Solving the IUSA problem

Last year, in an election with a turnout of nearly one percent, the Movement for IUSA ticket was elected to the IU Student Association’s slate of executive offices
unopposed.

In the past, we have worked to ensure IU students remain informed of the relatively inactive group of elected officers students pay to be, as current president Kyle Straub has described it, the “stewards of student money.”

However, a concern that rarely comes up in discussions of IUSA needs to be addressed: Where is the conservative ticket? Every year, it seems, platforms for election of IUSA executives pertain to one thing:
spending.

Last year, Movement for IUSA promised IU students Hoosier Info Kiosks. According to the IUSA website, Hoosier Info Kiosks are “weather-proofed flat screen TVs at bus stops across campus” with the purpose of providing real-time bus locations, weather, campus events, athletic scores and “so much more!”

For this, IU students have cumulatively coughed up at least $17,000, almost 18 percent of the IUSA budget.

It represents, if you don’t count the executive team’s salaries, the most expensive item on IUSA’s budget.

A good question needs to be asked about whether or not Hoosier Info Kiosks represent a good investment for IU students.

But, even without a value judgment with respect to the kiosks, one conclusion is glaringly obvious.

Those individuals who opposed them, who opposed being charged $17,000, had no ability to voice their concerns.

There are three solutions to this problem.

The first — and clearly the best — solution is to engage in true contested elections that allow the priorities of IU students to be reflected in a choice between multiple tickets. We advocate this solution. We encourage any and all interested IU students, especially those who oppose the spending of IUSA in the first place, to form tickets.

The second solution is to include a “none” option on the ballot for election of IUSA executive tickets and require tickets to garner at least a plurality of votes with respect to this option. This would allow students to express their opposition to tickets in the absence of a formal opposing ticket, increasing the legitimacy of the process.

The final and most dramatic solution is to impose a minimum turnout requirement on elections in which the executive ticket is unopposed. For example, this would mean requiring the unopposed ticket to garner votes from at least five percent of the student body to be successfully elected.

At the moment, your money is being spent by individuals who were elected in the absence of another choice. Even worse, no one is asking you if you want your money spent in the first place.

This board is adamant in its goal to ensure this never happens again.