Senate Bill 15-16-19
| Bill ID: | 15-16-19 |
| Name: | Senate Candidates Contact Information Requirement |
| Proposed: | 12/14/2015 |
| Sponsor: | Ronald Lee Aughenbaugh II, Staff, Division of IT |
| Proposal: | Current policies do not require candidates running for senate positions to provide valid names, or contact information, only a candidacy statement. All candidates running for senate positions should be required to provide his or her full name as saved in the University Directory (directory.umd.edu), and provide valid contact phone number, and campus email address. Provided contact information would then be included when candidate information is posted to <a href="https://www.senate.umd.edu/" target="_blank">https://www.senate.umd.edu/</a> during election time periods. My reasons for requesting such a change: I am a relatively new employee to UMCP, who started in March 2013. I tried to get involved in wisely evaluating the candidates running for senate positions the following year. However I ran into the following problems. The candidates are only required to submit a "why you should vote for me" statement which is posted on the Senate website. When I contacted the director on how I could contact the candidates I was told, "look it up in the directory". Well the problem with doing that is, not every candidate provided his or her legal name, or the one that was recorded in the directory. Additionally there are many people with the same name. The end result I was only able to contact half of the candidates. I am not suggesting that candidates are required to answer any questions posed to them by potential constitutes. I am only suggesting that their correct contact information be available. The committee responsible for collecting candidate submissions should validate candidate contact information provided to confirm that it matches that of candidate in directory.umd.edu. Candidate information including contact information and candidacy statement will be posted to the senate website at the appropriate election time period. |
| Active? | No |
Status
| Status: | Completed |
| Completed On: | 09/07/2016 |
History
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate |
| Received: | 2016-08-31 |
| Decision Date: | 2016-09-07 |
| Decision: | The Senate reviewed the report as an informational item. |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2016-08-23 |
| Decision Date: | 2016-08-30 |
| Decision: | The SEC voted to place the report on the September 7th, 2016 Senate meeting as an informational item. |
| Actions: | The SEC reviewed the ERG Committee's report and voted to place it on the Senate agenda as informational item since the committee recommended no changes. |
| Next Step: | Senate Review |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Elections, Representation, & Governance (ERG) Committee |
| Received: | 2016-01-22 |
| Decision Date: | 2016-05-05 |
| Decision: | The committee voted to send its recommendations to the SEC for review. |
| Actions: | The ERG Committee began reviewing the charge in January 2016. It met with the Senate Director to learn about the procedures for running Senate elections and how information is gathered by the Senate Office for the elections. The committee viewed sample ballots to show how information appears on ballots for the elections. The committee chair spoke with the proposer and reported back to the committee with additional information. In May 2016, the ERG Committee voted to recommend no changes to election procedures. The ERG Committee agreed to present its recommendations to the SEC and Senate in fall 2016. |
| Next Step: | SEC Review |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2016-01-14 |
| Decision Date: | 2016-01-21 |
| Decision: | The SEC voted to charge the Elections, Representation, and Goverance (ERG) Committee with review of this proposal. |
| Actions: | The SEC reviewed this proposal at its 1/21/16 meeting. The SEC voted to charge the ERG Committee with its review. |
| Next Step: | ERG Committee Review |