UIMSA; HEARKEN TO MY PLEA!
Editor’s Note: The article was submitted by a 200 level medical student. The contents herein are the opinions of the author
REGARDING THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO UIMSA ELECTION RESULTS
It is my hope, fellow uimsite, that by the time you read this, you would have had your share of the unfortunate surprise popped when the “new” controversial results of the done and forgotten UIMSA elections were released, and if you are yet to enjoy your piece of the associational grunt, help yourself to your bestfriend’s room where you can feed your eyes and gossip merrily.
It is speculated that word of this “new” election results took to the winds around midday of the 11th of September, 2018, and although it would seem that this news has not garnered a pitch-fork riot, uimsites (pre-clinical) are very unhappy.
The whole situation here, with this counter result we have been fed, reeks of very shady business, considering the nature of the decision that was made.
One would expect that a play as big as this – to go against the votes of uimsites – be assented to by the larger community of uimsites because it was this larger community that made a choice reflected in the results of the election. Therefore, it quite off-putting that a closed-door meeting was held instead to decide the extent to which our choices are implemented and which of our votes are neglected?
The whole point of an election is to project the choice and conviction of the people. Elections are an extension of what we want, and of who we want to give us what we want, all of which are reflected in our votes for, and votes against candidates. Now, I might not be a personal fan of voting against candidates as I believe it fosters pettiness, but that authority was given to us, and judging from recent events, that authority has been taken away. The people had already chosen, how about not yanking us back and forth by the hair? If a new argument was brought forth regarding the interpretation of chapter 6, article xxi, number 16, of the association’s constitution which states: the candidates with the highest number of votes or with more “yes” votes than “no” votes shall be deemed to have been elected, and if the house decided to buy into these new ideas, it would have been better advised that she relay her plans to implement this new development to the rest of UIMSA before the next elections, leaving the obvious choice of the masses to stand for this tenure.
This is because the members of UIMSA voted with the notion that their veto would count in deciding who gets to represent them.
It is however still true that the decision to disregard the “vote against” was made in congress and congress is a framework designed to represent the interests of its people, but a decision of this magnitude – to nullify the “votes against” of the masses – implemented without consulting with the masses reads deprivation. This situation, I believe, could have been handled much better than it was. Another option would have been that congressmen relay this new development to the rest of UIMSA, seeking our opinion, before returning to vote on the motion so that a more representative mind would be fronted.
The members of UIMSA made a choice when we voted against certain candidates, and it is a shame that this choice is not respected. It is even more worrisome that when a counter decision was made, the emotional damages done to candidates that were dropped as a result of this development were not put into consideration. I mean, what will UIMSA do about these ones? Send them a counter letter advising that they not show up to senate meetings?
More so, If the new development is followed through, how are people supposed to respect the association and its dealings if a proceeding as weighty as an inauguration ceremony is revoked?
Democracy is “government of the people, for the people, and by the people” but right now, the people are lost.