SGA scandal and apathy

Someone should scold Student Services Coordinator Drew Blackman for not reading his SGA Constitution before the last round of student initiatives.

According to Article IV, Section C of the SGA Constitution, for initiative proposals to reach the ballot, they must: 1) be submitted in draft form to the Student Services Coordinator (SSC) before a specified time and 2) have 100 signatures of support by a later date. Last week, Andres Chang ’05 submitted an initiative that met these requirements. Upon receiving Chang’s initiative, however, SSC Blackman demanded that a number of revisions be made. Some were excessively petty, such as the request that all profanity be removed.

Out of the litany of suggestions, only one, if not conformed to, would warrant the outright rejection of an initiative. The Constitution is clear on this point: “All recommendations are non-binding unless absolutely necessary to fit the proposal into an actionable form.”

Chang did make his initiative actionable, though he did not meet all of Blackman’s other requests. Rather than heed the Constitution, Blackman chose to exclude Chang’s initiative in order to “restore dignity to [the student initiative] process.”

It is clear that Chang’s “rant” initiative was not serious, and in fact, quite ridiculous. Nonetheless, SGA officials are to govern by the reason, spirit, and constraints of the Constitution, not the whims of personal preference. For a student body that is attempting to mobilize against apathy, this action should not go unnoticed.

Moreover, if Blackman were truly concerned about the dignity of the process, he could have considered advertising the initiatives. In previous years, the SSC has put up loggia signs and placed laptops outside of the dining halls on voting day. Had these actions been followed this year, perhaps half of the student body would have voted. Instead, a majority of students did not vote, and all of the initiatives failed.

It would be inaccurate to pin the blame for low student turnout entirely on an SGA official. If students want a stake in the decision-making process, we have a responsibility to at least get informed and vote. Since that opportunity has now passed, we should consider what we can do to make the initiatives process more meaningful in the future. Investing time to draft initiatives on pressing campus issues, campaigning for their passage and demanding responsiveness when we they do pass would certainly be a good start. Having SGA officials who encourage this process, rather than hamper it, could go a long as well.