Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeSA member additions unnecessary
September 12, 2005 —
The Student Association will add seven new representatives this next month, which further bureaucratizes SVSU.
Granted, two of these positions were vacated over the summer and replacing those two individuals is justified. However, SA is doing it the wrong way and making matters worse by adding five new representatives. The simple reason for these additions: proportional representation. As the student population increases, representation should increase. A rise in representation is a perfectly justifiable reason to increase the number of representatives, but it is not the reason they are increasing the number of representatives. In fact, increasing the number of representatives is not even practical because it is counterproductive to solving the problem of low participation and a lack of interest in SA.I remember last winter when there were only 21 candidates running for 20 positions. Not only did this demonstrate the apathy of SVSU's student population, but it also meant there were 20 winners (21 if the president running unopposed is counted) and only one loser. The problem was a lack of interest and participation, and the solution should be to build a stronger relationship with the student population. Maintaining a sensible number of positions within the governing body is a key to achieving this goal.
I also remember SA mulling over legislation that would have required each candidate to receive at least 100 votes. If they did not receive 100 votes, an additional election would give them an opportunity to prove their popularity. After several flip flops, SA decided at the eleventh hour not to pass the legislation. All candidates (even the one loser) received over 100 votes. I guess the threat of such legislation was enough to force candidates to smile and shake hands more than ever before. I am left wondering why such a threat was necessary.
Most students do not know it, but last winter there was an event called "Meet the Candidates" in which students had the opportunity to watch and listen as candidates introduced themselves and promoted their ideas. Amid the empty rhetoric about diversity and improving the relationship between the student body and the student government, I noticed that only about half the candidates bothered to attend the event and only two non-candidates attended the event. It was pointless. They were preaching to an elite choir.
SA wants to add more positions because it gives incoming freshmen and transfer students the opportunity to participate and be represented. It is well intended, but it just will not work. The five new representatives, who will be elected, must attend house meetings every two weeks (meetings may last until 1 a.m.), serve on two committees, have two office hours per week, be enrolled for six credits while maintaining a 2.25 grade point average, and serve as liaison to at least three student organizations. Once again, all of these are well-intended requirements, but it is not reasonable to expect these new students to get enough votes. The other two vacancies will be filled by SA appointment, even though it would make sense to elect the two vacated positions and appoint the five new positions.
Instead of adding five new positions and filling the vacancies, SA should simply keep the two positions empty and allow the current representatives to do their jobs. SA made the mistake of increasing the number of positions from 13 to 20 in the first place so this would be the first step in fixing the glitch. Just as it is nearly impossible to eliminate a government program or contract a sports franchise, it is nearly impossible to shrink the bureaucracy that hinders SVSU's Student Association when the reformers are too self-interested to make the necessary changes.
Additionally, SA should institute staggered election cycles. Beginning in winter 2006, half of the SA positions should be determined traditionally. However, the other half of the positions should be filled via elections during the fall semester. This would accomplish the goal of including new students in the decision-making process while also allowing for a smoother transition of power during summer vacation. This will never happen because it would require some creativity by the securely entrenched governing body to implement such an initiative.
Finally, SA officers should no longer be paid (yes, some receive compensation for their work and since the salaries come from the SA budget, the SA House itself decides when they get raises). Instead of allowing them to balance a budget in their own favor, make them volunteer; this is the true test of a dedicated official. Since they will no longer be paid and since the time requirements essentially mandate that representatives live on campus, SVSU should allow SA representatives to live on campus for free.
This will prevent the potential conflict of interest that follows compensation, while making it easier for representatives to fulfill all their obligations.
The current system favors on-campus residents who are popular and interested in earning some cash as a result. A revival is needed, and SA must realize that radical, yet logical, changes should be considered.