The Student Association has decided to propose an increase in the mandatory student activity fee. This fee provides for campus clubs, organizations and events, including the upcoming Fall Fest. Normally any proposed increase in this fee is debated in the SA Senate before being placed on the ballot.
This semester, the SA's Emergency Powers Council has circumvented this democratic process. Instead, they will directly place this initiative on a ballot to be decided in the election to be held in the end of September. This move denies the student population and its representatives in the SA legislative branch effective oversight over an important issue. It should not have occurred. However, now that this action has been taken, it is imperative that the Student Association does not let this set the precedent for dealing with this fee referendum - in the future, SA must make a strong effort to inform the student body about the increase.
The Emergency Powers Council is composed of five members of the Student Association: the President, Vice President, Treasurer, Senate Chair, and Assembly Speaker. The SA constitution, however, defines a quorum, or the necessary amount of members to conduct official business, as only three. The constitution provides this council as a means to make decisions when the legislature is not in session, but as the word "emergency" implies, it should be used in extreme situations only.
A decision made by five members of the student body, four in this case, is not a representative one when the student body is composed of approximately 17,000 students. Although these are elected officials, the decision was made before students were even on campus. The public arena of the Senate is a much more appropriate forum for debate on an issue as important as a fee increase. Public discourse is an essential part of any democracy. Students should be afforded the opportunity to listen and participate in the debate over a proposed increase. A public meeting would provide interested students with facts and opinions that would allow one to make an informed decision on the ballot initiative.
The student government is, in theory, working for the best interests of the student population. A proposed increase of $10 to the current $69.75 fee is a weighty issue. Not only did the bypass prevent discourse on the need for the increase, it also prevented debate on the amount of the increase.
By denying students the opportunity of public debate, it provides an unsettling precedent. Future councils may use this decision in the same way, starting a slippery slope away from democratic representation in student government. This council should only be used in dire conditions, when it is absolutely necessary.
President Anthony Burgio and the other members of the council pinpointed time as a pressing issue. He said the referendum needed to go on the ballot now because if the SA waited, and took it to the Senate, it would be too late for the increase to go into effect this spring. While The Spectrum understands this fact, it nevertheless is unsettling to have an issue of this magnitude conducted by four people.
In the coming weeks, the Student Association should hold public forums where students can discuss the proposed increase. Without these venues, students will not have the proper information to vote on the referendum.
It is unfortunate that SA chose to use this method on a significant issue, but it's in the past. From now on, SA is obligated to provide informational sessions open to the public to supplant the forgone debate and should avoid using this procedure in the future.
