Recently, Technician published an article reporting on Student Body President Jackie Gonzalez’s most recent appointment of Anderson Shumate to the position of chair of the Board of Elections. In any other world, this would be a run-of-the-mill process, however the optics of this one seem to be hung on the fact that the Board’s new leader is the professed “romantic partner” of the very person whose sole discretion determines his position. Did she also mention he’ll be paid for his new role? No?

Oops.

The object here is not to contest the finality of her decision, nor her statutory ability to make it, for that matter. I write this to simply provide an alternative opinion on what (some) of our leadership in the institution deem as an acceptable or “conflict-of-interest-free” system of ethics. If this decision hasn’t raised your eyebrows, then allow me (and other critiques that I am sure will be surfacing soon) to help raise them for you.

To the Chief Executive’s ability to make this call, there is simply no objection. The NC State Student Body Constitution and subsequent Statutes explicitly state that the Student Body President reserves the right to appoint anyone to fill this position; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The real issue at hand is that the process, and her own criterion used to arrive to the decision, can be argued questionable and will unfortunately cause Gonzalez to squander much of her remaining political capital.

For those of us who have never had political capital to spend, it’s a lot like emptying your entire week’s pay in one visit to the bar; you’ll have a great time tonight at the expense of quite the headache tomorrow. In fact, what you’ll likely have left are some judgmental looks from bystanders wondering what you were thinking.

So, constitutionality aside, we have a fairly straightforward situation. The Student Body President has appointed someone with whom she is romantically involved to a compensated position, responsible for directing the administration of the next Student Government General Election. There you go.

Let’s unpack that.

Gonzalez claims in the conclusion of her letter to the Committee on Appointments that she is confident that Shumate is the most qualified candidate for the job, and because he’s the best, the decision has no conflict of interest. Shumate’s possession of the right qualities for the role may in fact be true, validating her statement. However, the hitch that seems to be conveniently forgotten here is that people’s qualifications don’t create conflicts of interest; their relationships, however, do.

As student body president, Gonzalez can claim that her choice has validity, fine. The problem is that, as the romantic partner in this case, she has no reason to claim anything different. He’s the best. Of course, he’s the best. He’s the partner. This, my friends, creates a situation in which four people expressed interest in being selected for a position that apparently was never competitive to begin with, even if one of them did withdraw in the process.

For evidence of additional contradiction, the opening of her argument in favor of Shumate says “I felt [Shumate] would also do an efficient job, given his previous involvement as a member of the board that not only attended every violation hearing from the spring 2017 Elections Cycle, but also was avid in writing decisions and edits to the handbook. The one thing that did set Anderson apart … was that, because of his previous experience on the board, I know he understands and appreciates the work that is done by the board; I know he would care.”

If you don’t think that ain’t just the best resume summary for a job candidate ever, you’re crazy. So, it’s a shame that, just one page earlier, she stated that “given the nature of the resignations, I was favoring someone who did not have previous SG experience, an independent person who could facilitate and lead without giving opinions.”

Hm.

So, if she is favoring someone from outside Student Government, her included critiques of the other candidates are valid. For example, one candidate was eliminated because his experience with elections “is all forward-faced as a candidate and not behind-the-scenes, detail-oriented, as a board member.” Okay, seems legitimate, right? Well, not really, and it all goes back to her original criteria of finding someone from “outside SG.” If that were the initial search criteria, she should have never approached Shumate, which she later writes that she did on her own accord.

It just seems a little two-faced when we are nit-picking applicants because some don’t have the “right” kind of experience and others do, at the same time that candidates were not supposed to have any inside experience at all, right?

Life lesson: If it looks like bias and sounds like favoritism, they could just be dating. Sometimes, inference to the simplest explanation serves as the best.

In the spirit of transparency, I should mention that I was one of the other candidates. So, if you now think I am a simply disgruntled applicant, you are entitled to your opinion, but that’s not why I am here. Quite frankly, I would rather have a job based solely on experience and qualification, so no, I don’t typically list being someone’s boyfriend on my resume. So really, we shouldn’t be upset for being disqualified, because come on, who can compete with that?

So, at the end of the day, it’s an executive order, meaning it’s possible but difficult to overturn. If you are now sensing any sort of foul play, I suggest sending her an email, after all she says she welcomes those with concerns. If you think the rules are unfair, call your reps. They can rewrite them. Finally, Gonzalez claims that she is “confident you will not find any malicious intent or wrongdoing.” I don’t think it’s malicious, just miscalculated. I also just thought that, on a campus of young adults, we’d remember that tricks are for kids.

Sincerely,

One of Four

Adam Skrzecz is a third-year studying political science and history, former Treasury Assistant and a former member of the Student Senate