Performance Review Reasons and Findings

Sorry for getting this out so late, I had a test yesterday that was very important for me to pass. These are simplified versions of the performance review reasons and the findings of the performance review committee.

Poor Managerial Effectiveness- Citing unprecedentedly poor turnout for spring filing a Senator submitted a formal complaint against the Election Commissioner's ability to manage the Elections. Only forty people filed for a total of sixty spots in Senate. This is the fault of the Election Commissioner. If he had spent more money on advertising on filing instead of wanting air planes to fly over head of campus during voting days maybe we would have a few more candidates. The committee agreed and stated that "the lower percentage of fully contested senate races indicates that the efforts made by the election commission to publicize filing were not sufficient. This failure falls squarely at the feet of the election commissioner in the opinion of this committee."

A Violation of Current Regulations- Simple really, the person charged with upholding the Election Regulations has decided not to. The Election Commissioner has allowed candidates to file outside of designated times for filing. This is most likely to try and cover up a small amount of his failure to properly advertise the filing process. The Committee found that "on the matter of alleged violations of the election regulations, the committee finds the election commissioner’s intentions to be noble, but unfortunately inconsistent with the election regulations."

Inability to Correct Problems in a timely fashion- The Election Commissioner submitted changes to the Election Regulations during filing days. There is no excuse for this. This is simply laziness. The committee states "Much of the blame for this failure falls at the feet of the election commissioner."

Willful and purposeful disobedience of a Writ of Mandamus handed down by the Judicial Court- This was my complaint. The committee found it as invalid. The committee saw this as the Election Commissioner taking "one class day" to fulfill this obligation. I agree with this however it seems like the entire story was not conveyed to the committee. The judgment against the Election Commissioner was handed down on Friday. The Election Commissioner was ordered to release all information immediately. This did not happen. In fact the Election Commissioner only released the names after it was made apparent that he would be removed from office if he were not to release them on Monday. It seems like I should have waited a bit longer to make it apparent that the information was to be released or repercussions would follow. It is my opinion that the Election Commissioner never would have released the information required if it was not apparent he was going to be removed. I also have reasonable suspicion that the Election Commissioner has not made all information ordered within Clemens v. Election Commission 2008-1. However I cannot prove that because the only person who knows the truth is the Election Commissioner.

If you have any questions about the Performance Review contact the Rules and Regulations Chairman Zach Whitehurst (zachary.whitehurst@tamu.edu). If you have any questions about the performance of the Election Commissioner you should contact Conner Prochaska at sbp@tamu.edu. The Election Commissioner is under the directive of the SBP. As always if you want my opinion on this or anything else let me know at coltclem@tamu.edu.