Terry MacCormack and Nick Naraghi are great guys. They’re freshmen residents in Smith Hall, where I’m a resident assistant. They’re active in hall activities, they’re always surrounded by other residents, and I’m pretty sure they get good grades. That said, I hope they understand I’m not trying to throw them under the bus.

Twitter tells me both of them voted in the student elections this year, which isn’t surprising as they’re both on the Student Government Association (SGA) Elections Committee. Terry was number 1881 to vote. Nick was 1386. Would you look at that … Both are multiples of 99. Terry and Nick get free haircuts for life, courtesy of Floyd’s 99 Barbershop, through the newly-implemented voting incentives system.

I congratulated Terry the other day and asked him how he did it. He said he timed his vote very carefully. Apparently there was a vote counter on the main website that was being refreshed over and over and over again. That poses a number of questions – was the general student body aware of the counter? Did SGA recommend vote timing to anyone outside their circle? Is it right that current SGA members are eligible for prizes? And more importantly, why is Terry so excited about free haircuts when he sports a buzz cut?

I wish Terry and Nick wouldn’t have given me a reason to question their ethics. One little act like this shouldn’t be a reflection of their character. Let’s be honest, if there was a way to time your own vote a little more “carefully,” wouldn’t you do it too? It’s a little fishy, though, that two officials on the elections committee weren’t chomping at the bit to get their votes in right when the ballot went live. But it wasn’t just Terry and Nick. Mike Splain (never met him, but he’s the SGA chief of staff) tweeted that he was voter number 2,178 (22 times 99). Haircuts for Mike! Kelly Dwyer (never met her either, but she’s SGA’s director of art and design) was number 1,287 (13 times 99). Great timing! And what about the close calls? Andrew Phenix (SGA comptroller) tweeted that he was voter number 599, and that he was excited for his free haircuts until someone told him it was every 99th voter who won, not if your number ended in 99. Whoops. Alexander Chan (elections committee) was number 699 … same mistake? Will Pett (vice president of student services) was 2,476 …  not a winner, but one away from 2,475 (25 times 99).

Look, I get that SGA is a necessary evil, a self-proclaimed middle-man advocating for the betterment of the largely apathetic student body. I understand that it’s a bunch of political science/criminal justice major, pre-law kids, arguing around a campfire fueled by cash from our activity fees. And though I don’t understand why, I accept the fact that a handful of these kids are getting paid (real money, not even dining dollars) for giving their time to something that apparently 80 percent of the campus doesn’t care about.

But the one time SGA gives us a legitimate incentive to care, the guys in charge try to snag all the prizes for themselves. Is it any wonder why they had to push back the voting deadline because they couldn’t get the minimum amount of votes required? I’m not even bitter about not winning a free haircut. It just rankles me when the rich get richer by (allegedly) cheating the system.

I hope SGA releases the names of all the winners so I have something a little more reliable than Twitter to base my accusations on. Until that day comes, don’t forget to tip your barber.

– Steven Kesler is a middler
journalism major.