In case you haven’t noticed, it’s election time here at Portland State. This year’s student government election could be a monumental one, because there’s a proposal on the ballot to adopt a new constitution or amend the current one. The new constitution proposes changes that could greatly affect how the Associated Students of Portland State University operates.
Unrealistic expectations
In case you haven’t noticed, it’s election time here at Portland State. This year’s student government election could be a monumental one, because there’s a proposal on the ballot to adopt a new constitution or amend the current one. The new constitution proposes changes that could greatly affect how the Associated Students of Portland State University operates.
The first major change is how we as students are represented. The new constitution would create constituencies, replacing the current at-large representative system. These constituencies would be based upon the major college in which the candidate/representative is a student. There would also be representatives for students who live in campus housing and for student athletes, and one for each of the Student Activities and Leadership Programs group clusters.
Another major change proposed in the constitution is equalization of senate, student fee committee and executive board salaries to that of other leadership positions for student groups. The proposed constitution limits the pay of non-leadership positions in the three branches of student government to no more than double that of student group leader positions.
The final major change is the ballot initiative process. The new process would require that a ballot proposal proposition have the signatures of 10 percent of the full-time student body. This equates to about 1,800 students. An initiative to replace the constitution would require signatures from 25 percent of the full-time student body.
However, there are some major holes in the proposed changes.
Regarding the constituencies: The proposed constitution requires that a representative resign immediately if that person is no longer part of that constituency. So if a student senator changes majors and migrates to a different school, he or she must immediately resign from the senate.
There is also some ambiguity regarding how certain constituencies are defined. For example, what is a student athlete? Is that someone who participates in a NCAA-sanctioned sport, or would someone who represents PSU in a recreational league also meet the requirement? The proposed constitution simply doesn’t have enough—or clear—definitions.
While the new compensation system does make some sense, it also fails to recognize the different levels of work required of different groups and leadership positions. No one can deny that our student leaders do a lot of work. Shouldn’t they be compensated in a manner that recognizes that work?
Finally, the major hole in the ballot initiative process is that it’s unrealistic and illogical. Given the demands on students’ time, it’s impossible for an advocate of a proposed amendment to do the amount of work required to gather that many signatures. And given the composition of our student body—mainly off-campus commuters—it would be difficult for any group to organize and get enough contact with voters to get proposals on the ballot.
So, given the ramifications of this new constitution, it’s absurd to support it. Yes, we do need a new constitution that’s more inclusive and limits the power of each branch, but this one’s not it.
There’s simply too much ambiguity about who is even eligible to be a representative. It’s also unfair to require the resignation of a representative just because that person decides to change majors, moves away from campus, reaches the end of a sport’s season or leaves a student group. There should be some recognition of different constituencies’ interests, but there should also be the recognition that some interests are universal and can be addressed by at-large representatives.
Recognizing the hard work that student leaders perform and the added responsibilities they bear is a necessity. It would be unfair to arbitrate their pay based solely on a job title. Instead, leadership pay should be determined by an objective, third-party committee, which would ensure transparency and fairness in compensation.
I’ll reiterate something I’ve already said: The proposed requirements for ballot initiatives are unrealistic and impractical for our student body.
Want to know more? Voting guides and ballot explanations can be found on the ASPSU website, along with the e-ballot itself, at aspsu.pdx.edu.
