Fisher’s punishment for Argonaut story is foolish, discourages transparency
When two former ASUI presidents — and at least two fresh faces — announced their candidacy for the 2015 ASUI election, we knew campaign season would be interesting, to say the least.
But we hoped the competitive nature of the election would bring open discourse and fresh ideas for positive change, not petty governance from ASUI bureaucrats attempting to micromanage campaigns.
Incumbent Nate Fisher was fined $15 for a story that ran in The Argonaut Feb. 9. In the article, Fisher discussed his ideas for redistricting ASUI, and in the process, announced he intended to run for re-election in order to accomplish this goal.
The Argonaut reported the story as it would any other and a few weeks later, ran a similar story about former ASUI President Max Cowan, who discussed a resolution he wrote related to redistricting and also announced his candidacy for re-election.
Cowan was not punished and expressed sympathy for Fisher.
According to the ASUI Rules and Regulations, no candidate may campaign prior to the formal election season, with the exception of self-endorsement for announcement purposes. The rule is vague and is ultimately left up to the interpretation of the elections coordinators. Even so, it’s clear Fisher was well within his rights to discuss the election and his intention to re-run, particularly as the incumbent.
Fisher has been nothing but transparent throughout his presidency, a trait that is refreshing in higher education which has become increasingly dysfunctional when it comes to open communication.
While it should be made clear The Argonaut does not endorse candidates and this editorial is in no way a show of support for Fisher or any other candidate, the idea that ASUI Elections Coordinators Emily Stephens and James Morrell considered suspending Fisher from the election is laughable at best and asinine at worst.
To disqualify a legitimate candidate based on a broad interpretation of a rule that — while created with good intentions — is largely procedural, is a gross misinterpretation of the rule’s true purpose.
It’s obvious this was nothing more than a petty display of power by the elections coordinators. To make matters worse, Morrell and Stephens declined to comment entirely on the issue, further showcasing their blatant disregard for transparency. They should be ashamed as representatives of ASUI and of the student body for their failure to encourage open communication and transparency.
Fisher spoke openly with a reporter and answered questions appropriately — an important aspect of his current role as ASUI president. He did not influence the nature of the article, he had no control over when or how it was printed and he was transparent with members of his cabinet, including the elections coordinators, when he informed them he had spoken with a reporter about his intent to run for re-election.
The university should value transparency, and members of its student government should too. These students represent the student body, and should be champions of transparency and free speech.
We live in an era where wisdom and logic in interpreting the law is often set aside for personal gain. In a state lacking leadership in government, it’s no wonder our future leaders fail to understand these ideals.
Perhaps those who fined Fisher will have a bright future in the Idaho Legislature. If their recent actions are any indication, they’ll be at home in the Idaho House of Representatives where productive, logical action is all but forgotten.
This petty application — and ultimate misinterpretation — of this ASUI rule will discourage free speech in the future and we, as students of this university, should have a problem with this.
— KK