EDITORIAL: Unnecessary confusion at polls

The phrasing of the referendum on UA funds made it hard for students to understand the issue. But if you had trouble making heads or tails of the referendum accompanying the Undergraduate Assembly and class boards elections this week, you weren't alone. The polls were in a state of confusion as students struggled to decipher the statement reading: "30,000 of the $34,000 allocated to the Undergraduate Assembly's discretionary fund for academic year 1998-1999 shall be spent by the UA solely on expenses that have been approved by the Student Activities Council. Funds shall be disbursed by the UA upon the request of SAC." From this text, it was truly difficult to recognize that the referendum -- which the Nominations and Elections Committee invalidated early this morning due to a misleading SAC campaign in favor of the measure -- related to the same controversial issue of fraternity-sponsored event funding discussed over the past year. Unless voters were familiar with the history of the issue, they had no way of knowing that this statement was a response to the recent UA decision to indirectly support Greek-sponsored events. In fact, there was no mention anywhere of the InterFraternity Council. And because of the vague wording, even knowledgeable voters had trouble understanding whether voting for the referendum meant the money would remain in a discretionary fund available to the IFC or go back to SAC. Furthermore, because Nominations and Elections Committee representatives at the polls are not permitted to explain issues for fear of bias, their vague responses to voters' queries resulted only in more confusion. According to the NEC rules governing referenda, the NEC "reserves the right to paraphrase any submitted referenda to eliminate bias or enhance clarity" in the final version. Obviously, the language needed to be cleaned up here. Why didn't anyone step in? And didn't the omission of the IFC -- a central player in this issue -- incur bias? If the NEC is going to continue to allow submission of referenda, in future years the organization must do a better job of ensuring that students understand the issues at hand. Delineating the specific results of voting to "adopt" or "reject" a referendum would make it easier for voters to recognize exactly what their support would mean. And if voters have questions, NEC representatives at the polls should be prepared to provide explanation without bias.