Amendment 4 Has one member of the student fee committee appointed by the senate. One of the most frustrating facts of politics is the campaigning: So-and-so is this, has done that, knows this; so-and-so is better, more prepared, more aware. Taking someone at his/her word is the risk we accept when electing anyone to office.
Has one member of the student fee committee appointed by the senate.
One of the most frustrating facts of politics is the campaigning: So-and-so is this, has done that, knows this; so-and-so is better, more prepared, more aware. Taking someone at his/her word is the risk we accept when electing anyone to office. Promises are made, promises are broken—that’s the stark reality. Appointments for positions other than president and vice president, however, bypass the public popularity contest and, if done right, ensure that those chosen to fill the spots actually know what they’re doing.
That’s what makes this amendment worth it. The student fee committee is far too involved in the financial workings of student representation to leave it all up to popularity and promises. Yes, it’s important that we have a voice in who handles the student fees we pay, but giving the senate the ability to appoint one member of the SFC is a small concession. Who knows, it just might be the one thing that keeps the SFC functional.
Requires initiatives, referendums or the repealing and replacement of the current constitution to be submitted at least a week before voting begins to be placed on the ballot.
This amendment seems reasonable enough. There should certainly be a window of opportunity for voters to be made aware of any proposed changes to the constitution before they hit the ballot, so that they can become informed about the potential benefits/consequences of those changes.
Naturally, the key phrasing here is “at least a week.” Ideally, any alterations to the constitution, however minor or potentially significant, should be presented as far ahead of time as possible in order to ensure that changes aren’t shepherded through simply because voters weren’t supplied with enough information beforehand.
Creates a process for choosing if the president/vice president will be elected by plurality or instant runoff voting.
The wording of this amendment is somewhat unclear. If the question is whether the president/vice president should be elected by plurality or instant runoff, then I would vote in favor of a result determined by plurality. Voter turnout in student elections is too unpredictable to rely on one candidate getting a clear majority; an election based on plurality would provide a more efficient means of determining the winner in an election for which there may be an extremely limited sample size. If, however, the amendment is worded as it was intended to be, then sure, by all means create a process for deciding this issue so that we can settle it once and for all.
There are three additional amendments to consider, all of which deal with ASPSU infrastructure and have little relevance to the student body. Consider them housekeeping amendments.