It’s interesting that the St. Cloud Times is questioning the SCSU referendum investigation on its opinion page. Further, the Times apparently isn’t curious about things the administration did. First, here’s what they wrote about the investigation:

First, a recap based on news reports. Students voted Dec. 2-4 on a Husky athletics funding referendum, a restoration of Homecoming referendum and the election of 12 senators. Results were to have been released Dec. 5 at a Student Government meeting.

However, at that meeting, it was announced Student Government’s judicial committee would review the results, and a “professional investigation” was planned. Leaders refused to provide more details.

A news release the next day from St. Cloud State noted that “to maintain the integrity of the review, causes for the review will not be released.” It also stated results are expected to be released Thursday.

In other words, the SC Times knew that the administration was, at least tangentially, interested in the results. Why, then, wasn’t the Times interested in this press release:

If the Student Government hasn’t explained why the investigation was launched, how can the administration insist it knows that the athletic department funding pass? After all, we’ve been officially told that this is a Student Government investigation. How would the SCSU PR Department, whether it’s Adam Hammer or Loren Boone or someone else, have even a hint of what’s happened?

When I wrote this post, I questioned the administration’s posting of a different-looking press statement. In that statement, it was reported that the referendum passed “by a margin of XXXX to XX.” The statement is titled “Students approve Husky Athletics funding.” Apparently, the administration is semi-omniscient. They know students passed the Husky Athletics funding without seeing the ballots. They just don’t know what the final count was.

What’s interesting is that the Times’ editorial board didn’t question the administration’s ‘official statement’. In a situation shrouded in unknowns, shouldn’t the Times attempt to find out why the administration issued this mock official statement? I’d want to know who authorized that statement. Further, I’d want to know why the administration is inserting itself into the middle of this investigation.

I don’t doubt that that wasn’t their intent. Imock statement after finding out that an investigation has started can’t help but insert the administration into the story.

There are lots of questions to be answered on this, starting with finding out why the administration inserted itself into this situation.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply