The Associated Students of Citrus College should not present themselves as elected by the student body when more than half of the serving members were not elected.
Six of nine ASCC Citrus’ student government members were selected through application, not election. This application process can be biased, and students not directly selected by the student body should not be serving on the board.
The student commissioners should be elected by their peers just as the rest of the board is.
The six students selected by appointment have the same voting power as the three students elected by student vote. ASCC President Sofia Guzman was the sole interviewer for application board members. One person selecting board members to fill seats that can outvote everyone elected rightfully by students is not democratic and should not continue.
“I had to interview them, asking each student the same questions to ensure fairness and select students based on their responses,” Guzman said in an email.
It sounds good in theory. In practice, it leaves too many opportunities for exploitation and a lack of accountability. Guzman may be choosing to her best abilities, and they may be good choices for these positions, but she shouldn’t be choosing anyone at all. No board member should be able to pick and choose who sits on the board. The whole point of an election is to vote for representatives, and having unelected seats filled through application defeats the purpose of voting in the first place.
If these positions were only titles and did not carry a vote, they would not be of great concern as their roles in student affairs would be limited. There are nine current ASCC members. Elected positions include:
- President
- Vice president
- Student trustee
- Legislative liaison
- Up to seven senators
Positions chosen by an application are:
- Treasurer
- Commissioners
As it currently stands, the ASCC plays an integral role in decisions that affect the student body at Citrus, according to the student government page. ASCC is also in charge of funds that total more than $450,000.
The point of voting for student senator and executive positions in the first place seems pointless if ASCC is going to fill the remainder with applications. It’s understandable to have a special election when circumstances are abnormal such as low voter turnout, as last year. Even so, that special election did not produce enough senators to fill the board properly. Elections should be held until seats are filled, or amendments voted on to reduce the number of seats necessary. The point is students should be voting for these decisions. They should not be made through an application process. ASCC should hold special elections until all seats are filled or until enough students have applied to run. They should at least try to maintain some semblance of democracy.
The last election for ASCC president and senators was held via special election from May 31 to June 2. Only 111 students on a campus of over 18,000 participated, but the required 50 votes per candidate were met. Amendments to the ASCC constitution passed by students during this election allow a majority vote instead of a minimum of 50 votes. Future elections will not require this minimum of 50 as students voted to do away with vote minimums for candidates.
The current board is not to blame for this issue. They are trying to fill a need to conduct business on the students’ behalf. However, they should also prioritize by ensuring seats are filled first. No future student government board should be put in this position.
The ASCC board should be working on a solution to this problem. The sitting board should have a proposal for the next election so that the same process elects all sitting members with voting power.
These commissioners were essentially hired, not elected. This means that ASCC members not elected by students can outvote those elected and determine student affairs. While this may not be happening currently, the chance is too great to allow this to continue with students who may not be as scrupulous or trustworthy as the current board members.
This precedent sets up opportunities for students who would not normally be elected to wait until after an election to apply. If a group of students has this objective, it could cause problems for the rest of the board, especially when the board has fewer elected members than the ones who applied.
If an application process is necessary, it should be noted on the ballot. Students should be aware that any position not voted for will be filled by an application.
