If you’re interested, another round of self-important bloviating is set to begin in the Student Union. Once again, someone apparently violated some extraordinarily important bylaw, thereby throwing the entire University into chaos, and it’s up to those heroic souls at the Union Judiciary to restore order and sanity to a world gone mad.
Here is the text of the complaint filed with the UJ:
Petitioner Name: Marla Merchut & Nipun Marwaha
Party against whom the case is being brought: Supreetha Gubbala, Elections Commission
Complaint:
According to the ideals governing the ideas of a fair election all prospective candidates are required to sign-up prior to the meeting and then come to the mandatory candidate meeting and sign the campaign agreement.  And have a clear and present intention to run prior to the meeting.

Ms. Gubbala did all of these well after the fact.  She decided to run the day after the election had already begun after the idea was brought up to her.  In this case a person has to be a write in candidate. And is not allowed to use any union resources for campaigning

Ms. Gubbala was wrongly placed as a regular candidate.

We are suing/requesting mediation to rectify this issue.

I’m beginning to think I.P. should stop reporting on this type of trivial Union nonsense. How do the rest of you feel? I’m happy to bring you these bits of news if you feel that they improve your life. But I suspect that this story matters to very few of you, and that you share my belief that we’d be better off pretending the Union didn’t exist.

7 comments on “Another Petty, Stupid Union Lawsuit”

  1. Supreetha Gubbala Says:

    Dear Nathan,
    It was unfortunate the concern was not communicated prior to submission, but just to clear it up a little, the case was close after both candidates realized there was a simple miscommunication. So fortunately, all is well again, and we are all back to working hard on our campaigns

    Sincerely,
    Supreetha

  2. Nipun Marwaha Says:

    Dear Nathan,

    This issue is not a petty issue; because we need to make sure that the democratic process is fair.

    Not to mention we weren’t suing, we requested mediation to figure out what had happened so we can (and did) sort out miscommunications.

    Best,
    Nipun

  3. NathanJRobinson Says:

    The issue is petty for a number of reasons, Nipun:
    1. Union Elections do not matter in the slightest to anyone except those running in them.
    2. The “democratic process” you speak so highly of is best served by allowing more people on the ballot, not less.
    3. Whether or not a person attended a pointless meeting (I have attended these meetings, and nothing is said which isn’t already universally known or easily discovered) has no bearing on election results.

    Leave these issues to the democratic process. If people feel that late ballot access is such an unspeakable affront to process and order, then let them express this by voting against the candidate. But let anyone who wants to run run, whenever without being subject to arbitrary and unnecessary procedural constraints.

  4. NathanJRobinson Says:

    I called this a “lawsuit” because that seems to be the rough equivalent of what these UJ dispute things are. If there’s an actual term for them, I’d be glad to use it, since it would remove the air of gravity and authority that the UJ seems to view its work with.

  5. Alan Royals Says:

    NathanJRobinson says not to help Sahar run because Student Union elections don’t matter. He also doesn’t believe in the importance of procedural fairness, one critical thing which makes America great. Process=rights.

  6. NathanJRobinson Says:

    You’re right about the first point. Student Union elections don’t matter, and I don’t believe I’ve told anyone that they should help Sahar or any other candidate.

    Secondly, procedural fairness is important when the particular procedure in question MATTERS. Procedure should be valued insofar as it affects the results, but not purely for its own sake.

  7. Lev Says:

    Nathan makes excellent points.

    I’m supporting Sahar myself mainly because all the other candidates seem to be people who shake things up and would seem to be happy to maintain procedure for procedure sake (the biggest problem with the Union).

    Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my impression.