Garza's Second Victory is Hollow at Best

As an active observer in many of the deliberations on the UC Vice-Presidential election, I feel compelled to address some pertinent issues that have been mishandled by the council, and others that have been misrepresented by this publication.

One of the most misleading pronouncements issued by the Crimson was to be found in Monday's headline, "Council Votes for Garza as VP, Again." An objective review of the facts reveals that this statement is faulty on one very major account: while Melissa Garza may have been named Vice-President twice, she was never legitimately elected to that office. It cannot be denied that a majority of the council members who took the time and energy to cast a vote in the original election supported Reyes over Garza; a technical "mistake" in the acceptance or counting of four of the ballots (whether absentee or otherwise) does not negate the existence of that majority. Indeed, as the Crimson neglected to point out, the Executive Board of the Council was sufficiently convinced of the uncertainly of Garza's position to deny her the powers of office during last Sunday's meeting.

Even more disappointing than the manner in which the Crimson covered this issue is the manner in which the council "resolved" it. By reducing the entire election to a question of semantics ("Did we or did we not explicitly state we were suspending the bylaws?") as opposed to intent, a mere 33 to 22 majority was able to ex post facto override a decision to accept absentee ballots rendered by a full two-thirds of the council. How could this two-thirds of the council been so ignorant of their own constitution as to fail to recognize a suspension of the bylaws--is it not their duty to familiarize themselves with the constitution and proper procedure before taking office?

In addition, I question the cultural literacy of anyone who claims ignorance of absentee balloting (i.e., that they could submit an absentee ballot) when this is obviously a common procedure in the United States. Almost all undergraduates at Harvard are of voting age and far from their home districts, and therefore should be well versed in absentee ballot practices.

Awarding Garza the Vice-Presidency on the basis of a minor technicality of parliamentary language was akin to awarding a proven thief his freedom on the basis of a minor typographical error in the arrest report; the difference is that under the law technicalities preserve freedom and the rights of the innocent, while under the council's decision technicalities preserve and reward ignorance, injustice and irresponsibility. Garza's "victory" is a hollow one at best, both personally and for the council as a whole; it serves as yet another reminder of UC ineptitude and casts a dark shadow over the brief remainder of this Council's term. Julie E. Peters