Editorial: Organizational Reform Key To Adequate Student Government Representation Next Year

(Photo: ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr)

Student government’s failure this year was to take no formal positions on important student matters. This means that except for the athletics fee referendum, it passed no formal resolutions, no official statements of student opinion about university policy. Nothing about parking, about construction or about the loss of campus green (natural) spaces.

What sort of representation then does SGA provide?

Little to none, with regard to student issues.

Instead, I have seen student government (in this state) become more of a focus group for administration than a mouthpiece for the student body. It offers the group’s feedback and becomes a source to which administrators can go to be able to say to senior officials that they got student input for their projects. Student government’s representation is so weak that it may be that the administration becomes the primary interest group the assembly serves rather than of the student body.

So, why is this?

The answer, in part, is at least that there is little to no outside pressure forcing student government to accept its proper role. This is a failure of the student newspaper.

Yet, another part of the answer is student government’s flawed structure. Since the association reformed its constitution in 2016, the group has incorporated several changes that have warped how the assembly’s operates. If the association is to get back to a structure that really incentivizes senate activity and student representation, then the association must return to being a true parliament. It should undo constitutional changes that occurred since 2015.

For instance, one change since 2015 is the abolition of the parliamentarian role and its duty to bear final responsibility for student elections. Instead, the assembly now assigns this duty to the SGA advisor. This change made the student body vulnerable to outside influence. Without final responsibility upon a student member, rather than an administrator, then the student body is vulnerable to exploitation by university administration, either by poor representation of student interests or by the (I think) less likely possibility of willful ignorance of student concerns. Regardless, until a student representative bears final responsibility for student interests in their elections, then the constituency will always be vulnerable to exploitation by an outside party.  

Another example of the impact of constitutional changes is the loss of the the parliamentarian role, a law enforcement officer role that maintained parliamentary discipline. Now the chief of staff position has a loose responsibility to keep order, among other unrelated duties. The assembly was better off when it had an officer position whose primary responsibility was rule enforcement and maintaining order.

And finally, the introduction of presidential veto power greatly expanded the president’s power and consequently weakened the senate’s power. It made the president the primary bearer of student government responsibility instead of senate representatives. The president has far too much influence over the senate than he should.

These are just some of the changes in constitutional form since 2015 that have warped SGA’s organizational structure and undermined its capacity to represent student interests.

Student government fails to represent student interests in large part because of its warped and dysfunctional structure that is from subsequent constitutional innovations since 2015. If student government is to return to a constitutional structure that incentivizes senate initiative, stands up for student interests and holds the assembly to parliamentary discipline, then it must return to a true parliament form. It would do well to return to its former structure, like that of the 2015 constitution.   

Feature Image: Photo: ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr