Senate on the rocks

Once again Student Senate has reached an impasse. Five student senators have resigned in the last weeks, leaving 10 open seats. This would not be so alarming if not for the fact that there are only 11 candidates. When you consider that two candidates, sophomore Chris Anton and first-year David Jessop, are guilty of some fairly serious election transgressions, we find that Student Senate once again will be filled under auspicious circumstances. Charges of favoritism, election rigging and conflicts of interest have sullied yet another election.

Perhaps these cries of foul play would be less damaging if Senate were an effective body when at full capacity. However, this is far from the case. Senate meetings are besieged by infighting and quarreling, impeding the effectiveness of the body when at full strength. It seems that there are elections every month to replace the droves of resignations. Due to the fact that Senate is rendered almost powerless when not at quorum, Senate's inability to maintain anything resembling a full staff leaves it impotent for a dangerously large portion of time.

There are many dedicated senators who undoubtedly work very hard to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of Senate. It is unfortunate to see such hard work undone by the fighting and volleys of unfairness leveled on a weekly basis. Now is an important time for Senate. With Senate trying to amend the chartering process and the committee assignments to be filled, it is important that Senate become an efficient, cohesive and effective body. Unfortunately, judging by recent history, this will not become a reality for a long time.

Senate has been a dog chasing its tail for too long. Drastic changes must be made soon. Since Senate cannot remain at full strength long enough to evaluate itself and take the necessary actions, it may be necessary for the administration to make the changes. While this may be against its charter, and at the very least undermines the Senate as a student run body, this may be the only course of action. It would certainly be best for everyone if Senate could save itself; however, this does not look like a plausible option. Perhaps Bill Stackman, the group's advisor, or Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith could at the very least recommend some course of action to revive this reeling organization.

Students should redeem themselves

Called on to find beds for an overenrolled student body, to consider LGBTU's request for a program hall and to deal with the ever constant stream of students coming into its office discussing housing and dining options, Residential Life and Services is experiencing a crunch time of some magnitude. This crunch is further augmented by unfilled positions in its staff under the guidance of its interim director, Yeworkwha Belachew. Belachew replaced Deborah McNish last spring.

In no way should Res Life's importance be underrated, nor its transitions ignored. Almost every aspect of basic student existence is taken care of by this administrative department. Those who are concerned with the administration not listening to students should take notice of a key decision in the works.

Belachew and Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith have taken preliminary steps to opening the director position for candidacy. Once the search for director of Res Life is opened, candidates will be announced and student input welcomed. Early discourse between students and administration could influence the definition, as well as student choice in administrators. Belachew has served the College well for over 20 years, and though it is not confirmed if she will run for director, her status here should be treated with respect and delicacy. It is important to recognize outside input as healthy and potentially good for the campus as well, to listen and to extend courtesies of welcome to those who come from other places.

It is an unfortunate for the College that first-year students cannot recall the Cox protest of last April. Unfortunate because there was a lesson to be learned by those involved and those who observed from across Wilder Bowl. The search for a director of Residential Life in no way has to turn into a similar incident, nor does it seem likely that it will. The opportunity exists for students to assert themselves in the selection process.

When future forums are announced and students invited to converse with administrative candidates, will students attend the sessions? Or will they wait until after it is too late and then claim that the process was not democratic? Will students look at an open candidate search objectively or will they openly attack outsiders they have never met?

This is the students' opportunity to act honorably from experience and be wisely involved. And for what better cause than Residential Life?