Nominations for the 2011 executive close at 4pm today and Ms Geoghegan (21) said her name would be on the list.
She said she had many goals and it was not realistic to try to achieve them in one year. She also wanted to oversee two major changes to the OUSA's structure which she had promoted this year - the restructuring of the executive from 17 members to 10, and the establishment of eight committees.
The possible introduction of legislation making membership of student associations voluntary is also looming. If the legislation was passed, the OUSA might have to make urgent changes to its operations before the end of the year which would impact on the way the organisation ran next year.
The OUSA constitution states presidents can only serve for two years, secretary Donna Jones said yesterday. If re-elected, Ms Geoghegan would be one of the few presidents to serve two years. The last to do so was Paul Gourlie in 1979-80.
The 1994 president Adrian Reeve stood for re-election the following year but was defeated, she said.
It had been feared the opening of nominations for the 2011 executive would have to be delayed because of complaints lodged over the results of two OUSA referendums held last month.
The majority of the almost 1400 students who voted supported proposals to downsize the executive from next year and move student general meetings and most decision-making online, but eight students lodged complaints about the referendum process.
Ms Jones dismissed all the complaints in her capacity as returning officer for the referendums, but four people - Richard Girvan, Margi MacMurdo-Reading, Joey Macdonald and a person who requested anonymity - appealed her decisions to independent arbitrator Prof Paul Roth, a lecturer in the university's law faculty.
Ms Jones said Prof Roth had considered the appeals more quickly than expected and had dismissed them all, allowing nominations to open last Monday as planned.
The appellants had raised various concerns including whether the OUSA had given the required amount of notice before the referendums were held, whether the executive had done enough to promote debate and discussion before referendums were held, whether they should have been held during the mid-semester break, and whether executive members had shown bias by urging students to vote in favour of the proposals on its own website and on Facebook.
The unnamed appellant alleged corrupt voting practices, accusing an executive member of "going round with a laptop actively pushing the 'yes' side".
Prof Roth said the claim was hearsay, the identity of the perpetrator was conjecture, the person accused of the conduct denied the charge, and it would be "therefore unsafe on the evidence offered to accept that what was alleged actually occurred".
