Apartments rep concerned about ambiguity, inefficiency
Joel Pitt
Issue date: 2/18/09 Section: Opinions
The SGA Reform Working Group has produced a new constitution for SGA, which will be presented to the student body by referendum. The suggested changes seem to make sense but upon a closer look many questions can be raised about where SGA's priorities lie. The proposed changes can be broken down into the "new" constitution and the changes made to election guidelines. I would like to explain how the proposed system may end up doing more harm than good.
THE "NEW" CONSTITUTION
The proposed constitution doesn't actually change much. But mostly it blurs lines of authority. The roles of the president and vice-president are not explicit anymore. SGA's leaders can pick and choose what they would like to do. In this manner, accountability is not increased because there isn't a way to identify who was supposed to carry out which responsibility.
The "new" constitution also has a huge impact on dorm presidents. Not having a room pick incentive may seem good, but what if a dorm can't find anyone to represent it?
Also, the "new" constitution calls for mandatory "brainstorming" meetings. But despite this additional responsibility placed on dorm presidents, the same expectation of not missing meetings applies. It is asking quite a bit to double the responsibilities and remove the incentives that currently apply to dorm presidency. And I haven't heard anyone complaining about the room incentive if their dorm president fulfills their duties.
ELECTIONS
Maybe I'm an idealist to believe that SGA's mission is to "advance student influence in the College community, and to protect and ensure the rights of all students." That was taken from the current SGA Constitution's preamble, and if it is carried out correctly then SGA can be an effective and powerful body on campus.
If elections move to the fall, I worry about the effectiveness of the SGA and the voice it will have. One of the main reasons for the proposed change is to increase accountability and democracy. While these are good buzzwords, I wonder if this increase of democracy won't hinder SGA. Before I am incorrectly labeled "anti-democratic," let me explain.
SGA's currently defined role is to protect the rights of students and be their voice to the administration. With fall elections, students would be without accessible representation for nearly two months. Students would still have class representatives and SGA's executive board, but the executives are non-voting members, charged with carrying out decisions voted on by the Presidents' Council. Should a situation arise where student opinion is needed early in the fall, SGA will be held voiceless until the whole body can meet. This also assumes that every dorm will have a representative run. If there is an empty dorm, we will still be asking the president (or vice-president) to appoint someone. Fall elections would mute the campus for too long.
Yes, it isn't democratic, but the Sunday of the first Loudness, SGA is meeting, willing and able to tackle any situation. Keep elections as they are: Vote No.
THE "NEW" CONSTITUTION
The proposed constitution doesn't actually change much. But mostly it blurs lines of authority. The roles of the president and vice-president are not explicit anymore. SGA's leaders can pick and choose what they would like to do. In this manner, accountability is not increased because there isn't a way to identify who was supposed to carry out which responsibility.
The "new" constitution also has a huge impact on dorm presidents. Not having a room pick incentive may seem good, but what if a dorm can't find anyone to represent it?
Also, the "new" constitution calls for mandatory "brainstorming" meetings. But despite this additional responsibility placed on dorm presidents, the same expectation of not missing meetings applies. It is asking quite a bit to double the responsibilities and remove the incentives that currently apply to dorm presidency. And I haven't heard anyone complaining about the room incentive if their dorm president fulfills their duties.
ELECTIONS
Maybe I'm an idealist to believe that SGA's mission is to "advance student influence in the College community, and to protect and ensure the rights of all students." That was taken from the current SGA Constitution's preamble, and if it is carried out correctly then SGA can be an effective and powerful body on campus.
If elections move to the fall, I worry about the effectiveness of the SGA and the voice it will have. One of the main reasons for the proposed change is to increase accountability and democracy. While these are good buzzwords, I wonder if this increase of democracy won't hinder SGA. Before I am incorrectly labeled "anti-democratic," let me explain.
SGA's currently defined role is to protect the rights of students and be their voice to the administration. With fall elections, students would be without accessible representation for nearly two months. Students would still have class representatives and SGA's executive board, but the executives are non-voting members, charged with carrying out decisions voted on by the Presidents' Council. Should a situation arise where student opinion is needed early in the fall, SGA will be held voiceless until the whole body can meet. This also assumes that every dorm will have a representative run. If there is an empty dorm, we will still be asking the president (or vice-president) to appoint someone. Fall elections would mute the campus for too long.
Yes, it isn't democratic, but the Sunday of the first Loudness, SGA is meeting, willing and able to tackle any situation. Keep elections as they are: Vote No.
Be the first to comment on this story