I remember walking along the halls of my dorm last spring, looking at the various election posters. Amid the accusations of "policy wonks" and proposals of "The Plan," there it was - a phrase that summed up my hopes for Student Assembly. "Students for responsible student government." At the bottom of the page read a list of names under the title "Reform SA!." Responsible student government - and 21 candidates for at-large representative had pledged to uphold the ideal!
As I voted, I faithfully consulted the list of Reform SAers which had been handed to me outside the polls. I was subsequently pleased to see that 15 of the candidates had been elected: I remember thinking that this was a group of motivated students who would fortify the Assembly with their devotion to responsible student government - and I remember hoping that I would be elected to work with them.
One year later, and still a strong believer in the potential of responsible student government, I know that each vote for a candidate on the Reform SA block ensured that this was one of the most non-representative and irresponsible Assemblies in years. With an initial two-thirds majority of votes on the Assembly, the Reform SA group overwhelmed every motion with a block vote; for the rest of the year, not one vote would come close to a tie. That might sound like a welcome change - no lively debate, no hours-on-end meetings - if only those things were true.
Instead, hours were spent planning "politically brilliant moves" (in the words of one Reform SAer); the debates turned to condemnation of anything that was not part of the pre-planned Reform SA package. And everything about Reform SA had been programmed carefully by its founders. There was a packet of 15 Reform SA motions, which would be brought up at 15 prescribed "target dates" without research, administrative contacts or adequate follow-up. There was a designated nominations committee, with three Reform SA members (and two Reform SA "sympathetics") composing the five seat committee. By February, this committee had admitted 19 men and seven women applicants. As the winter closed, the Student Assembly make-up consisted of at least twenty voting members who were of markedly similar perspective (for example, on the masthead of either the Review or the Beacon, and/or members of the Conservative Union at Dartmouth).
Responsible Student Government.
I interpret responsibility in student government to mean that representatives seek out the opinions of all students, including those who are not like themselves. I feel that responsibility involves understanding a situation thoroughly before action is taken. I believe that responsibility involves communication with all involved parties. And I know that responsible student government demands regard for the students' best interest above personal opinions.
During the past year, Reform SA has proven its inability to be responsible at every level. How did things like the DDS Boycott, the ROTC motion confusion and the proposed impeachment happen? Because allegiances within the campaign group superseded any obligation to students or their input, the block-oriented representatives stopped considering various student points of view. For such block representatives, the most important ties are to students like themselves, other representatives - those with similar stances, similar backgrounds and similar interests in politics. A like-minded Student Assembly is not a responsible Student Assembly.
So with this year's materialization of the Union for Reasonable Government, what can we expect? Responsible is not even in the slogan. After all, why be responsible when another block group can hope for a reasonably effective government?
The importance of considering individual candidates and their qualifications over a "union" and its ideology can not be underestimated. Last year, voters believed Reform SA; we believed their promise of "responsible student government." Even at the outset of their antics, I, as president, believed that I could ultimately ensure the responsibility of the Assembly.
But compared to the general Assembly representatives, the president is virtually powerless. Each at-large representative carries something that the President does not - a vote on every motion that comes to the floor. Under the new constitution, even executive committee appointments, a traditional "presidential power," must be approved by the nominations committee, which is elected from the membership of the at-large representatives. Can we really afford to have the Student Assembly essentially run by a group of students who have already decided on what is on your mind next year?
Dartmouth is too dynamic an institution to settle for representatives with a pre-fixed agenda. Dartmouth students are too unique to elect people with one perspective to represent them. So I urge you, carefully consider the most important part of today's ballot - the election of at-large representatives. These representatives are the students who run Student Assembly. Only a responsible selection of individuals will result in an Assembly membership that will respond to student needs, not its own selfish aims.
