As usual, the Senate of the Student Government Association reconvened last Tuesday at 9 pm in Helmrich 105 to discuss important business that will directly impact TU students. This past week, it debated a rewritten version of the SGA Constitution, which has been a point of major controversy since last semester following the SGA presidential election.
One important rewrite aims to rectify the very significant flaws of the current version of the Constitution. As it currently stands, according to Article IV, Section 6 of the Constitution, the Judicial Branch holds the authority to prohibit any student who violates a court order from ever holding office in the Student Government Association. Last year, this clause prevented the individual who won the majority of votes from the student body from assuming her elected position as the President of SGA due to the fact that she was in her office preparing for her trial next to the room in which Judicial was holding their proceedings. This clause also caused the removal of an At-Large Senator who had won over 400 votes during his election. In short, it was a poorly thought of clause that has completely undermined the wish of the student body and placed enormous election power in the hands of Judicial, a group of seven students, who was basically allowed to overturn the result of the election. With the new rewrite, however, Senate hopes to strike this clause, replacing it with one that would allow Judicial and the SGA advisor to create a punishment in accordance with the circumstances and the crime. This would allow SGA to better respect the outcome of the election and honor the vote of the student body.
Another important section of the Constitution was in reference to referenda, or the power of the study body to overturn any act made by SGA, and the ability of the student body to remove a member of SGA from their position, which would then bar them from ever holding office in SGA. The question of referenda was also a point of controversy last year as, by initiative of the student body, there was a proposal to overturn the Judicial case that prevented the winner of the presidential election from assuming office and another that demanded SGA respect the vote of the student body. Despite both referenda gaining a majority of votes, they were not enacted due to the fact that they did not meet the mandated quorum, as stipulated in Article VI, Section D of the Constitution, of 10% of the student body voting on the questions. Despite its role in the controversy last year, this section will remain as is despite attempts from Senators to change the requirement due to the fact that Senate as a whole was unable to reach a satisfactory number.
As previously indicated, the clause that allows the student body to remove a member of SGA also caused controversy in Senate last week. The main objection was the fact that, in theory, a vote to remove a member from SGA would require less votes than the amount that elected them to their seat in the first place. For instance, if there are 1,000 students at the university and 200 students elect an individual to the position of president, it could only take 51 students voting to remove the SGA member and 49 voting against the motion, or half of at least 10% of the student body, to remove the member. While it is true that the minority should not rule and scary that an elected representative may be removed by an amount less than the initial amount that allowed them to assume their position in the first place, this fear ignores a fundamental point: everyone, including those who voted the member into office in the first place, are allowed to vote. So, to use the previous example, if 51 people believe that the president is not fulfilling their duties, all the president has to do is appeal to the 200 people who initially voted for him and retain the support of only 52 of them. Failure to do so would indicate that almost 75% of the initial base no longer believes in the president’s capabilities and would not vote for them again if given the chance. Thus, while 51 people could remove the president from office against the 49 that disagree, this would mean that the president was unable to retain the support of at least 25% of the initial people who voted for them and was further unable to gain support of another student or group of students to replace their base.
Lastly, just as it expects the student body to have faith in the representatives they elected, SGA must have faith that the student body will respect the rights it is awarded and not abuse them and will, instead, use this ability to enact what they truly think is in the best interest of the university as a whole.
So, while the new constitution may cause worries, it is a great improvement to the current version as it allows a greater respect to the wishes of the student body. Therefore, I hope it passes through Senate at the next meeting and that the student body recognizes this great improvement and choses to ratify it during the next election. In the meantime, I encourage all students to come to Helmrich 105, Tuesdays at 9 pm to watch Senate and, even if they are unable to come, voice their opinions to their elected representatives via email or whenever they see us.
