|
In addressing a relatively simple problem, the new SGA Constitution proposes an overworked bureaucracy that will only damage Holy Cross student government.
BROCKLESBY
THE FROSH
24 September ’99
1 October ’99
12 November ’99
19 November ’99
28 January ’00
4 February ’00
18 February ’00
25 February ’00
3 March ’00
24 March ’00
7 April ’00
14 April ’00
Why fix something that isn’t broken? The SGA’s problem is simply the fact that more than half of its voting members are not doing their jobs.
|
COMMENTS ON THE PASSING PARADE
Wrong Answer to the Quorum Question
By Michael J. Ballway
CRUSADER STAFF WRITER
Y
ou know it's been an interesting SGA meeting when one of the reps, in making his point, says "as the saying goes -- there's not that many quadriplegic Eskimo lesbians lying around." And this is a key component of his argument. You know it's been an extremely interesting SGA meeting when the laughter subsides and you find that you -- and, indeed, many of your fellow representatives -- actually agree with him. Such was the case last Monday when your faithful correspondent and 70 of his closest friends gathered in Hogan 320 for that biweekly exercise in campus governance. What started out as a simple presentation by our elected leaders turned into an outpouring of dissent. As a special treat for us reps, the Co-Chairs had decided to present to us the new-and-improved Constitution of the Student Government Association (hereinafter, the "new SGA Constitution"), a document two years in the making. Whereas in the past the main criticism of the SGA and its leadership has been their irrelevance and "do-nothing" reputation, this document is the exact opposite. On one hand, it aims at establishing a relevant SGA with tighter control over monetary issues ("to find the power, follow the money"). On the other hand, it goes too far in trying to cure the organization's biggest problems. In addressing a relatively simple problem, the new SGA Constitution proposes an overworked bureaucracy that will only damage Holy Cross student government. The current administration has been dogged throughout the year by its inability to assemble a voting quorum and as a way of lowering the quorum requirement, the new SGA Constitution proposes a system of Common Interest Councils (hereinafter, "CICs"), which would replace the individual club representatives with two at-large "senators" from each of a dozen or so groupings of campus organizations. The result is a voting body pared down from 139 to 38, and (supposedly) a more efficient SGA, where every voting member attends meetings, as opposed to the less-than-half who currently do. The Constitution Committee which originally worked on this document was dissolved earlier this year, and its former membership is largely opposed to the CIC proposal. Thus, the chief supporters of the CIC concept are the SGA Co-Chairs, Katie and Ken (hereinafter, "Ken and Katie"). On the face of it, the CIC idea seems workable: instead of giving every representative a full vote in the SGA, reps come together to elect from among themselves the most dedicated legislators, to serve as senators. These senators would be more likely to show up at the biweekly meetings. Absenteeism would plummet, quorums would reign supreme, and business could get done at a reasonable pace. Yet cracks appear on the face of the new SGA Constitution when it is examined closely. The nature of the CICs is somewhat arbitrary: the current proposal lumps all "Multicultural and Diversity" groups into one CIC, so that among ABiGaLe, Allies, ASIA, Bishop Healy, BSU, LASO and other like organizations there would be two, and only two, votes on the SGA Senate. Meanwhile, in CICs likely to be dominated by only a few organizations ("Political," for example), there are also two votes. This system is patently unfair to organizations that are active in campus life yet have counterparts serving other constituencies. Meanwhile, the proposition that the BSU representative can be expected to also represent Allies is laughable. The "Diversity" CIC could easily end up with two senators from the "multicultural" camp, who would not necessarily vote the same way as the "alternate lifestyle" camp would. Not to mention the fact that not all similar organizations would vote similarly; BSU and ASIA are two very different entities. Our quotable SGA rep's comment about "quadriplegic Eskimo lesbians" was apropos - it's impossible to find a senator to represent so many clubs adequately. These criticisms, though important, are secondary to the larger question: why fix something that isn't broken? The SGA's problem is simply the fact that more than half of its voting members are not doing their jobs. Instead of forcing some of the most vocal and dedicated members of the SGA to give up their votes, SGA should simply expel its truant representatives. Cutting off funding to absentee organizations, for which Ken and Katie have been criticized in the past, is unnecessarily heavy-handed, but taking away the votes of organizations that aren't sending representatives to the meetings is far from out of the question. In fact, it's one of the powers explicitly granted to the Co-Chairs under the current SGA Constitution. Experience this year has shown us that only 70 members can be expected to show up to an SGA meeting -- on a good day. For the less-interesting meetings, turnout can hover around 30 or 40. Ken and Katie's CICs are a knee-jerk reaction, forever limiting senators to 38 in number, which may prove unnecessary in the future. Perhaps, a few years down the road, SGA meetings will become more interesting and a larger number of students will attend. Ken and Katie talk about this new SGA Constitution lasting for five, ten, or even fifteen years. These restrictions on the number of senators could be obsolete after two or three. The CIC proposal aims at lessening the number of voting members by forcing some of its most vocal reps into advisory seats. A simple problem with a simple solution -- the absentee voters who should simply be removed from the voting rolls -- has morphed into a complex proposal for another layer of bureaucracy. Forcing the multicultural clubs to find quadriplegic Eskimo lesbians, or suffer an acute loss of representation, while other clubs are over-represented, is too high a cost for a shortsighted solution to the quorum question. This article ran in the 24 March 2000 edition of The Crusader, on page 9 (second page of Opinions section). |