Staff Editorial: BoE: leave time for debate

Staff Editorial: BoE: leave time for debate

The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · November 20, 2003

To those who missed the California recall circus, it's shown up at our school in grand style.

Freshman Jared Ede posted an online petition four days ago for a new student government constitution. It was presented with the necessary 200 signatures at yesterday's Student Council (StuCo) meeting and is scheduled for a student vote, run by the Board of Elections (BoE), this Sunday and Monday.

Not simply a reworking or tweaking of Student Council, the proposed constitution is a wholesale revolution, complete with new positions, hierarchies, powers and responsibilities. At a most basic level, the proposed constitution would separate the people who do the work, called an Executive Council, from the people who make the rules, called the Student Assembly. And, the BoE's current voting schedule leaves students with more questions than time to consider them.

The proposal has many controversial provisions. In trying to introduce more checks and balances into student government, the proposed constitution would establish a four-person committee to oversee the Student Activities Comission (SAC) and their decisions on student spending. It would also close student council meetings to all students not showing "sincere interest." At the same time, students would gain the power to initiate referenda to recall StuCo members and veto StuCo actions at any time.

Student Council Executive President Charles Reyner, who sits on SAC as part of his duties, says that the proposed four-person funding oversight committee would mean that a "Special interest could completely control student funds." The committee could use their power selectively, or their actions may simply duplicate those of the SAC.

The clause calls which calls for meetings to be open only to those who demonstrate "sincere interest" is a departure from the current StuCo constitution which requires that all meetings be open to all students at all times. There is no indication as to what, exactly, "sincere interest" is, let alone who would decide its meaning.

Students will certainly debate the merits of giving students final authority over all aspects of their government. Some may like the concept of direct control, others may feel that it will weaken elected representatives.

That these criticisms exist at all shows that debate on the subject is necessary and needed. Not recognizing or perhaps ignoring this, the Board of Elections (BoE) finds it necessary to have this proposal voted on this Sunday.

BoE's justification for their highly compressed debate and vote is that after Sunday, students will be away for Thanksgiving and then busy with finals. The other alternative, February, is too close to Executive Board elections in March, says BoE co-chair Rick Aseltine.

That doesn't diminish the need to fully consider the proposal thoughtfully and effectively. Students are being asked to fully revamp student government. They require and deserve more time to consider this proposal, to consider points made by both sides and decide whether student government is ineffective - and what should be done.

Some may come to the conclusion that the proposed restructuring is the correct course of action. But BoE's compressed schedule doesn't allow undergraduates to have that debate. Instead, the election timetable limits discussion - and with the BoE so far doing little to publicize the issue, students may wake up on Wednesday to find the debate over and their government changed.

So instead of a meaningful, potentially helpful debate, we have a circus. The proposed constitution brings up many controversial issues. BoE should give everyone time to read and consider the proposal for themselves.