StuCo attempts to reform

Like an alcoholic entering a twelve-step program, Student Council has set itself on a path of reform and recovery through the simple act of admitting they have a problem. However, unlike the Alcoholics Anonymous program, the reforms embodied in the proposed new Student Council constitution do little to get at the root of StuCo's problems.

First of all, the ineffectual nature of StuCo is mainly due to the nature of any elective body representing students at an educational institution. If you look at college newspapers around the nation, you will find similar complaints lodged against most Student Councils. Since most students (including members of student government) are only on campus for four years, very restrictive term limits exist that prevent student elected officials from becoming experts in negotiating the university bureaucracy and getting things done within the institutional framework, especially if their goals are in the least controversial. Also, meeting most of their constituents a few months before running for an office to represent them does not make for an especially responsive freshman delegation, which accounts for a quarter of the class representatives.

In addition, Student Council officials are usually some of the busier students at any university, which means that student government must compete for the time and attention for its members with classes, internships, sports, clubs and Greek organizations. This does not make for an especially energetic or entrepreneurial student government.

Most importantly, the stakes are very low in student government, which means that students have no incentive to educate themselves about the candidates and the candidates have no incentive to educate the voters, since even the most hyperactive student government would have a minimal impact on the day-to-day life of the average upperclassman, who lives off-campus and has already settled into a social scene.

With these highly diminished expectations about what student council can accomplish, let us take a look at the proposed reforms. Perhaps the most noticeable would be the contraction of student government from 29 members to 19, the reorganization of class delegations into "senators," and the replacement of the positions of treasurer, secretary, vice president for Institutional Relations and the vice president for Administration with the Hopkins Organization for Programming Chair and Student Activities Commission Chair.

We heartily applaud the new naming schemes. Apparently a nod to the familiar system of federalism, the names of class officers made no sense in a system where class presidents, representatives and treasurers all voted on the same Council.

Calling all of the class-wide officers "senators" will not only provide a morale boost to those receiving the new title, but it will make the system seem slightly more streamlined, at least on paper. Seeing as that there was not a single candidate for VPA this year, a reappraisal of the vice presidencies is certainly in order.

In general, the reforms proposed on Tuesday were a positive step, albeit a small one. Anyone who thinks that renaming some positions, eliminating others and shifting responsibilities around will create an energized StuCo that is both responsive and effective will be very disappointed.

The quality of the Student Council is directly proportional to the amount of attention we as a community give to the election of its members and the amount of attention we demand once they are elected. It has nothing to do with what titles they conjure up for one another.