Today the Red and Black printed a front page article on the upcoming SGA elections and the possibility of SGA being abolished. The article talks about the vote that takes place every 4 years, where students can decide whether or not the Student Government Association should stay around for another 4 years. On the issue of the vote, the Red and Black says:
The resolution automatically appears on the ballot every four years and requires a passing vote from two-thirds of the student body.
It’s easier said than done. The vote alone would take 16,590 students, and only about 4,000 students voted in last year’s election – a one-third decrease from the previous year.
But, this is incorrect. The SGA Constitution reads:
If more than two-thirds of the voting disagree, the Student Government Association shall be abolished. The first four-year period began Spring Quarter of 1987.
Now, bad writing aside, SGA is to be abolished if two-thirds of the students who vote in the SGA election vote ‘no’. If so, there is no specific number of votes needed to kick SGA off campus, as it depends on how many participate in the election.
The article also makes it seem as if approving the new SGA Constitution also requires a two-thirds vote of the entire student body, which is also untrue.
Even the first sentence of the article was dead wrong:
For the first time since 1985, the Student Government Association could be abolished, but SGA officials said they are not worried.
Wrong. Every four years this vote takes place, so every four years SGA could be abolished.
There is also a quote with little backing (if any):
“Most critics of SGA don’t want to completely abolish it but want to change the current structure and representation,” said Ed Mirecki, associate director for student affairs. [Editor's note: Ed Mirecki is also the faculty adviser to the SGA]
Which critics are these? Speak up!
And what about the new Constitution?
The proposed constitution includes three separate branches, clauses for impeachment, an allowance of non-senators in the executive branch to allow for increased involvement in SGA and the inclusion and distinction between Freshman Board and Freshman Forum.
These are all in the current SGA constitution.
SGA Vice President Matt Suber also lied to the Red and Black reporter:
“This is the first time a campus-wide e-mail was sent to students interested in candidacy. We want to keep the campaign equitable and accessible.”
Wrong again. Last year, President Will Childs and VP Tucker Brown sent out an email on the archnewsstudents listserv announcing that qualifying was open for the SGA elections. This email was sent on January 16th, 2006. [For a screen shot, since you have to login to the listserv webpage, click here.]
I challenge the Red and Black to investigate who lied to them, and why they printed an article without doing necessary background research.
{ 3 } Comments
It’s a good thing that you’re trying to hold the R&B accountable for what it publishes; they’re a powerful determiner of student opinion, so it’s important they get things right. So thanks for helping them, and us, make sure we have all the information.
For what it’s worth, though, I think they’re more right than you give them credit for. For instance, I puzzled over that first sentence, too, knowing it to be incorrect. I gave the writer the benefit of the doubt, assuming she meant “The Student Government Association could be abolished for the first time since 1985…”, in reverse order of the original, which would be correct. But had I not known the history, I can see why it would be read the other way.
I think you’re wrong about one of your points, though. The things you said “are all in the current SGA constitution”, well, mostly aren’t.
“The proposed constitution includes three separate branches” — current one just has two
“clauses for impeachment” — we have that now, but I think the process changes a good bit
“an allowance of non-senators in the executive branch” — kind of have that now, but again, significant changes (that could and, I hope, will probably be explored in a future article)
“inclusion and distinction between Freshman Board and Freshman Forum” — current Constitution does a terrible job handling freshmen; this is a major change
Otherwise, though, you have some very valid concerns that I hope we will have answered. Even so, unless something major changes, I plan on voting to KEEP the organization and ADOPT the new Constitution. I hope we’ll hear your stances in the next few weeks!
Can you explain how the first sentence is incorrect? I don’t follow you.
Also, any thoughts on VP Matt Suber’s incorrect statements?
Well, you said it was incorrect! (”Wrong. Every four years this vote takes place, so every four years SGA could be abolished.”) My point was that it could have been correct if she had switched the clauses (so it would make clear that SGA hadn’t actually BEEN abolished since ‘85, rather than sounding like she meant students hadn’t VOTED on it since ‘85). I’m not sure if it was just a mistake in writing or an actual misunderstanding (by her or someone else) as to how the system works.
As for Matt, I would assume he either forgot or didn’t know about the email from last year. I was certainly surprised (and pleased) to get the email this year, so I just figured it was a first in my time here. In reality, I probably just ignored last year’s email since I already knew how the elections worked and didn’t need to do anything but skim it; Matt probably did the same thing.
I really don’t think Matt would try to intentionally mislead anyone, so my guess is it was an honest mistake.
{ 1 } Trackback
[...] The Red and Black covered the debate decently well (at least better than this). A lot of good points were made in the comments, including one from Josh Weiss: It should be noted that if members and guests had voted separately the resolution would have failed by the 2/3 margin as there were about 20 to 25 members of SGA who all understandably voted in favor of keeping SGA. [...]
Post a Comment