“Never be afraid to speak your mind on relevant issues; good leaders stand for relevance and they are never afraid to face the facts head on. Bad leaders see the problems, close their eyes and do something else.” 

            -Israelmore Ayivor

Chicago State University- an institute claiming to be ‘on the rise’ while still employing those whose mission is to bring the school down, treat students as their puppets, and control Student Government Association so it does not have strong leaders who does what is ethical. Yes, you’ve heard right, SGA elections once again, has been shut down, and for those of you confused, let me give you the whole run down on the shadiness done by no one other than administration and CSU students. 

Hmmm, where shall I begin when so much has happened. I would like to commend the Board of Election who took their time to read, understand, hear, and to see the process through in a fair manner. Students were to receive a packet starting Friday, April 12^th, and they were due back to the Board of Elections time stamped and completed by Friday, April 19^th. Apparently, Ms. Edwards, the SGA advisor and director of Student Activities, decided to disregard the rules. Two members of SGA who were the only two members who claimed not to know about the packet pick up days, were given applications AFTER the application process was complete even though is it was the Board of Elections duty to hand out packets. One of these members left for an event on Monday and returned on Wednesday morning while the other, who just so happen to be his significant other, claimed to have a death in the family on Tuesday. First off, none of this was communicated with the Board of Elections until after the fact. Second, these two members duty was to oversee the SGA informational where packages were disseminated. The Executive Secretary even emailed the entire Legislative Branch of SGA filling them in on the process. The dates and locations about the informational were sent via email, various Group Me chats for students, and CSU_getinvolved Instagram page. Also, their packets were both incomplete. The packet requires the applicants to fill out the packet in its entirety, two letters of recommendation, an essay, and 150 signatures. Both of the candidates did not have enough signatures, nor did they have all their letter of recommendations. By the way, all of this is in additional to the facts stated above. The Board of Elections had more than enough reasons to not accept their packets and disqualify them.

I would like to shed light on the former Miss CSU, at the time was Miss CSU. In case you didn’t know sis, it is illegal to make changes on a petition after signatures are obtained. You wrote down on the packet tracking sheet in front of the BOE that you were running for one position, leave out the room, consult with Ms. Matoya Marsh and Ms. Edwards, and now choose to run for another position and scratch out IBHE to Vice President. It even states on ALL petition sheets in the packet that scratch outs were not allowed or accepted. Also, Ms. Marsh and Ms. Edwards, why would you all tell her to run for a position on SGA that for one, she did not meet the qualifications for? Two, if the former Miss CSU did not plan on being part of SGA in the first place, why did you all put the bug in her ear and push her to do it? Both of you incorrectly misinterpreted the constitution and ill-advised a student by telling her that Miss and Mister CSU counts as time served on SGA. Sounds like a hidden agenda, doesn’t it? Or, do you all need a student on SGA who can do all administration dirty work, such as propose that we lower the GPA for the Executive Branch from a 3.0 to a 2.5? Who is benefitting from this? Ms. Marsh and Ms. Edwards or the students? 

After these three students were notified by the Board of Elections of their ineligibility, they were livid. So livid, the two members of SGA who could not run in the elections tried to impeach the chair of the Board of Elections, the SGA President, and Vice President. The killing part is, these two members have not done ANYTHING regarding SGA, showed up to an event, help plan events, and come to SGA meetings on time and not leave early. It’s truly disappointing that the one branch of Student Government Association could only find time to come together to impeach the true leaders on this campus instead of doing some actual work on the campus such as getting signatures for their petitions regarding 

• ·      a daycare faculty
• ·      the issues in the Café
• ·      Facilities and Maintenance.

They all gathered to have two meetings to impeach these members in an unconstitutional manner. The SGA Speaker of the Senate, now Mister CSU, even took it upon himself to harass and bully the Board of Election members as well as other members of Student Government Association. Mister CSU, did you oversee and help lead all the pettiness? Chicago State has some excellent student leaders, wouldn’t you all say? 

You all want to know what I think really stirred the pot? The fact that the former compliance officer of the Board of Election from Spring 2018, who blew the whistle about the misconduct from last year’s election, came back this year. Yes, she is the Vice President’s sister, but where does it state in the by-laws that former compliance officer could not be on the Board of Elections? If all rules and regulations of the elections process were followed by her sister who was a candidate, what reason would Dean Crawford, Ms. Edwards, Speaker of the Senate, and the other two members have to attack her? Is it because Ms. Edwards was under judicial review because of the former compliance officer claims? Ms. Edwards even told me the former compliance officer might have to disclose the fact that the candidates is her sister, not remove her from the BOE. Why was this not addressed from the start? Why wait until the week before elections to say something? Was this always the plan to get elections shut down? Not only did the Speaker of the Senate attack the Vice President the ENTIRE semester because she was appointed to the position after serving on SGA for a year, but her sister as well. Emailing the Board of Elections questioning them and even personally reaching out the Board of Elections chair to attack and bully her. The Speaker of the Senate claim all semester has been that the Vice President did not serve as a Senator and therefore should not be VP even though she was appointed the Chief of Staff and served one year and then appointed Vice President the next scholastic years. He accused her of not having enough experience to plan a Gospel Concert to unite the campus and community because she was not a senator (not sure how that correlates.) He nor the Senate thought this would be not be a well-attended event or money well spent. Speaker of the Senate or shall I say Mister CSU, VP is part of the professional music industry and has been for several years; she is over qualified. 

Michael Crawford, I almost forgot about you, but, how could I? It was ultimately you and Ms. Edwards job to settle the differences in SGA before they got this bad, and your solution is to have leadership training that is already offered to students twice a year and mandatory for members of SGA to help settle differences. You came to an SGA meeting to embarrass the members of the Executive Branch by throwing, yes literally throwing a piece of paper about how the election had been cancelled yet again. How did the other members of SGA know about this but 3? The three in the election. Weren’t you emailed back in February of 2019 about Speaker of the Senate belittling me in front of the entire SGA? Didn’t you tell me to talk to Ms. Edwards who did nothing ? And then when this happened a second time, you instructed Ms. Edwards to meet with the me and Speaker of the Senate about the Anti-Bullying Policy here at CSU and encourage us to work together. Apparently, it seems like Ms. Edwards is the boss and you are one of her employees. And why is Ms. Marsh always in the loop and in the meetings with you and Ms. Edwards? You can literally type in the words ‘Matoya Marsh corrupt’ and she is mentioned in a lawsuit as a defendant as well as the CSU Faculty Voice blog that highlighted her wrong doings. Is this really the type of company you and Ms. Edwards keep? In case you all had not been informed, check out this blog http://csufacultyvoice.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-watson-administration-covers-up.html

While we are on the subject, let’s talk about how weird and susceptible it was last Saturday at the Mister and Misses CSU Pageant when it was time to announce the winners, and Ms. Marsh says there needed to be a recount done because it was ‘too close.’ We were never informed if she recounted the votes and then it was a new winner, or why she conducted the recount herself if she was not a judge. Some of us are just a little puzzled, and after the past situations your name was brought up in, that makes students a bit concerned. 

Moving on, let’s review Dean Crawford’s email as to why the election was cancelled. 

I already addressed the former compliance officer being part of BOE for the SECOND year in a row and the real problem everyone had with her. Second, If the BOE failed to post candidates/decisions to students within the proposed timeframe, why did all the candidates who were eligible and completed the process correctly at the mandatory Procedures and Rules meeting Monday, April 15^th? They were at the mandatory debates as well. The only students not a part of this were the applicants who had not completed the application process correctly. Ms. Edwards admitted to the BOE to giving the packets without their permission which is unconstitutional. So, when you ignore the process, there will always be problems, and the BOE stated that if the election process had not been tampered with, we would not be in the current position. Third, Michael Crawford claims we had little to no advertising of the election or candidates. As I stated before, the information was e-blasted to every students’ email, on CSU_getinvolved Instagram page, The Source Group Me, and the 6 candidates got 150 signatures from students on campus regarding the election. We are not responsible for those who do not check their emails or the school’s social media. Dean Crawford, did you know more people showed up to the Candidate debates this semester than they did last semester? You popped your head in to go to a meeting, walked right past the debates when your meeting was over, so I know you seen the support candidates had. They even had a chance to ask the candidates questions about changes that needed to be made in the school. Apparently, people were informed; maybe you did not care enough, or you were too busy working against SGA to even pay attention. Also, it is the CANDIDATES job to post flyers about their platforms and asking students to vote for them, not SGA! At a campus where ALL events have low attendance and students claim they did not know of events all the time, I’m afraid this point you just made was very inaccurate. 

Fourthly, SGA does not self-govern the election process. The Chicago State University Student Government Association Election Policy, Article I, section 1, B. The Board of Elections shall adhere to the Constitution of Chicago State University Student Government Association and be the only governing election body during the Student Government Association elections. Therefore, that was not SGA’s job. The only people who misinterpreted the constitution were those whose names were not going to be on the ballot and the Speaker of the Senate who misinterpreted SGA’s constitution the whole semester. The three candidates who were currently part of SGA cited every piece of the constitution correctly. 

Quick Questions, 

1.    Dean Crawford how well do you know the SGA constitution to make these accusations? It is pretty clear SGA’s advisor, Ms. Edwards, does not know the constitution seeing as though the Executive Secretary had to explain to her why the legislative branch could not impeach the SGA President and Vice President according to the constitution that was last updated April 1, 2014. 

2.    Ms. Edwards, how long have you been in charge of Student Activities and been the advisor for SGA? It makes me wonder if you are fit for your position especially when you watched the Legislative Branch continuously attack the Executive Branch all semester. Not once, did you come to our General Meetings when that’s part of the advisor’s job, but you made sure you were there Tuesday April 30^thto watch the look of disappointment on people’s faces when they found out the elections were cancelled. 

3.    Students, staff, and everyone else’s attention I have, did you know Dean Crawford refused to let us get a new advisor? He claimed he was not ready to do that, and that Ms. Edwards contract stated we could not replace her. Can we get a copy of that contract, please?

Fifth, The BOE scared the Dean and Ms. Edwards because they knew the process and could not be controlled by them. They refuted everything that had been done unconstitutionally with evidence. Then, last week after the BOE chairperson sent an email stating the wrong doings of Ms. Edwards and Dean Crawford, you all called the entire BOE for a meeting and asked the BOE and chair to retract their statements, and when she said no, you all needed a plan b. Operation shutdown the elections was in motion. How could they bypass the advisor and Dean when you all were carbon copied on every email sent? By the way, where does it state that the Board of Elections have to make their decisions including you all? That goes to show that when Dean Crawford and Ms. Edwards had their hand in the SGA election process, which again is unconstitutional.

You sixth point, Dean Crawford, what decisions did the Dean and Advisor make? Just a suggestion here, read Article II, section 5. Authority and Duties in the Chicago State University Student Government Association Election Policy. The candidates never received any email from the dean or advisor regarding the election. The only candidates who received an email from the Advisor was the current SGA members running for a position. Also, what rulings were made to SGA from the Dean or Advisor? The only ruling the SGA advisor made was on Friday, after the Legislative Branch came together for impeachments, and this was stated:

The legislative Branch then took it upon their selves to reschedule the meeting for the following day. None of the running Candidates disregarded anything or ignored any rulings. The problem once again were the two SGA senators who were disqualified and the Speaker of the Senate. If they were not going to be part of SGA next year, why would that stop elections, Dean Crawford? A new SGA was coming with a game plan which you would have known if you or Ms. Edwards came to the candidate debates. Also, if your so-called rulings were refuted, it was refuted correctly using evidence from the SGA Constitution and Election Policy. Isn’t it a student’s right to refute or disagree with anyone who is wrong? Or are you saying they do not have that first amendment right?

Dean Crawford, you all had all semester to help Student Government Association and you did nothing but read the petty emails and shut down the elections. SGA already was struggling because the elections were postponed from Spring 2018, and your solution is to do it again? Who says you will still be around to help? You are punishing the students who turned in their packets completed and on time because of those who didn’t. Is that fair? Is it ethical? Once again, who benefits? You basically made the decision to give everyone a chance who ruined their chance this semester. If you and Ms. Edwards felt like the Student Government Association constitution was poorly written, why was that not addressed before the elections? This constitution has been in place since Ms. Marsha was Student Activities Director in 2014, and in 2016 when Ms. Edwards took over, no one addressed the issue with the Constitution that’s been used for 5 years. Did it really take you all 5 years to realize that when you get strong leadership, the constitution may not work in your favor? 

So, the big question is, why is this a pattern? Administration, specifically those located in the Student Union Building, have always had a hand in the Student Government Association elections. Let’s go back to Fall 2013, when Student Government Association filed a lawsuit against the school, which included Ms. Matoya Marsh, and the students won. “In the federal complaint filed Monday, Preston and Bailey lay out a 165-paragraph narrative that alleges they ran for student government positions in 2013 and then became the target of retaliation after raising concerns over ‘autocratic and corrupt practices of several powerful and politically connected members of the CSU administration.’” Even student-ran newspaper, Tempo, was shut down who was voicing their concerns on the corruption here at CSU. No wonder the school is in no rush to restore the student newspaper.

Let’s go back to Student Government Association 2016-2017, when SGA President received text messages telling him what he better says and not say during Board of Trustee meetings to silence him. They pretty much told him to watch what he said before he stepped to the mic because his degree was on line.

Then Spring Elections 2018, two days after election packets were due, the current Speaker of the Senate submitted his packet to a Board of Election chairperson who lived with him in the dorms. He was supposed to be a write-in candidate but was somehow got his name on the ballot, but the SGA IBHE at the time  who submitted her package on time name was not on the ballot. The compliance officer told the Student Activities Director, Ms. Edwards, and the former Dean of Students, and they did nothing. After a series of events, the elections came to a halt and was postponed until Fall 2018, and current SGA members stayed in place until the next election. 

See the pattern? It is reoccurring and it will not stop until the administration stops trying to control the elections and sending their puppets over to Student Government Association to cause ruckus. As students, we demand better! Better leaders both students and administration. We demand a better Dean of Students, and we suggest maybe cleaning house particularly in the Student Union Building. We cannot be on the rise while still keeping employees here with hidden agendas and vendettas against their own students.  Our voices will be heard, and they will be taken seriously. WE WILL FIGHT UNTIL WE WIN.