StuCo seeks power over good

Is there really a difference between Amendment A and Amendment B? We've heard much ado about the benefits of each, but how different are they really? Of course the details are different, but both propose to alter the current system for the "greater good" of the student body.

Let's take apart the two amendments. Amendment A proposes radical changes to our current form of governance. It first intends to clearly delineate the social and policy duties by elevating the position of Hopkins Organization for Programming (HOP) chair and then creating 20 new elected positions for social programming that would be accountable to the HOP chair. Student Council, however, would be reduced from 29 members to 19 "senators," who would be solely responsible for policy-related matters. This would be like creating two different senates, which comprise one whole congress.

Stephen Goutman, Eric Leslie, et al propose this change in numbers for a few reasons. Namely, they hope to alleviate resume-fodder-seeking students and rid the student council of excess "fluff." This, though, is inconsistent with their intent to reduce the number of students involved in student council to centralize power. All in all, they would end up with 40 students running the social and policy-related concerns of the student body, as opposed to the current 30. Thus, power would actual be spread more thinly than it being more concentrated.

Another problem with Amendment A is that about half the writers of the amendment are either graduating this May or going to study abroad this fall. When problems arise, who will be accountable for this new system of governance? If this amendment passes, consider this. The chairs of organizations, officers and other elected positions will not be announced until the fall of each year. Organizations like Spring Fair, MSE Symposium, the HOP and others usually get a significant amount of preliminary work finished over the summer. Is it fair for the student body to expect their fellow students, who just happen to hold an elected office, to begin the long process of organizing events while simultaneously juggling school work?

Amendment B proposes to alter the line of succession by allowing class officers to select and vote for a replacement from a particular pool of candidates, rather than forcing the hierarchical line of succession. Doing this will, in theory, allow an officer more involved with policy or social life to continue in that role, rather than be thrust into a position that is different from the one with which he or she is most familiar. Also, Amendment B intends to reign in the various committees and make them directly accountable to the student council so that they could alleviate some of the current inefficiencies.

What it comes down to is this. Both amendments seek to increase the power of the student council. Meanwhile, the two camps have varying philosophies about how to go about implementing positive change. Those in favor of Amendment A want to split the social and policy-making responsibilities, but doing so would inconvenience student groups for at least a year yet could turn out to be a much-needed reform. Amendment B does not have intentions to overhaul the current system. Rather, it wants to amend the current constitution to make committees more accountable for their actions and to safeguard the social and policy-related interests of the student body. In other words, both amendments seek to protect the "greater good" of the student body. But will bulking up the power of the student council (as both camps propose to do) benefit the greater student body? No.