Following the unprecedented SGA runoff election between juniors Ari Gutman and Ari Neugeboren, which was initially called to address numerous factors that influenced the original election, some students have questioned whether the runoff complied with the Whitman Constitution.

Behind the runoff decision
SGA advisor Sheryl Freedman sought approval from principal Alan Goodwin to hold a runoff election after the original election yielded only a single vote difference between Gutman and Neugeboren.

The multitude of candidates posed potential confusion over having two candidates named Ari, and the approximately 180 non-voting students in eligible grades raised questions on whether the candidate with the most votes could accurately represent a majority of the student body, Freedman said.

Both candidates formally agreed to participate in the runoff before the public announcement. The runoff election ensured that one candidate would receive a majority of the student vote.

“It seemed like a fair and reasonable decision, and there wasn’t any opposition to it,” Goodwin said.

Constitutionality
The Whitman Constitution states that only one election will be held to elect a student body president and vice president. It also expresses, in two separate sections, that the candidate winning a plurality of votes, which doesn’t need to be an absolute majority, will win the election.

Following the runoff, Neugeboren’s friend, junior Brian Fisher, consulted the school’s Constitution and informed Neugeboren that the election didn’t comply with these specified rules.

However, another section of the Constitution conflicts with Fisher’s claim, granting final decision-making authority over all SGA actions to the principal.

“Because [Goodwin] made the call with me to have the runoff, the runoff is therefore legal according to the Constitution,” Freeman said.

Fisher still believes that this decision sets a dangerous precedent for future elections, he said.

“This shouldn’t and cannot grant the principal the ability to break other clauses in the Constitution,” Fisher said. “If this were allowed, then the entirety of the Constitution would be compromised and essentially meaningless as the rest of it could simply be broken at will.”

Proposed student court and other options
A few supporters of Neugeboren’s campaign suggested convening a student court, which is mentioned in the Constitution, to assess the validity of election decisions. While they have discussed the student court option with Goodwin, they’re currently holding off on this option to further assess alternatives.

As the Constitution doesn’t provide a specific set of rules under which the court would function, questions have been raised about its student composition and potential impartiality.

“I don’t intend on convening a student court for this as I don’t see how we would be an unbiased court, and I think that the runoff was done in a fair way,” Goodwin said.

Goodwin is still considering other options that could remedy the situation, including a possible co-presidency.

“I’m still pondering the entire situation, and listening to the strong appeals on behalf of the candidate that didn’t win,” Goodwin said. “There’s time to try to figure out what might be another step to take.”

Despite everything, Gutman and Neugeboren both agreed that they’re excited to to put their proposed policies into action as president and vice president, respectively.

“We have everyone’s best intentions at heart and it’s only going to get better,” Gutman said. “Nothing bad’s going to come out of this.”

They’ve also said they’re optimistic about next school year’s events.

“I look forward to working with leadership next year, whatever position I’m in,” Neugeboren said.