A "Proposal to Create the Dartmouth Student Government Review Task Force" was tabled after extended debate at Tuesday night's Student Assembly meeting. Further discussion on the legislation had to be postponed after an amendment to it was brought forth by Adam Shpeen '07.
The original proposal, which is sponsored by the Assembly's Membership and Internal Affairs Committee, calls for the formation of a 13-member task force to address current concerns about student government structure and efficacy. This task force would include membership drawn from within the Assembly, as well as from other student groups such as Programming Board and the Council on Student Organizations. Four members from the student body would also be included on the task force.
Shpeen's amendment, which failed after debate, called for the temporary suspension of the Assembly while a similar seven- member committee conducted a review of student government. The amendment failed by a vote of 19-33-4, but was dead on arrival; before voting occurred Assembly Parliamentarian Jaromy Siporen '08 labeled the amendment a constitutional amendment. Siporen said that because the amendment stood in direct opposition to Article 3, Section 1 of the Assembly's Constitution, which delineates the requirements for meetings per term, it needed to be treated as a constitutional amendment. As such, the legislation would have required an affirmative vote from three quarters of the Assembly's voting membership -- a proportion not in attendance on Tuesday night.
"I didn't expect [the amendment to be labeled as a constitutional one] because I don't think that's what it was," Shpeen said after the meeting. "I think that [Siporen's] judgement was wrong in that instance but he is the Parliamentarian so I have to respect it."
Shpeen said that he was disappointed with the outcome of the voting that did occur.
"I think we need to take bold action in order to engender some real change," he said.
Student Body President Tim Andreadis '07 also expressed frustration after the meeting, noting that he believes that the vote on the amendment was a waste of time.
"I think a lot of people are just really frustrated that these long amendments are being proposed," Andreadis said. "It feels like there is one individual who is hijacking Student Assembly and I think that's very frustrating."
Andreadis called for more clarity in complaints about the Assembly.
"I think [the original legislation] is a good idea insofar as it meets the so-called demand that's been placed on the Student Assembly to review its governing structure," Andreadis said. "No one has yet been able to tell me what the problems are, other than a, quote, 'lack of teeth.'"
Andreadis said that if the original reform legislation passes in next week's meeting, he will work with MIAC and stand behind the created task force.
Legislation calling for the Assembly to fund a Sexual Assault Educational Event at Kappa Kappa Kappa fraternity was also approved at Tuesday's meeting. The event, a Feb. 26 dinner discussion titled "Hearing Their Silent Voices: Sexual Assault and Violence Against Women," will be part of a full week series of events held by the fraternity.
The legislation was greeted with extended debate over Student Assembly's role in event planning and coordinating, an argument that has arisen within the Assembly several times in the last few weeks.
Several members of the Assembly expressed concern that providing financial support for the event was not the job of Student Assembly, but rather that of Programming Board. Many of these students raised concerns about the Assembly's rules for event cosponsorship.
Pointing to an editorial by Andreadis in which he said that the Assembly should not be a Programming Board, Michael Herman '07 said that, though he supported the event, he did not think that Assembly fiscal support was appropriate.
"Student Assembly shouldn't be funding events that Programming Board or other groups could fund," Herman said. "[To do so] creates so much ambiguity as to the purpose of Student Assembly."
Other Assembly members countered that the event was not simply being cosponsored by the Assembly, as several Assembly committees are involved in planning the dinner. These students also pointed to the importance of the event for the Assembly.
"Revisiting those cosponsorship guidelines is a worthy cause -- I just don't think this is the time to do that," Kenny Brown Klinger '07 said during debate. "Anything we can do at this point in time to start increasing sexual assault awareness is in the best interest of the student body."
Josh Jacobson '09, who identified himself as an author of the Assembly's rules for cosponsorship, contended that this event is not one that is likely to gain funding from Programming Board.
"This isn't the type of event that Programming Board would fund," Jacobson said. "They don't really fund educational events, they don't fund speeches."
