Campus Connection

It’s that special time that comes around every few years or so and seems to permeate even the minutest parts of our existence: it’s election time. Between the presidential, state, and local elections, there is no lack of candidates campaigning and promoting their platforms. Most activities undertaken by politicians, including their voting history, are a matter of public record—in this way, they can be held accountable for their actions. 

Candidates running for congressional election in the state of Maryland are campaigning hard, and you’ve probably noticed a number of television advertisements for E.J. Pipkin, Andy Harris, and Wayne Gilchrest. And if you’ve been paying attention to any of those advertisements, you’ve certainly noticed the mudslinging that seems to be an integral part of American politics. So you probably weren’t surprised, as I certainly wasn’t, to see a television advertisement from Pipikin lambasting Harris’s voting record regarding Maryland in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

It wasn’t really out of the ordinary as far as political ads go, and I didn’t think about it again until much later when I saw Harris in an interview. He was asked about his voting record on that particular issue and vehemently denied voting in favor of the bill. He demanded that anyone who wanted to know the truth could look up how he voted—all votes are a matter of public record.

To be honest, I didn’t buy into Harris’s impassioned defense. If Pipkin’s ad was an obvious lie then Harris could sue the hell out of him for slander and have the ad removed from the air. But to my knowledge, he had done neither. Intrigued, I pursued the question of Harris’s voting record, and what I found was more interesting than I had anticipated. Harris did, in fact, support the bill when it was first introduced—because the bill also provides Maryland in-state tuition for individuals serving in the armed forces. However, he recommended that the bill be amended to exclude illegal immigrants and when it was not, Harris voted against the bill in its final version.

So, Pipkin’s ad was factual, though deliberately misleading. However, if anyone, like me, cared to look hard enough, they could uncover the truth and bring the dirty tactics to light. At the end of the day, a politician can be held accountable for his voting or for his ad campaign with the help of some public records.

But not every political realm has this type of information availability—our very own University Student Government Association (USGA) comes to mind.

Student government at the University of Maryland, Baltimore is modeled after a parliamentary system and in many ways mimics how our local, state and national senates are run. However, there is one major difference: the USGA can hold closed door discussions that result in anonymous voting in which there is no record of how each individual senator voted. 

That’s right: it’s not a private record, it is a non-existent record. 

If any student wants to know why the USGA didn’t fund a favorite annual event, or whether or not a senator supported issues important to a particular program, there’s no guarantee that any record exists with this information. In fact, roll call votes—which would allow for a precise record of each senator’s vote and are typically only conducted at the request of a senator—are rarely held for a combination of reasons:  they afford an opportunity for senators to be swayed during the voting process, and they are rarely requested by senators either out of ignorance or the view that they are unnecessary and too time-consuming. 

Most regularly a hand count is used and only the final vote number is recorded. Thus, when the Executive Board opted to reject official recognition as a supported group for this student newspaper last year, there was no way to find out which senators contributed to this decision.  At the time, the USGA went as far as to hold a closed-door discussion, in which non-USGA members were not permitted to be present and an audio recorder that has become standard practice at meetings was stopped. 

Not only is such a practice irresponsible, it is likely illegal as well.

The state of Maryland actually prohibits closed door meetings by law. The Maryland Open Meetings Act established in 1993 states, “It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that, except in special and appropriate circumstances: (1) public business be performed in an open and public manner; and (2) citizens be allowed to observe: (i) the performance of public officials; and (ii) the deliberations and decisions that the making of public policy involves.” There are fourteen reasons for which a meeting can legally be held behind closed doors, and neither conservation of time nor talking about sensitive issues such as the creation of a student newspaper are on the list.

The law is not unique to Maryland and a case in New Jersey that has gained national media attention serves as a prime example of conflicts that result when calling for greater accountability and openness.  Last year, the Montclarion Press, a student run newspaper at Montclair University financially supported by both the school’s student government (SGA) and its own advertising, hired a lawyer to investigate similar closed door SGA meetings.  Upon learning of this, the SGA responded by freezing the newspaper’s funds, contacting its printing company to stop future publications, and demanding copies of communications between the Montclarion Press and its lawyer, which the newspaper immediately denied citing attorney-client privilege.  While censorship of the press is illegal (see the First Amendment to the Constitution), many government bodies nonetheless try by withholding funding. 

The situation in New Jersey has made it evident that student government practices do not always align with principles of democratic government and that members of the student body can take action to address this discrepancy. After all, if these issues are not addressed, then how can the members of the government be held accountable for their decisions and how can students be given the opportunity to elect representatives that truly represent their interests?

For this reason, just as the students in New Jersey, we too can and ought to take action. We need to pick our representatives carefully and demand that they pledge greater accountability through on-the-record roll call votes, hold open meetings, and keep us updated on the issues they are considering.

And if they fail to represent our interests, we should have access to that information and be given the opportunity to vote them out of office.

As students, as a constituency, we deserve to know how we are being represented, and it is our responsibility to hold our delegates accountable.

Article Tools