Matt Gelfand, Law ’12; Rachna Shah, Law ’13 and Daniel Vargas, LLM ’06, S.J.D. Candidate are running for Student Government President of the 2012 to 2013 Academic Year.
In his candidate statement with Vice Presidential Candidate Jordan Roberts, Law ’13, Gelfand, a 3L who will not be at Harvard Law next year, said that he would re-write the Student Government Constitution to, among other things, address the present Constitution’s sanction of closed Student Government meetings and amendment of its Constitution and bylaws without seeking student input or consent. After re-writing the Constitution, Gelfand says he will then turn over the post of President to a 2L.
In her candidate statement with Vice Presidential Candidate Andrew Chinsky, Law ’14, Shah, current Vice President of Student Government, said that she would boost fundraising efforts such that Student Government could host more social events, instead of HL Central; increase transparency within the Student Government; improve 1L orientation and student access to information on jobs and courses and create a “multi-cultural council” to help augment collaborative efforts with student groups and other schools. On Monday night, on her campaign’s Facebook page, Shah stated she had withdrawn some of her candidate statements on HL Central.
In his candidate statement with Vice Presidential Candidate Judy Lai, Law ’13, Vargas, current S.J.D. Representative for Student Government, said that he would increase transparency by publishing, among other things, Student Government’s budget and minutes; enhance diversity in school policy; pursue cross-program collaboration; work with DOS to streamline student organizations’ operations and initiate a Global Legal Education Forum.
Facebook “Likes” For Each Candidate’s Campaign Page (Updated 10:42 a.m., March 6, 2012) :
Vargas: 116
Shah: 100
Gelfand: 40
The student government just published its minutes on past meetings, finally, after all the “Transparency” appeal from presidential candidates.
I notice in 02/29/2012 General Body Meeting, the current vice president and candidate Rachna said (quote from the minutes)
(Rachna)
” Could produce a domino effect
1. They will ask for our minutes and then for open meetings and other stuff after that…”
I can imagine how unwilling she was to have a transparent HLS student government.
well observed.
Dear Jon and Jill Smith,
The minutes clearly indicate that anytime transparency came up I took the conversation towards a direction of ‘domino effect’ of requests to suggest that it was silly we were voting for these measures in pieces. Several representatives in that room can tell you, since you seem confused, that the quote you pulled was in support of disclosure; I’m the one that proposed the proposals to disclose. People don’t make a proposal, vote for it, and ask everyone else to vote against it.
Get your facts right.
How about this?
(Rachna)(from The February 29 General Body Meeting Minutes)
“i. We should make clear that our money comes from DOS. ii. Wouldn’t be surprised if our money is cut if our budget is disclosed”
I have difficulty reading this as a statement supporting transparency….
Rachna, in your long letter to students you say that Vargas/Lai have used the word “racist” to describe your position on student organizations. I have combed all of the Vargas/Lai campaign materials, and cannot come up with A SINGLE INSTANCE of the use of the word “racist”.
As far as I can tell, you are the first candidate to refer to race or to deploy the terminology of racism.
Do you disagree?
The timeline of events is interesting. Rachna Shah took credit for proposing the meeting minute disclosure in her campaign platform interview. But she proposed the disclosure after her opponent’s pro-disclosure campaign went public using “emergency” procedures– the “emergency” being that it would benefit her own campaign.
So, how come every single person who reads the meeting minutes interprets your statements as being clearly anti-disclosure?