Student Council's biggest challenge of late has to been to avoid being laughed at. It faced an election last year where some upper-class representatives received eight votes in their "winning" bid. Then the Student Activities Commission almost ran out of cash in October. And most recently, StuCo couldn't stop a freshman revolt. Unfortunately, it seems they do vote.
Students used to just sigh when StuCo was mentioned; now, they shake their heads at the mess.
But there's hope for our leaders-of-tomorrow: they're finally starting to think like politicians. When politicians face embarrassment, their first instincts are to cover it up.
And that's exactly what StuCo has done. With their "secure meetings" bylaw, StuCo seems to be following the "I never had sexual relations with that woman" philosophy: If no one knows about it, it's not embarrassing. Sheer brilliance.
A few details: Section four of Article 10 of the draft bylaws now under discussion allows a committee or commission to "secure" its meeting. No one who is not on the committee can attend, and while a transcript and roll call of all votes will be taken, they'll be kept secret.
Patience Boudreaux, the senior class senator of the Committee on Legislation, has been intimately involved in drafting the bylaws. She noted that the primary purpose of a secure meeting is to prevent lobbying or intimidation.
The biggest example she cited is the Committee on Legislative Appointments (COLA), which conducts interviews behind closed doors to protect the privacy of students running for positions like MSE Chair. Charles Reyner, the StuCo Executive President, echoed that reasoning, saying that if a meeting were closed, there would be no way to verify that a pressured member voted "correctly."
The secure committee system, unfortunately, flips the equation: Without accountability and openness, no senator will feel they need to fear anyone's watchful eye. Doing something foolish? About to be in a situation that might be slightly embarrassing? Feel that you'd like to control the information about a certain problem? Secure the meeting.
Besides, anyone who really wants to lobby or pressure StuCo isn't going to shout it out in the hall. They're going to do it quietly, using friends, friends who have connections, friends who can check a secure transcript, friends who can tell them if someone didn't uphold a bargain.
Like all good secrecy systems, this one has the appearance of openness: Any student can complain and ask that the decisions of the secure meeting be investigated.
Guess who gets to take a look? Other members of StuCo! The Committee on Authorization may review a secured committee hearing and decide if any misconduct has taken place.
StuCo, in effect, gets to decide when StuCo will be open and when StuCo will be secret. No criteria for when something will be closed. No criteria for when a hearing needs privacy protection. Just StuCo's word that everything's calm and under control.
Better then, to open it all up. StuCo members distribute my tuition dollars, and asked for my vote. I'd like to make sure they're using both wisely.
As for the COLA objection: COLA is the special case, not the rule. They can close those interview sessions. That limited need should not serve to shield StuCo generally.
At the least, the rules should never allow the Committee on Finance to close its meetings. There's too much potential for smoke-filled room politics to prevail there. These people have the power to accept or reject every funding request to StuCo and SAC. Students should know everything about those decisions.
But rather than pick and choose what's important and what's not, open up all the meetings. StuCo senators might actually have to think about what they ask and what they say, which wouldn't be so bad for elected student leaders. That's a good skill for those who spend students' money and appoint other students to manage it.
Some might complain that this level of openness is unprecedented. Patience said that COLA has never been open.
But we live now in an unprecedented world, where a new constitution has passed based on the idea that StuCo has lost touch with the student community. 'Stop taking us for granted,' said the student body, 'we're watching.' Having arbitrarily closed committees instead reflects a desire of many on StuCo to get as far away from their public responsibilities as possible.
It's time for StuCo to stop pretending: either they're actually student representatives -- or they're just a really well-funded secret handshake society.
Raphael Schweber-Koren writes an occassional column for the News-Letter.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.