David Hankins '05 is misguided in his rebuttal to The Dartmouth's "Verbum Ultimum" ("EPAC Strikes Back," April 25). While Hankins complains of inaccuracies, he has a few of his own, not to mention an apparent lack of restraint when it comes to baseless assumptions.
His speculations against Palaeopitus are groundless and self-congratulatory. He has no reason to suppose that Palaeopitus would have refused to consider Paul's situation or that of any candidate, for that matter. As for what action Palaeopitus might have taken, we can't know. Furthermore, Student Assembly's rules are only for Assembly -- what Mr. Hankins forgets is that the greater campus, Green Key, Council on Standards/Organizational Adjudication Committee and the Class Councils all participate in this election too. Assembly should not monopolize the Elections Planning and Advisory Committee.
He mentions a new structure of EPAC. Hankins forgets his history: EPAC was ad hoc up until fall 2003, in fact, not fall 2004, when Palaeopitus, with the guidance of College administrators, attempted to give EPAC a permanent home. The 2004 EPAC was made up of three Palaeopitus members, one member each from the 2004 Class Council, COS/OAC and the Order of Omega and two members from the Green Key Society (not running for any positions in the elections). The Green Key Society members were required to serve the following year in an advisory capacity, if not in the EPAC itself. The weighting of the EPAC toward seniors was an effort to keep the EPAC as impartial as possible (since no seniors run in elections). Current and former Presidents and Vice Presidents from Assembly and the Class Councils were barred from membership for concerns regarding partiality or bias.
The 2005 EPAC structure consisted of a non-voting chair (generally the Assembly President or the Senior Class President), and one representative each from Assembly, the 2005 Class Council, Palaeopitus and the Green Key Society. The major difference from 2004 appears to be that it is a smaller body with more Assembly members. How is this supposed to be an improvement?
I am glad to hear that EPAC is considering revisions to the BlitzMail policy for next year. I'm also saddened, however, because last year's EPAC made nearly identical recommendations. Among many other things, the 2004 EPAC suggested that nearly all BlitzMail restrictions be dropped in light of the impossibility of enforcement. While some suggestions such as a new voting system were indeed implemented, for which I applaud the 2005 EPAC, they would have done well to listen to their predecessors on other counts too. So much for Assembly experience anticipating problems.
Hankins is right that no one understands EPAC's troubles better than an EPAC member. As one of the co-chairs from 2004, I feel I can safely say that EPAC belongs not with Assembly, but with Palaeopitus. Palaeopitus is the body best suited to this task -- it is composed entirely of seniors, it is extremely diverse and it is removed from elections, while still being open to the campus. Where better to find a disinterested, knowledgeable and stable home for EPAC? Assembly did the campus a disservice when it appropriated EPAC this year. Do the right thing and return EPAC to Palaeopitus.
