There is something seriouslywrong with this year's Student Assembly. It is not about ideology, it is not about infighting. It is about responsibility in representation, resolutions and politics -- which is sorely lacking.
Yes, it has only been three weeks and there have only been two general Assembly meetings. But if they are any indication of what is to come, we are in for another long year of ineffectiveness, apathy and bickering from our campus government.
From the get-go the irresponsibilty was evident. Though deceivingly innocent, the motion slated for the first meeting was poorly conceived. While I cannot remember an Assembly project that has taken more laudable effort to put together than the SA Symposium on "Women, Leadership and Activism," the actual motion was extremely disrespectful to all self-conscious representatives on the Assembly.
The representatives were blitzed four long documents on the lofty goals, banal objectives and vague plans for the then-proposed symposium. We were asked to earmark $5,000 -- one-seventh of our entire year's budget -- a budget funded by all students' activity fees -- for just the first term of symposium activity.
We were not, however, provided with any numbers on how this funding was to be budgeted, why the sum was so high, what cosponsorship had been obtained, or perhaps most importantly, just who we were funding to come educate us on women.
Let me be clear: until the night of the meeting, the general Assembly body had no clue as to the speakers who had been chosen, when they were to speak or how much money was required to bring them here. These programs had been in the planning since summer and these basic facts must have been known to the sponsor of the motion for some time. Why they were not presented to us is a mystery to all. Some members even believe that it was deliberately witheld to make opposition to the motion weaker.
Even though the motion was tabled because of the lacking information, and even though this information was requested by members repeatedly, when the next meeting came around, we were no better informed. We filed into the 1930s room, were given a bunch of numbers and finally told about speakers Elaine Kim and Angela Davis, and then given 45 minutes to deliberate on spending the most money we would spend in one lump all year.
The final sum came to $5,282, when at the meeting it was pointed out that there were many extra costs not accounted for in the figures. With any usual funding motion, there are several proposed amendments moving for different allocation amounts or cuts in the spending. But because we were not pre-informed (amendments must be submitted prior to meetings), members were not able to propose any knowledgeable financial amendments.
Secondly, we were given no chance to research the speakers or the costs associated with them and the debate was full of uneducated, even ignorant statements on both sides. If there is any validity to the suspicion of information withheld, the goal was achieved. The motion passed with no opportunity allowed for informed opposition.
The saddest part is that the leaders of the Assembly -- the ones elected by our student body -- did not seem to care at all. Indeed, when it was suggested that our coffers were already extremely depleted by summer service projects, threatening to leave us poor after the symposium funding, the presidential reply was absolutely incredible -- to paraphrase -- "I don't think we should be worrying about what we'll have left for the future terms this year."
No responsible elected leader would take such a stance. Carpe diem is fine for romantics, but unjustifiable in representative politics. This week's executive committee report that revealed the Assembly has only $12,000 left for the rest of the year. With the passage of a publications motion on Tuesday, that sum will drop to only $9,000, to last through Spring term. That we were not told of this before being forced to vote on the symposium is pathetic governance.
No political body in the world would allow such antics. No legislature gives away a seventh of its budget (leaving only 33 percent left for 90 percent of the year), 45 minutes after being presented with the numbers and the actual proposal for the first time. And no legitimate sponsor does not allow for informed debate. Make no mistake about it, your Assembly used poor political and fiscal judgement.
Lastly, and most disturbing, is a serious problem of political ethics. The issue raised concern the nomination of several new '96s to the Assembly after their participation during the summer term. According to a plain-meaning interpretation of the SA Constitution, this action was not allowable. Indeed there is little possibiliy for other interpretation. This is just the most recent of a series of questionable actions by the Nominations committee in recent history.
An ad-hoc committee on procedure has been proposed to make a conclusion on this issue. It will investigate the nominations and the actions of the chair of Nominations, vice president Rukmini Sichitiu '95. The membership of the ad-hoc committee is composed of volunteers who are randomly selected after volunteering.
In possibly the grossest display of unethical politics ever seen on the SA, several of the nominees under question and the vice president herself have volunteered themselves. The conflict of interest is so glaringly obvious -- what could they be thinking? They propose to take part in an investigation of themselves. The ludicrous analogies are easy: it's like Clinton being on the White House Whitewater Investigation Committee or Dan Rostenkowski being on the Senate Ethics Committee.
How can such behavior be justified? Well, sadly, there is no specific Constitutional wording to forbid it. But one would think that for any responsible, ethical politician, his/her conscience would do the forbidding. This is not the case. Are these nominees and the vice president conscienceless? Probably not. But perhaps their passions have got the better of them.
Tonight, they will be formally submitting their names to the secretary and lest divine intervention occur, some if not several of them will be chosen to investigate and rule on their own cases and actions. If you are outraged about this, let the officers know it. You elected them -- you deserve to be listened to. No, the investigation of the ad hoc committee is not an earth-shattering matter in itself. It is simply a search for justice, congruity and standards for a Nominations committee that has been marred by controversies.
We should not have inside controversies and bickering on the SA. It slows things down and makes us look bad. The ad-hoc committee is an effort to set the record straight and hopefully have an uncontroversial year. Therefore, to see such an effort corrupted by poor ethics is particularly unnerving and it must not stand.
The SA has the potential to do great good for our student body. But this cannot be recognized if its leadership and membership do not respect each other and the standards of good representation. These include financial, political and ethical responsibilty -- we must stand by them united or fall divided.
