This is the second year in a row that voter fraud has taken place during an SGA election, which indicates that this is a trend. If this trend is to end, and if SGA is to attempt to rebuild its reputation, an example needs to be made of these students.
The four students who were disqualified for voter fraud should face disciplinary action from the University.
According to the 2011-2012 Student Handbook, these four students could be in violation of the following sections of the Disciplinary Code: 3.6 Theft; 3.2 Disruption/Obstruction; 3.7 Possession of Stolen Property; 3.9 Unauthorized Use of Property or Service; 3.18 Misuse or Abuse of Computers; 3.19 Falsification of Records; 3.20 Misuse of Identification and 3.23 Aiding and Abetting.
If found guilty of these violations, the University has the power to suspend, expel or place these students on disciplinary probation.
Of course, the University could settle on a less harsh punishment for these students in the form of a verbal or written reprimand, or another form of light punishment listed in the Student Handbook.
However, giving these students a light sentence would be doing a disservice to the students who were the victims of this fraud — all UH students.
The four SGA members who were disqualified have soiled the reputation of The University of Houston. We need to show the rest of the nation that the conduct of these four students does not reflect the conduct of the rest of our student body.
The best way to do this would be giving the four students responsible for fraud the harshest punishment possible. We need to show the rest of the nation that the behavior of these four will not be tolerated at our University.
After they have been punished, SGA should try to rebuild its reputation — if that is even possible at this point.
and you think this why? you haven't even provided a reason as to why your claims may be true
instead you damn someone on an issue that you clearly dont have any supporting arguments
I completely agree with this column, however, I can't help but mention the fraud that went on during the previous election with Harding. If there ever was a more appropriate time to make an example out of someone, it would've been him. That way, maybe this McHugh-Aijaz incident would never have taken place to begin with. While I do think McHugh, Aijaz and everyone else involved should be punished, I don't think they should be suspended from the university. Maybe the best punishment might be to disqualify them from serving the SGA in any capacity, and elect whoever came in second.
That's the whole point of targeting Michael and his VP. Unfortunately, there will also be a group of people who try to mold elections to their fitting. Should people who commit these stupidities be held accountable? Absolutely. But so far we haven't heard anything about the connection to Michael other than the people who allegedly did this were in his party. No one, not a single person in SGA can claim that they have control or knowledge over what everyone in their party does during elections. This whole sham of a trial is like holding Bush accountable for the actions of Tom DeLay. Or Obama accountable for ACORN.
"That way, maybe this McHugh-Aijaz incident would never have taken place to begin with. "
So your argument is actually that cheaters should get a pass this year merely because they got a pass last year? It would stand to reason that the punishments last year were insufficient to prevent cheating this year, so calling for harsher punishments is only logical.
Didn't Harding promote Cedric? If Harding gets a free pass for cheating, then would it be possible that He and Cedric set this thing up just to take down McHugh? Becasue they don't know who voted for who, then it would easy to have those votes for Cedric's party then blame it on McHugh
For the love of everything that is holy, PLEASE stop watching Glenn Beck..
Cynicism is good for people
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Joe McKarthy, Richard Nixon & Vladimir Putin must have written this article. Since when did the DC become the judge, jury, and executionor?
Good god, there is not even any proof that any of these individuals committed fraud yet you are so fast to say they should be expelled for simple student elections. This is disgusting journalism on part of the DC and whoever wrote it should be ashamed to call themselves a Cougar.
considering that you posted an argument against the sufficiency of the evidence on the DC's other story (https://thedailycougar.com/2012/03/21/president-vp-senators-disqualified), I'm assuming you read it – it's clear that there is some proof, regardless of how much you want to blind yourself to it.
"proof". I have proof that you are guilty of this. maybe you should be expelled
The SGA Election Commission already determined the evidence strong enough to disqualify. Now, the administration should investigate. I do not see this editorial as judgment, only a statement of fact. If McHugh-Aijaz, et al., are found guilty by administration of their alleged misdeeds, they would in fact fall under these sections of the code we are all held to. These allegations of conduct unbecoming of a Tier One university MUST be investigated if we are to build integrity for both our school and a SGA with PR problems, as it is.
^This.
To bad the former head of the SGA Election commission would disagree with you greatly
It's amazing to me that a paper of such poor management and lazy reporting would ever make the claim that individual students who have not been through a judicial process, even one as corrupt as the forthcoming one will be, have disgraced this University. Before judging others and damaging real reputations you should consider your own. This is unacceptable and whoever oversees this paper should be held accountable for allowing this unprofessional Editorial to run.
Case in Point— a better way to handle this story: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state/2012/03/22/…
My assumption, Alek, is you do not understand the difference between an editorial and a news story; this is the former, the link you posted is the later. In an editorial, opinions are permitted. The story TDC wrote yesterday regarding the disqualifications was balanced. They asked McHugh for comment, he declined to comment. All parties were given the opportunity to say their piece.
What makes you think TDC is balanced? Also, what makes you think that Cedric (Harding the Cheater's favorite) did not set this up, or why did they spring this on McHugh on the last minute?
Johnathan, it is balanced because I am pretty certain TDC wasn't in Bandoh's pocket, either. Second, speculation is a silly game and denial is even moreso. What exactly are you accusing Cedric of? And TDC? The only thing sprung on McHugh, et al., was complaints properly submitted to and vetted by the elections commission. The Daily Cougar has nothing to do with this. Based on allegations, again already vetted, it is clear the potential for additional violations of the disciplinary code is great. Again, how does TDC play into this? Cite facts, not theory, man.
Didn't the Daily Cougar gave him an interview before the elections even start? Gave him the most space out of all the candidates? TDC is not balance, it was set up this way to throw McHugh's name in the dirt. Also, didn't the Election Commissioner ran with Cedric and Harding last year, and McHugh blocked his nomination as Director of Finance? Fact is that Cedric has everything to gain from this, and the EC has a bone to pick with McHugh. That is good enough reason to suspect foul play.
Tell me, how did McHugh block the nomination when McHugh was not a senator last year? How did he have any say to block Ramakazi from being the director? The other senators voted Ramakazi out for whatever reason without McHugh's say.
TDC does not like Harding either, they were the ones pushing for Harding's disqualification last year. It went to the Judiciary branch and was overturned.
I just spent some time looking at the past issues of TDC, and while you say Bandoh was given more space, I'd estimate in column inches, it was approximately even. The only difference was Bandoh and candidate McGee were both featured separately. I am not aware of why this happened, but I would say the reason was legitimate.
As a professional journalist for nearly the last decade, I can tell you newspaper space is limited unlike the Internet; everything from advertising sales to the weight and volume of available content to photography value can change a newspaper–and quickly.
Actually, Brandon, I do understand the difference. My problem is that for our University newspaper to lump together all persons is indefensible and unprofessional. My post is to point out that not one poor editorial, but yesterday's article, the day before's article, and the minor blasts that have occurred throughout the election cycle that provided no real journalism, but just regurgitation of quotes from a select few. My overarching concern is that the journalism at the Daily Cougar (whose journalists make up the editorial board) is lazy and either doesn't have the interest, time, or expertise to pursue quality journalism.
And if you disagree, my assumption is you don't read the Daily Cougar enough.
Alek, you should probably apply and teach them how to do real journalism then. I am not sure I understand what you expect. You probably ought to be more specific about how this paper is being negligent, but I don't see it.
I do not always agree with their editorial content (and most days I do not–to each their own), but the news reporting is solid and of value.
You can find me in OB reading The Daily Cougar every Monday through Thursday. I often leave it on the table in the back for someone else to read (sorry to those who must clean after my mess.) If you wish to watch me read on Friday in my room, you can schedule an appointment.
Hey guys, at monday 8pm is Michael McHugh's trial. It is going to be near the SGA conference. I know he is innocent, and he will be let off. If you think he is not, then come any way and watch the show.
I am fully aware of what "editorial" is. I work for a major newspaper as a columnist and am a UH alum. Tread carefully my friend. There is a big difference between editorial based on fact and slander. You my friend have very dangerously crossed the line.
And I work for THE newspaper of record (you know the one), have done so for the last four years, and am a current UH student. We can play this game all day long if you want, but I'm going to watch what develops tonight instead. Best wishes.
lol. you work for a website that is owned by the same company as NYT. that's a far cry from working for NYT.
why don't you show us what good journalism you've done?
All this hubub is nonsense, there needs to a reelection, plain and simple. If there was fraud or fraudulent voting, then that fraud needs to be removed and the best way to do so is via a re-vote.
Ahem, Bush V. Gore 2000 – recounting doesn't work, just re-vote.
it is impossible to have a fair election. The Daily Cougar has published so much trash about the candidates that it has destroyed their reputation. the Daily Cougar jumped the gun on meritless allegations and wiped away any possibility of this
UH SGA is a long way from being where it needs to be. Election fraud investigations for 2 straight years and even before last year are embarrassing to this University. Student leaders at other schools take note, UH administrators take note and everyday students take note too. The result is zero credibility and an uphill struggle for SGA on a national level, when dealing with the Chancellor’s Office, the Regents and when reaching out to students. I agree with TDC that enough is enough. Pending proper investigation something needs to be done and will be done this time around.
Dainel is correct. I base this on 12-years experience as a journalist for a major newspaper. I am embarassed and disgusted with the Daily Cougar and their blatant character assisination. Suspend? Your editorial board should be suspended for trash journalism. Fair? Hardly! Opinion? Base it on hard PROVEN evidence or keep your mouth shut. Make these candidates and "example"? Obviously this paper is biased to another candidate. Why then did not the current President who was accused be punished? Keep opening your mouth editorial board, and you will open yourself up to one big lawsuit. Your position as a journalist does not give you the right to push an agenda – shame on you all!
lawsuit??? are you serious?
no way you work for a major newspaper as a journalist. do you mean copy editor?
By the way, if I could jump on a plane right now, I would – just to be there to support the very students you are "retaliating" against – come on people – stand up for what is right – innocent until proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that someone is guilty – a student merely coming forward to make a complaint is not damming – anyone one can say anything – PROVE IT! I would be the first to shout from the roof tops the coruption that is going on with this SGA Board. Chancellor? Student Advisors? Is this how people should be treated? This isn't the seventeenth century folks.
so you're mad at student-journalists for having an agenda, and your answer, as a Real journalist, is to come here and have an opposing agenda?
I blame Greenpeace. If they had not harassed students on the daily bases with there, "save the environment with my clip board brah" speech and attitude; maybe. . . just maybe Abraham Lincoln would not have been shot and these students wouldn't have been driven to participate in this asinine activity. Only way to prevent fraud is to do away with the representative form of this shame of a student government and promote a regular democracy. That way everybody talks, everybody votes, and everybody cheats. If everybody cheats, than technically nobody cheated because the playing field is even.
The part of the story that bothers me the most is the love affair between James Lee and McHugh, it sounds like James Lee is a jilted lover and is using the system to enact his revenge, kind of like people in divorce court… if their romance did not work out, they should not air their dirty laundry at this level. I hear their are secret tapes of phone conversations.