By Matthew Clyburn
As a political science major and perennial observer of student government, I tend to watch events unfold at the SGA’s weekly meetings from a public policy perspective. Typically the events are trivial in the grand scheme of things, but a recent proposal to change the way students are represented on the body has provided a great opportunity for discussion and analysis.
For those that haven’t followed the debate, SGA Senator Ryan Baldassario submitted a motion two weeks ago that, if passed, would remove two commuter and two resident senator positions from the representative body. In place of the lost seats, the Senate would add four at-large positions to the roster.
Supporters of the proposal believe that the change will increase competition in SGA elections and provide more opportunities for students that want to get involved. I think the problems run a bit deeper than these benefits will address.
It’s hard to ignore the relatively low level of participation by students from this constituency. Generally speaking, students who reside on campus are present, and thus more engaged, more involved, and often better represented in student government.
The current SGA Constitution was drafted to protect commuter students from resident senator overrepresentation by ensuring a larger number of commuters through a fixed number of seats (and a current fixed ratio of 2:1). As it currently exists, the SGA Constitution guarantees 16 commuter seats, eight resident seats, six at-large seats, and four seats reserved for incoming freshmen.
This protection can only be maintained if enough commuters run for office to fill the seats; last year, not enough did. Meanwhile, several residents lost election bids for the resident and at-large seats . The fundamental question: should engaged students seeking involvement be turned away from student government because they are ‘unfortunate’ enough to live on campus?
The answer is no. It is a travesty that more commuters choose not to get involved on campus, but that point is essentially moot when open seats prevent new voices from being heard in senate proceedings.
We’ve now arrived at the point in this column where I make an outlandish proposal that will never see the light of day. The SGA Senate ought to do away with the arbitrary constituencies they’ve created and either establish new (yet, still arbitrary) constituencies or establish an open seating system.
Why does the SGA Senate pit commuters against residents during elections? This question has no logical answer. Students could just as easily choose representatives based on class year, school (Arts & Scienes, Business, etc.), or hair color. Even better, the Senate could be composed of all at-large seats. This would all but guarantee the high level of competition supporters claim to seek and simultaneously ensure that the most engaged students seeking involvement are elected.
It’s no secret that participation in campus activities is higher for residents than commuters. Supporters have said that an open election would produce a resident-dominated senate, and that is true. So what?
Representation should not be split up and weighted more heavily to those that tend not to use the funding SGA controls, representation should be split evenly among those that produce those funds to begin with. In this case, those represented should be anyone that pays student activities fees each semester.
The current allocation of arbitrary constituencies do as much to protect commuters as they would to protect people graduating in 2015, or political science majors, or anyone with blond hair under some other system. All fee-paying students should be equally represented as long as involvement in fee-funded activities remains voluntary.
We’ve now arrived at the point in this column where I temper my extreme proposal for pragmatic purposes. The suggestion I’ve made will not pass, as members of the SGA seek to pass this motion in time for a referendum in early October.
That said, the motion on the table is a step in the right direction. More at-large seats allow for a system closer to the proposal I’ve suggested.
As this issue hits newsstands, the SGA Senate will be hours away from passing the motion and sending it to a student-wide vote. When it does, voters would be wise to vote in favor of the plan and help move us toward a more equitable system of representation.
