LETTER: Election was only a rubber-stamp activity

To the editor:

    Read this and tell me it’s not biased. This is what appeared on the ballot:
    “This $65 student fee increase allows students to: Assist in securing Aggie Athletics membership in the WAC and NCAA division 1A now and into the future. Continued free admission to Men’s basketball games. Students are guaranteed 39% of the Men’s basketball seating in the Spectrum. Assist in stabilizing the annual budget, sustaining successful sports programs and improving others. Continued free admission to Football games. Students are guaranteed 25% of the football seats in Romney Stadium. Continued free admission to all other intercollegiate sporting events. (These percentages are among the highest in the nation and your benefit is valued at between $730-$1,520 per year). Continued opportunities to purchase married student discounts for spouse. Enrich the quality of student life by maintaining successful athletics at USU. I agree with this proposed student fees increase of $65 per semester.”
    The university took an active role in promoting this fee increase.
    HURD and ASUSU members, as well as student athletes, were told to campaign for it.
    The university website encouraged students to “Vote for the New Student Fee for Intercollegiate Athletics Program.”
    The referendum was held three weeks after regular student elections, but the Aggie Blue Bikes fee increase was on the ASUSU election ballot.  Why? Perhaps it was so fewer votes would be cast and stacking the ballot box in favor of the athletics fee would be easier.
    Nearly all grassroots posters and fliers urging students to “vote no” were systematically removed and thrown in the trash.
    This doesn’t just upset me because of the $65 fee increase. It makes me question the integrity of the institution to which I belong. Even if you were for the fee increase, these revelations should give you pause. If it is now Utah State University policy to strong-arm the democratic process, rather than remaining appropriately neutral, what can we expect from future elections? And what suspicious deeds have they already done? Who oversaw the vote counting and reporting? These are questions I never expected I’d have to ask of this institution of higher learning.

Thad Gillespie