Kiley Rae Prososki is the Student Body's Choice for Student Ex Officio at Metropolitan Community College and Should be Inaugurated, Not Disqualified

Student Ex Officio is the only student-elected position at Metropolitan Community College. Its purpose is to allow the student body to choose a representative to express student concerns, opinions, and interests directly to the to the Board of Governors, who run the college. The election took place on November 14, 2006. Kiley Rae Prososki, one of eight candidates, won the election by virtue of receiving the most votes in her favor.

Kiley Rae Prososki met with Dr. Terry Murrell on November 6, 2006, to go over the election rules, then immediately began campaigning. Kiley made sure to explain the rules to everyone assisting her campaign in order to keep it honest and legal. Enlisting approximately 15 friends to help, she is the only candidate to campaign at all 5 Metro campuses and to visit South, Fort, and Elkhorn several times each. The focus of Kiley's campaign was a little bit of humor and a lot of personal interaction.

On the other hand, several of the other candidates did not campaign. Of the candidates that did campaign, most waited until 1-3 days before the election to campaign by bringing a limited number of flyers to several campuses.

On the day of the election, Kiley's campaign began early with a visit to the Elkhorn Valley Campus. She later went to finish the day campaigning at the South Omaha Campus (SOC), mainly in the Industrial Technology Center, but also a limited amount in the Mahoney building.

One of the campaign rules states that during the election hours, candidates may not campaign within 100 feet of the designated polling computer. There is no rule against candidates being near the polling computer whatsoever.

Being very aware of the campaign rules, Kiley made sure to avoid campaigning anywhere near the polling computer. While she did stop in the commons several times, she simply replaced campaign flyers and sat down at tables to chat with friends. This is perfectly legal and in accordance with the campaign rules. She refrained from campaigning in the "off limits" area because she knew it could get her disqualified, and she knew that one of her opponents was keeping an extremely close eye on her as well.

The night of the election, one of Kiley's opponents, Nancie Velasquez, filed a complaint alleging that she saw Kiley violating rules by campaigning within 100 feet of the designated polling computer at the SOC.

Because this was considered a formal complaint, a four-member Election Disputes Committee was appointed to review the evidence.

The evidence against Kiley included Ms. Velasquez's statement; the statement of a friend of Ms. Velasquez alleging that Kiley approached her, offered her a brownie, and told her to vote for Kiley; and the statements of two staff members, in which both of them said that they saw Kiley at the SOC commons, however they could not confirm that Kiley was campaigning.

In Kiley's response, she clearly denied the allegation stating that because she was so aware of the campaign rules, she is confident she made no infraction on any of them both during her campaign efforts and the night of the election. Kiley's campaign assistant, Kristel Eyrich, confirmed this statement, as Kristel was with Kiley during the evening of the election at the SOC. Additionally, two Metro staff members including a Public Safety Officer and a custodian wrote statements confirming that they witnessed Kiley and she did not break any campaign rules, as they were nearby during the entire evening. Kiley included copies of her campaign flyers and handouts, as well as a summary of her campaign efforts to be included in the file that the Election Dispute Committee would review.

When the Election Disputes Committee met on the morning of November 16th, 2006, they voted on two questions:
Question 1: Is there substantial enough evidence to show that Kiley broke the campaign rules?
Question 2: (if so) Did Kiley's actions substantially alter the outcome of the vote?

Enough (three out of four or more) members of the Election Disputes Committee ruled "Yes" to both questions, thus disqualifying Kiley.

Ms. Velasquez became the recipient of the highest number of votes at the South Omaha Campus (not the overall election) and was named the President of the Student Advisory Council at the SOC. When she was informed by Dr. Terry Murrell that Kiley was disqualified due to her complaint and that she was awarded the position, she immediately withdrew herself from the election and the position. Dr. Terry Murrell told her he thought that was the best idea.

Essentially, Kiley's disqualification was a result of gossip and manipulation. She won votes by her extensive and organized campaign efforts, not by attempting to bribe voters with brownies too closely to the polling computers on election day. She was accused of such behavior by a candidate who waited until the night before the election to begin campaigning, and who knew that Kiley was the favorite going into the election. The evidence against Kiley comes down to her opponent and her opponent's friend's statements, as the two Metro staff members could not confirm that they saw Kiley breaking campaign rules. Kiley, on the other hand, provided clear evidencem, including two staff members statements confirming she conducted her campaigning in accordance to the rules, and she supplied her campaign materials to show that voters clearly picked her due to her presence in the week and a half leading up to the election.

Because of the rules set forth in the election memorandum, there is no appeal process and the decision of the Election Disputes Committee is final.

The Metropolitan Community College student body chose Kiley Rae Prososki as their new Student Ex Officio by voting for her on November 14, 2006. The Administration of the college chose to ignore the votes of the student body and to disqualify Kiley on virtually zero evidence.

Metro students, whether or not they participated in the election, have been cheated and used by the Administration of their college. They have seen the results of a system that failed and watched the college simply try to sweep the incident under the rug and quietly move on. They witnessed the Administration turn a blind eye, instead of correcting a wrong and giving value to each and every Metro students' vote. The Administration has silenced the very voice it chose to give the student body by creating the position of Student Ex Officio.