Rules and laws are there for a reason, to protect and guide those who fall under the governing body of such rules and laws.
While growing up people– or even you– may say, “rules are meant to be broken;” or the more popular, “bending the rules never hurt anybody.”
Regardless of your feelings toward them, everyone at some point has grown up to accept the rules as something that is a part of life.
If you haven’t done so– well reality check, it’s time to grow up.
Rules matter at any level, even here at Cerritos College.
It is not fair that some students must follow all of them to a tee, while others disregard them and face no consequences at all.
For example, in the recent ASCC Election Bylaw 3.303 of the Election Code was broken; plain and simple. However, it doesn’t seem like anything is going to be done about it.
This is wrong.
The rules were broken and something must be done.
Whether it be consequences as stated in the constitution, or simply a recognition of wrongdoing and consideration of amending the bylaw to better fit with the application.
It is important that this be addressed, and the proper people take accountability for a mistake that was clearly made.
If a rule is broken, even if there was intention of doing so, there should be consequences as clearly stated in the ASCC blue book.
The Election Code states:
“Each candidate for elective office may also file a resume of not more than 100 words, containing the candidate’s qualifications to be turned into Talon Marks, then published within a reasonable period of time prior to the election in question. Candidates shall not misrepresent themselves in said resume.”
The application itself states:
“ASCC Presidential/Vice Presidential Candidate’s Statement: Create a candidate’s statement as to why you desire and qualify to hold this office. Statements shall not exceed 200 words. [Required] No changes or corrections shall be allowed once application is submitted. The information shared will become public record and may be used in press releases from the college. This application will be kept on file in the Office of Student Activities.”
The argument that has been brought forth is that:
- It says “statement” in the application not “resume”
- All the candidates were given an equal amount of words, so there was no unfairness to anyone
Well to debunk argument No. 1, the application says, “create a candidate’s statement as to why you desire and qualify to hold this office,” that is a resume.
The definition of a resume, according the dictionary.com, is “ brief written account of personal, education and professional qualifications and experience, as that prepared by an applicant for a job.”
The application is asking for the same thing a resume would. You can split hairs saying “because the wording is not the same thing,” then no rule was broken.
Well numbers don’t lie and the bylaw states 100 words, not 200; and to the understanding of Talon Marks, the bylaws are the only thing that are definitive.
The application and guidelines given to the candidates are only there to clarify what is already stated in the constitution.
Now, the candidates may not have known that anything was being broken.
So, one might give them the benefit of the doubt.
However, you would think that someone running for ASCC President or Student Trustee would know what the constitution says.
It is the job of the election committee and the advisors to know all the bylaws, relay them to the candidates properly and be sure they are being followed.
Something needs to be done.
Whether it be consequences as stated in the constitution, or simply a recognition of wrongdoing and consideration of amending the bylaw to better fit with the application.
It is important that this be addressed, and the proper people take accountability for a mistake that was clearly made.
These are our student leaders. If they don’t have to follow the rules, then why should we?
