying all candidates that bribe voters they will
not be acting as whiny insiders but as upholders of one of the basic tenets
of democracy: a vote may not be bought.
Penny #3: Who the UA President is in any particular year can have a
significant impact on the undergraduate student body; the UAP's
effectiveness largely depends on his ability to successfully persuade and
lobby. Peter Shulman's list of accomplishments is a good sampling of what
good leadership can accomplish. Paul Oppold's failure to take a strong
stand against the FOC decision is a good example of how poor leadership can
drain away the positive energies of others. I know that Josiah will be a
good UA President. Those of you who do not agree with me today, I hope
that over the next 15 months you will see that Josiah was the right student
for the job. Perhaps Rhett would be a good UAP. We will never know
because he has chosen to take an anti-democratic path that will prevent him
from taking office.
Thanks for listening,
Chris Rezek '99
ex-[various IFC and UA offices]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
