Letter to the editor
by Elise Smith
SGA Secretary
1 felt a little misrepresented by your
candidate table. You only put down one
of my three goals for SGA and it made me
sound stupid. Also, for the question,
“why are you running” you wrote that I
had no response and that is quite untrue.
I specifically said ‘refer to question 4’ and
you could have used any of that material.
Instead, you made me look as if 1 had no
purpose, no reason for running. I also
found it very unfair that for Jess
DesRochers you wrote all ‘no response’
when she most likely didn’t receive the
email and had no idea that you were
publishing any material of the sort.
Next time you or any other writer
decides to publish a candidate’s stance,
you should make sure to represent them
accurately. If a candidate gives you a long
answer (like me) you could simply write it
in a simplified form (which is what I was
expecting) using a few actual quotes. 1
suggest the Clarion not do anything like
this again unless it serves its actual
purpose: giving the students a clear idea
of who the candidates are and what these
persons stand for.
The Clarion
Page 11
A response to complaints
by Hall Penn
Editor-in-Chief
We have received several complaints about the way The Clarion, and 1, handled
reporting the candidates’ positions for the Student Government Association elections m
our last issue. One candidate said that she never received the questions for response,
and another said we misrepresented her responses. 1 want to take this opportunity to
explain our side in this matter.
One candidate running for SGA secretary complained she did not receive an em
sent out that asked for each candidate’s position on a number of topics. She didn t
receive this, she said, and in an email to the student body she stated she was email
challenged” and that was the reason she “did not send a response.
First off 1 would like to say that the majont, of candidates returned the ernad and
had their positions published. Only two did not reply to the email, and so we had no
“ ria'^stake h, not pnttlns Mhley Cu„is- n»e on the list, hut .is ™
was on our published list of candidates; however, we had to put No P
‘“'iToI li.e to say that anyone running for the position of
published in our pieee_
The other complaint, by blise smun, elected. Her response
represent her response and in so the email we sent to the
to the question “Why are you running
candidates, there was a disclaimer that sai answer to “ #5” were
length” in he, response, Elise did not tell us „lth
suitable for use, and the fear was that we won Response” as
Elise and she would say that we were m.srepresent.ng her. So we put
her answer. , to the question “What are
Elise complained that we put on y one go government in the next
the top three issues that need to be a resse^^^
year?” We did this because as much ^
three different issues. Every candidate s responses
Elise’s.
, 1 • tuct che “found it very unfair that for Jess
Also in her complaint was the claim
DesRochers you wrote all ‘no response w en
and had no idea that you were publishing any material
re:nS rth^^rt; s::der(^d fa^ty .d staff) to check up on the
reporting and information it a
- rto^e'
encouragement.