The proposed constitution is such a defective initiative that it’s hard to believe it is actually the work of Ethan Allen Smith—the same Ethan Allen Smith whom the Vanguard endorsed for student body president last year. To say it is fatally flawed seems almost euphemistic; it is just plain fatal, as adopting it would essentially spell the death of effective student government at PSU.
For the love of God, vote ‘no’ on the proposed constitution
The proposed constitution is such a defective initiative that it’s hard to believe it is actually the work of Ethan Allen Smith—the same Ethan Allen Smith whom the Vanguard endorsed for student body president last year. To say it is fatally flawed seems almost euphemistic; it is just plain fatal, as adopting it would essentially spell the death of effective student government at PSU.
For starters, the constitution purports to provide more “direct representation” for the many student-based constituencies, which include such broad, internally diverse groups as freshmen, athletes and on-campus residents. In order to be elected to ASPSU, a student would have to hail from one of these constituencies (for example, only a freshman senator could represent freshmen).
Sounds reasonable, right? Well, in reality, this change will prove to be a logistical nightmare, potentially rendering ASPSU a nonfunctioning entity for years into the future.
Senators who change their school or who stop being freshmen or who cannot afford to live on campus would no longer qualify to serve their constituency and would be forced to resign. This will exacerbate ASPSU’s already high turnover rate and ensure that would-be constituencies go long periods without representation (as was the case with the previous constitution, after which the proposed constitution is modeled).
Because these constituencies are clearly, if somewhat arbitrarily, enumerated, many students would not qualify to serve in ASPSU at all—no matter how intelligent, passionate or driven they are—simply because they don’t happen to fall into one of the constituency categories. It is also worth noting that the proposed constitution demands drastic pay cuts for the top positions in student government, which means that only students who don’t need the money (e.g., trust-funders) could afford to work for ASPSU.
The proposed constitution, therefore, will decrease participation in student government, increase instability in ASPSU and make any instances of “direct representation” tenuous at best. Consequently, student government victories—of the sort we saw this year with tuition equity—may be impossible to achieve in the future. Senators will be too busy contending with the upheaval this proposed constitution creates to spend time advocating for students’ needs.
What’s more, Smith’s constitution is virtually impossible to amend, much less jettison. Just getting an amendment on the ballot would require signatures from 10 percent of fall FTE (full-time equivalent) enrollment, and getting a replacement constitution on the ballot would require 25 percent. Considering that average voter turnout in college elections falls somewhere between 2 and 4 percent of the student body, ASPSU student fee committee Chair Nick Rowe and member Sean Green are absolutely right: “If this constitution passes, we’re stuck with it, for good or for ill.”
Even in the most generous light, the proposed constitution is a masterpiece of structural incompetence. Once it goes into effect, however, it will be seen as the sort of irresponsible twaddle a saboteur would write if his only goal was to end ASPSU as we know it. If this is Smith’s idea of a joke, a final “fuck you” to student government, we hope he lets us in on the punch line soon—because if his constitution passes, the joke will be on PSU students.
So, if you’re going to be bothered to vote, please do not mindlessly vote ‘yes’ on this stupid thing.
