This week Student Senators appeared in dining halls and leapt onto tables with ballots, urging students to vote in the student referendum that began early this week.
For weeks, senior ex-senator Joel Whitaker, along with other ex-senators, concerned students and the current Senate have been discussing Whitaker's proposal for a new student government.
At last Sunday's Senate meeting, Senate discussed the proposed constitution with Whitaker and showed support for it. Wednesday the Student Life Committee (SLC) discussed and endorsed the proposal, pending approval by the student body.
In order to be implemented, the General Faculty (GF) must approve the constitution. Before the GF can do that, 50 percent of the student body must vote. Of that 50 percent, 2/3 have to support the constitution.
Right now the constitution is on the the table for Tuesday's GF meeting. If an item is on the table, it is considered approved unless someone decides they want to discuss it. But the GF will not be able to approve the constitution if 2/3 of the students have not voted by Tuesday. As of Wednesday night, about 20 percent of the student body had voted, according to Whitaker.
If the proposal isn't approved by Tuesday, the new government will not be in place by the time elections for next year's senators roll around.
Under the new constitution, all senators would receive a stipend. Whitaker said the money for the stipend would come out of the student activities fee. Whitaker said the tuition increase should cover the stipends. Because concern was voiced as to whether senators should receive a stipend, the stipend is being approved separately on the ballot.
Whitaker said he doesn't expect the stipend to pass, but added that he is surprised at how well it is doing right now at the polls.
The stipends would make Senate more accessible to low-income students, Whitaker said.
Aspects of the constitution that concerned senators dominated discussion at the meeting. Senators primarily addressed the issue of stipends for senators and the elimination of organizational senators.
The debate over stipends centered around the issue of whether students would react negatively to the idea and therefore vote against the new constititution.
"I don't think the stipend will pass," said senator Dan Persky, a junior. "Students aren't going to support taking away more money from other student organizations. Students would be mad if over $7,000 from the student organization budget went to the salaries of senators."
One senator suggested that only students on work study receive stipends. The suggestion, however, did not receive widespread support.
Senator sophomore Whitney Smith also expressed concern on behalf of the student body.
"People may see the stipend as an abuse of power," Smith said.
Whitaker defended the stipend as a way to increase overall productivity from the senators in office.
"If the stipend is not passed, then those senators elected are going to do a lot of work without compensation," Whitaker said.
Senator sophomore Nathanial Stankard suggested separating the issue of stipends and the new constitution on the ballot.
"It is politically inept to not separate stipends and the new constitution," Stankard said, "because it could kill the new constitution for the wrong reasons." He said the entire student body might vote against the constitution because they do not like the stipends. The Senate then voted 13 to 2in favor of separating stipends from the constitution on the ballot. The second issue in the new constitution raised concern over the elimination of organizational senators. Several students representing Students Overcoming Barriers in Education (SOBIE) attended the meeting to express concern about the elimination.
Under the new constitution, Senate candidates can have endorsements from different groups printed on the ballot. But they do not represent any one specific organization.
The old constitution calls for eight to 10 organizational senators to serve on Senate. Junior Elana Gartner, a member of SOBIE, voiced concern over whether the new system will allow SOBIE to be represented by Senate. She said that having a member of SOBIE on Senate has been helpful in allowing the organization to grow to include 200 students on campus.
SOBIE members are anonymous. Around 13 regularly attend meetings, but mailings go out to about 175 members. "We don't know who our members are," said junior Laura Iverson, organizational senator currently representing SOBIE.
"We are concerned over the restructuring of the organizational senators," Gartner said. "We need representation for an anonymous group of people, and we need the present system to do that," Gartner said.
Whitaker suggested the new system could represent an anonymous group of people as well. "The new system enlarges the definition of organization to include any community, which is more helpful," Whitaker said. "Giving endorsements to a senator would be the same as having them specifically represent you," Whitaker said.
Persky was skeptical of Whitaker's assumption that the new system will bring better representation to organizations because it does not assume elected senators will go out and get endorsements.
"The process of elections must address the logistics of getting endorsements," Persky said.
In a later interview, senior Devin Theriot-Orr said he doesn't like the endorsements. He said that organizational senators have a "clearly definied and large constituency. They can represent that constituency in ways that are very clear." He said that endoresements could turn into empty political promises which disempower the constituency.
Stipends were also a topic of discussion at the SLC meeting. SLC met to discuss the new student government proposal.
Senators who serve on SLC explained why the new government includes stipends. Senior Devin Theriot-Orr said that the stipends will make Senate more accessible to low-income students. Sophomore Chuckie Kamm said that the new Senate is much more rigorous and time-consuming than the present Senate. Theriot-Orr added, "People don't see it that way. No matter what we say people will see Senate as a slacking organization."
Assistant Director of the Student Union Tina Zwegat said that it was her understanding that the stipends would allow people to put their time and energy into Senate.
The nature of the advisory councils was also discussed. Advisory councils are issue-oriented committees that interested students would serve on. Members of advisory councils would draft proposals which would be presented to faculty committees. Student Senators would chair the advisory councils.
A memo to the GF includes the student government proposal and tells faculty where to find the constitution for the existing Student Senate. A note from the SLC explains, "We are cognizant of the time frame under which elections for next year's positions on Student Senate must occur. In addition, we are aware of the time frame within which the GF is working, and that is why we bring the document to you at this time."
The note also says, "It should be noted that in the most recent accreditation visit by the North Central Association in 1988 their report noted that student government was somewhat invisible. We believe that this revised student government addresses that deficiency."
Related Story:
