Former editor Jerod Clapp used to complain that the Student Government Association did nothing.
I’m not Jerod, but I’d like to take this opportunity to encourage them to keep doing nothing on a particular subject.
In the SGA story that ran in the Feb. 8 edition of The Horizon, Matthew Chinn wrote that the SGA passed a bill to combine the two elections they are scheduled to have this year.
The bill authored by SGA press secretary Candice Boudreaux, business junior, would negate an amendment that was written last year by SGA secretary Beverly Raley, international studies and French junior.
The amendment that Raley authored was voted on by the students in the May 2009 SGA election and received enough votes from the student body to become a part of the SGA Constitution.
The amendment called for the SGA to hold two elections each year, one for those seeking an executive positions and a second for those wishing to be senators.
Although I understand why holding two elections could be a burden on the SGA, this is an amendment to their constitution that hasn’t even had the chance to be put into effect.
The SGA hasn’t held an election since this amendment was ratified through election by the student body of IU Southeast, and they are just going to scrap it and move on as if it never happened.
The best part is in order to amend the amendment to change how many elections the SGA will hold this year, the SGA will have to hold a special election to receive student ratification for the new bill.
Yes, they will hold two elections to amend an amendment so they won’t have to hold two elections this year.
There’s a lot about this that doesn’t make sense to me, but holding two elections to avoid holding two elections doesn’t seem to solve the original problem.
Raley authored the amendment because the SGA actually had a contested election for president last year, for the first time in years, and felt it would offer the opportunity for those who lost the presidential election to still be able to serve as senators without going through another process.
Even then, I had a problem with the wording of the amendment, but felt that it deserved a chance to be ratified by the students.
And guess what, it was ratified and became a part of the SGA constitution, the document that actually gives their organization legitimacy.
The point I’m getting at is this is an amendment to the SGA constitution that they are just ignoring as if it were yet another bill to buy more pizza.
The amendment hasn’t even been on their books for a year, and hasn’t actually been able to be put into action but they want to act like it never happened.
I’m not telling the SGA how to do their job, because I really don’t have that much time, but holding two elections to avoid holding two elections seems like a counter-productive idea to me.
The SGA should hold their two scheduled elections this year that Raley’s amendment calls for, and see if the amendment proves to be a benefit or a detriment.
Look at it this way, if holding two elections proves to be a problem, the SGA can always write an amendment to Raley’s amendment and put it on the second election this year to see if the students will ratify it too.
The amendment process for any constitution should be respected as an organization’s most important, and should be used only when there is a need for what is proposed.
Last year, Raley saw a problem and wrote the amendment as a solution, and the students ratified it with their votes.
If the SGA doesn’t take their own constitution and practices seriously, then why should the administration or the student body? SGA President James Bonsall, business junior, likes to say the SGA is the voice of the students, but in this situation the SGA needs to shut up and use their ears to listen to what the students said less than a year ago.
Just a tip to the SGA, the real voice of the students has already spoken, so pay attention to what they said rather than pay for more pizza.
Scott Gillespie
Editor
tsgilles@umail.iu.edu