Following the events that occurred on Jan. 28, I was greeted by a number of current and former Missouri Students Association senators congratulating me on winning an at-large seat for this semester. While many will argue it’s customary and not based on a genuine welcome (I am not one of them), I couldn’t respond to their congratulations with a “Thank You.”
My only thought was, “I’m here to simply fill a seat.” It was a crass and, by some accounts, disparaging opinion, to which many may ask, “why even come back to Senate if that’s your perspective?”
The answer is simple: The seat was empty.
For as long as I have been a student, MSA (notably both the Senate and Executive Cabinet) has been linked to an “involvement cult” at Mizzou. In which, those who participate in groups like Tour Team, Alumni Association Student Board and Summer Welcome Leaders are part of an oligarchical group that reigns authority over the regular students, and that regular students have no chance of breaking into this dynamic to get their voices heard. This linkage has led to a disinterest and even distrust of MSA and student leadership on the undergraduate level. No more in my opinion was this seen on Jan. 28.
Within the debate of Bill 54-23, there was an amendment to bar students from running in a special election set by Senate, and act that was in contradiction with the MSA Constitution’s requirements to run for president. There was discussion among these senators to bring a petition of impeachment on the former president- and vice president-elect, an action which would have been unconstitutional based upon an understanding in the MSA constitution that one cannot be removed from office if they are not in office yet. In addition, according to The Maneater’s coverage of events on Jan. 27, there was a proposed and prepared resolution to reopen the election from November on the grounds that the BEC handbook does not specifically say when an election cycle ends. As such, we could reopen the election, bring the BEC chairs back, and have them retroactively remove the Gomez/Hanner slate from a completed ballot. This conflicts with the notion of completed elections, and places additional strain on students working on other affairs in their lives. Such a motion would have been selfish for MSA to ask.
With the unprecedented resignations of both Gomez and Hanner, many would argue that none of these options would have seen much scrutiny considering the nature of events. However, there would be one major loser: the students. The tragedy of these ideas would be the silencing of thousands of Mizzou students; their voices silenced by an “involvement cult” that they “elected.”
And you wonder why the seat was empty. It’s an inside job with no application process for external candidates.
When I served as the BEC vice chair this fall, I served with the ideal that the democratic process would flourish no matter the circumstances. My actual votes or association with any of the three slates aside, the students would control their government. No matter the results, everyone would position themselves toward the pursuit of a functional democratic election. On Nov. 16, 2015, I feared I was proven wrong. On Jan. 27, 2016, I was proven wrong. However, I was not only proven wrong due to the actions of Mr. Gomez or Mr. Hanner. I was proven wrong by the promoted idea that the student body would not be able to choose the best leaders on the basis that they aren’t “involved.”
Our election system in broken. From the delayed passage of this year’s BEC handbook, to not having enough fully confirmed Student Court justices to do court business, to the inside tactics of Senators and the absolute obstruction of the election process, no one could argue otherwise. However, this brokenness is reflected in the actions of MSA, who have acted as part of an “involvement cult,” rejecting the voices and concerns of students to pad their own resumes.
As such, I had to come back to Senate. Not because of a romantic love with MSA, but a genuine desire to open government to the people who give it the right to govern. The student body deserves full and open access to their government, and engagement from all of those involved. This begins at the election process. I want to ensure that its reform is at the forefront of discussion in my last semester at Mizzou.
Maybe if election reform was in place, or if the “involvement cult” idea was defeated through open government, I may have had more students welcome me to Senate that night. I returned to Senate to ensure that the next kid will have that experience.
Mark McDaniel, MSA Senator and KCOU 88.1FM Business Manager
memhn2@mail.missouri.edu
