The Undergraduate Student Association Council did not vote on
the senate proposal at its meeting Tuesday ““ although it had
been listed as a voting item on the agenda ““ instead
continuing a discussion of its pros and cons.
General Representative Brian Neesby, author of the proposal,
said he made it an action item mainly to stimulate discussion and
prepare the council for an eventual vote.
“I want to get to the point where (councilmembers)
aren’t confused anymore,” he said. “I don’t
want this to be a discussion forever.”
The proposal would change the structure of student government
from the current 13-member council to a system consisting of a
20-member senate and a five-member executive branch, in which
commissions would have no vote.
Neesby said he expects the council to be ready to vote when it
reconvenes next quarter. But concerns still exist about the
proposed constitution for student government ““ specifically,
whether the senate system would in fact be more representative than
the current system.
“Twenty people is not significantly more representative
than 13 in an undergraduate population of 24,000,” President
Jenny Wood said. “To claim that 20 people can accurately
represent the views of 24,000 is very overstretched.”
Neesby acknowledged the number of senators is somewhat
arbitrary, but noted that he based the constitution on those of
other campuses governed by senate systems.
Facilities Commissioner Joe Vardner said only one new position
has been created since the current council system was implemented
in the 1960s, despite the fact that the student body has grown by
nearly 15,000.
“Twenty may not be the magic number,” he said.
“I don’t think there is a magic number. But 20 is
certainly better than 13.”
Wood and Cultural Affairs Commissioner Todd Hawkins suggested
that student advocacy and representation could be achieved through
other means like increasing student involvement in USAC.
Wood said she wants to expand presidential appointments.
“I want to find folks from the entire campus” with
diverse areas of expertise for committees, she said.
Wood added this would be more effective than having senators
focus on many issues, and would help lighten commissioners’
workloads.
External Vice President Jeannie Biniek also pointed out that the
proposed constitution does not set limits on the president’s
class standing. Under the current system, the president must be at
least a third-year.
Neesby said he did not see this as a problem.
“I don’t see any reason to limit the field of
candidates that way,” he said.
Biniek also questioned the proposed lowering of vote percentage
to approve constitutional amendments, from two-thirds to 60
percent.
Neesby said in his experience a two-thirds majority requirement
made it virtually impossible to pass anything, and that 60 percent
would make approval easier without lowering the threshold too
much.
The senate proposal needs a two-thirds majority vote to
pass.