At 11:26 p.m, on the otherwise typical Monday evening of March 19, SA Senate passed a new set of bylaws to thunderous applause. The sound of the gavel came after over two hours of tedious, often intense debate on each disputed point in the proposed bylaws. And, while at times the discussion amounted to little more than petty bickering, anyone watching the deliberations could sense the careful attention to detail given to each word in the new bylaws.
For the most part, we believe this was the case. We believe that the authors of SA’s new bylaws were thorough in their execution and noble in their cause.
The revamping of the branches of government, empowerment of Senate and creation of the “executive directors” were much-needed overhauls of a behemoth bureaucracy, whose labored ways had clearly taken a toll on our senators and students alike.
On other hotly-debated topics, we agree wholeheartedly with SA’s decisions. A focal point of debate in several Senate meetings leading up to the passage of the bylaws was the fate of the Steering Committee, which dictates what will appear on Senate’s agenda. The final decision to prohibit the speaker of the Senate from voting in this committee in order to maintain his or her neutrality—except in cases of a tie—is laudable for its awareness of the expected impartiality in the speaker and deputy speaker of the Senate. We also agree with Senate’s decision to allow freshmen senators to remain elected by freshmen only, as opposed to being elected at-large like every other senator under the new system.
However, we have some concerns.
First, the at-large system of election is tricky. We feel that eliminating the election-by-class system is a risky move because it removes the guarantee that each class will be represented equally. The provisions the new bylaws put in place do make sure that “the top three vote-earning sophomores, juniors and seniors” are elected, but there is still some uncertainty about how the makeup of the Senate will turn out in future years.
Second—and more important—is the fact that SA did practically nothing to advertise the fact that it was altering the fundamental structure of our student government. Admittedly, most students are probably content going about their lives without a care for the activities of their student government, and the concept of SA adopting new bylaws is likely meaningless to them, which was SA’s reason for not publicizing the changes. But, just because SA felt that students would not care or understand the new changes does not mean that it should have opted to take this course of action outside of the public eye and in the throes of lengthy and complicated Senate meetings. If the changes to the bylaws were as important as members of SA claim they were, it doesn’t make sense that they excluded (or at least made no attempt to include) the student body in the process. We believe that it would have been appropriate to have been as transparent as possible before the bylaws were passed so that students could have heard what the proposed changes were and how they themselves would be affected by them.
SA attempted to publicize the bylaw changes through its election interest meetings, during which the nuances of the new system were explained to those interested in running for SA. This makes sense, but exposes a flaw in the organization’s reasoning: the new changes would affect potential representatives more than average students, and therefore there was no need to expose the changes to a wider audience.
While SA members might feel the effects of the new system more acutely than the average student on campus, our government still owes it to us to tell us about what they’re doing, especially if it is significant as altering the entire structure of the government. SA affects us all. It funds over 200 student organizations—our ways of exploring the community and expanding our horizons past the classroom walls. The body clearly has a huge impact on student life. To say otherwise is simply naive.
