Members of the Student Life Committee (SLC) proposed Wednesday to amend SLC's revised charter, giving the Dean of Student Life and Services voting power on all committee decisions and taking voting power from the committee chair. Because the committe did not have quorum, voting is being completed over e-mail.
The original revised charter, authored by the SLC Subcommittee on Charter, Purpose and Membership and approved by the Student Senate, proposed that the SLC consist of three voting students, three voting faculty members, one voting member of the Administrative and Professional Staff (A&PS) at large, the dean of Student Life and Services and two associate deans. The dean and associate deans would not vote.
Student senators were highly critical of the amendment giving the dean a vote and taking it away from the chair. They were also concerned that the changes could be passed without Student Senate approval. The other changes were approved by Senate. Senate reacted by passing a proposal late Thursday night that SLC submit the amended charter to the Senate for review before voting on it.
Senator senior Devin Theriot-Orr, who is a member of SLC, also made a SLC proposal late Thursday night which stated that only the changes not affecting voting policy can be made in the revised charter.
Gloria White, chair of SLC and associate dean of student academic services, said she did not have enough information to comment on the Senate proposal and that she had not seen the newest SLC proposal.
Senators objected to the amendment because, under the new structure, if a student were elected chair students would lose veto power on the committee. Senators also objected to the idea of the dean having voting power on a committee whose function is to oversee the dean's division. Under the Finney Compact, which defines the governance structure of the College, faculty and students have the power of oversight rather than administrators; according to Senators the SLC proposal takes away this separation of powers.
Students were also concerned that the dean would be able to appoint the A&PS staff on the committee. According to some, that would give the dean essentially two votes. White said this was not a completely correct assumption.
"Why [Cole-Newkirk] feels she needs to have essentially two votes on the committee is very unclear to me...I hope it doesn't have anything to do with the major changes in rules and regulations she's proposing next year, but there's no reason for her to feel so insecure about getting proposals passed. It's not that demanding to convince three faculty members and two students to pass something unless it's a bad proposal," said Student Assistant to the President senior Joel Whitaker.
The issue of voting privleges for the dean is central to the debate over the changes. White argues that the dean should have a vote on the committee because the committee makes policies the dean will have to implement. "To me it makes perfect sense to add the Dean of Students as a voting member - that way we can include the Dean at the level that he or she deserves to be included," White said.
"You can't pretend that a committee has oversight if the dean has a vote...A dean of students should be able to lead SLC by persuasion alone; that's how it's always worked. . . I think [Cole-Newkirk] is further alienating students and faculty by pursuing this. It will make them angrier and less willing to listen to good ideas," said Whitaker.
White proposed the amendment at the meeting after Dean of Student Life and Services Charlene Cole-Newkirk expressed her frustration at not being a voting member of the committee. Other proposed changes to the charter included minor wording and technical changes.
"I don't feel like my voice is heard in any way [at SLC meetings]. As a student coming out of Oberlin, this is especially frustrating... I always felt like my voice was valued here, but now that I'm the Dean, I'm the enemy... and it hurts. I have to say, these are the only meetings I really hate coming to," Cole-Newkirk said.
In addition to their concerns about the amended voting changes, senators were angry that the amendment was proposed by White when only three of the five voting student members were present.
"I'm concerned that it was set up strategically to exclude students at a key time," senator junior Joshua Kaye said.
White said it was unfortunate the committee did not have quorum to vote on the changes. She said the majority of members at the meeting felt the changes were a good idea, so they decided to move into electronic voting to try to wrap up business before the end of the semester. White said it is unclear what will be completed.
"I feel that the proposed amendment has not been adequately discussed. It significantly alters the spirit of balance and integrity of the original proposal that came out of the subcommittee," said Theriot-Orr.
"This is extremely frustrating because it is the elimination of an entire semester's worth of work for the entire subcommittee...I feel that if this amendment passes it will be against the spirit of everything the subcommittee has worked for," he added.
"I'm aghast that the head of SLC seems to have been attempting to sneak in some very major changes to the charter. They're trying to take action without giving students a chance to respond...It's ridiculous to have a committee overseeing the Dean and have her voting. I'm really upset about this," senator first-year Russell Menyhart said.
Cole-Newkirk and other staff members at the meeting discussed concerns about the perceived adversarial relationship between students and faculty at the College and its effect on the SLC in particular. One purpose of the new charter was to eliminate such sentiments among SLC members, but the rift between senators and administrators has widened with the proposal of this amendment.
White said the students' strong concerns about losing veto power in certain circumstances goes agianst the increased consensus and teamwork that was supposed to come out of the charter process.
Faculty members at the meeting commented on the evident lack of trust between students and administrators.
"I'd like to see SLC operate as a partnership - that's the spirit I want to see behind it. It would be nice to see this committee work together at the same pace toward common goals," Judicial Coordinator Bill Stackman said.
"This shouldn't be made into a big fight between administrators and student senators. The issue is that since major changes seem to have been made, Senate would like to be able to take a look at the new revised charter and comment," Kaye said.
SLC members hope to reach a consensus to pass a charter in time to submit it for approval to the GFC at its last meeting of the year, May 20.
Related Stories:
