Amendment A spells disaster for new student government

A healthy and constructive debate has emerged regarding the role and function of Student Council. Some individuals claim that the burden of social programming has prohibited some officers from performing their work on policy related matters. Several years ago, Student Council was taxed with another burden, budgeting allocations for student groups. As a solution, it divested such responsibility to the SAC as an independent commission. From observation of today's SAC and recent budget allocations, the measure was a clear success.

Therefore, Amendment A must sound reasonable, if not appealing. The responsibilities of social programming would be divested into a new board or commission. As a result, Student Council would be more able to handle policy work such as the meal plan and upperclassmen housing. In addition, a new board would be able to efficiently focus on social programming. While the overarching principles may seem sound, the fine details and mechanisms spell guidelines for disaster.

Ironically, Amendment A serves to destroy the SAC and jeopardize the ability of student groups to plan activities for the upcoming year. Almost all of the major student-run groups on campus exist within the current by-laws of Student Council, which are only valid under the current constitution, as well as Amendment B. To be specific, the charter for the SAC, a Student Council organization responsible for allocating over $400,000 to student groups, and its umbrella organizations exist through the Student Council's by-laws. What the proponents of Amendment A do not tell you is that passage of Amendment A voids the current by-laws of the Student Council. Without the existence of the SAC and the crippling of funds, over 120 student groups will not be able to effectively plan events over the summer. Student groups would be unable to request funds or to spend the over $400,000 in allocations, preventing them working efficiently. Some groups that would be affected include the MSE and Foreign Affairs Symposia, Spring Fair, the HOP, as well as cultural groups such as DSAGA, SASH, and IAC. The future of groups like club sports, the Outdoors Club, various religious organizations, and even the News-Letter will also be jeopardized by Amendment A. Even graduation activities like the Booze Cruise, Senior Formal and, most importantly, securing a notable commencement speaker will be hampered.

Sufficient time does not exist for the proponents of Amendment A, who are mostly seniors, to draft a new set of bylaws and have them approved before the end of this semester. Proponents of Amendment A falsely argue that the newly elected Student Council can write new by-laws within a short period of time to become fully operational. However, in addition to Student Council, time must be provided for each of the individual student groups to write and approve new constitutions and by-laws compliant with Amendment A. In addition, Student Council would be required to approve those additional documents as well. The earliest time in which efforts could begin would be May 1. To approve its documentation, the SAC would have to call an additional General Assembly (GA) during finals to approve the new documents. If enough representatives have made plans to leave for home or are unable to attend, such organizations may not be able to even hold meetings to ensure compliance with Amendment A. As a result, a real possibility exists that many student groups will not be able to function over the summer. When I pressed the authors (Stephen Goutman and Eric Leslie) of Amendment A to delay the effect of their constitution to the 2003-04 year to prevent such an outcome, they dismissed the concern and stated they wanted to have something before they graduate.

Also, the timing of Amendment A seems subject to question. The referendum was submitted well into the election season of class officers. Timing Amendment A to take effect on May 1 seems ridiculously unfair to those candidates who have already decided to run for office and to the constituents they will serve. Those individuals may be running for positions that may no longer be defined by May 1, and some will be forced to choose between a social board and the policy arm of council. As a disservice to the student body, the best individuals for the newly defined positions may not be elected. Proponents of Amendment A state that the newly elected officers could resign if they did not approve of scope of their new position. Here lies another flaw: The more individuals that resign, the more difficult it becomes to hold a meeting and make the necessary changes for compliance.

In addition to the threat to student life, a fundamental objection that still remains in my mind, is why change the constitution? The constitution does not define any of the responsibilities of the Student Council. Such responsibilities exist only in the by-laws of Student Council. With a same referendum, the proponents of Amendment A could have passed a measure to change the by-laws of Student Council and taken care of these issues that I have brought up. For these reasons, Amendment B seems be more reasonable. Proponents of Amendment B make negligible changes in the constitution of Student Council, permitting the bylaws and constitutions of SAC and other groups to maintain intact. Still, however, it pledges to make Council a more effective representative of undergraduate interests, achieving many of the results recommended by Amendment A, without jeopardizing other student groups.