StuCo Executive Board Proposes New Referendum
The Student Council (StuCo) Executive Board introduced a referendum proposal at last Tuesday’s meeting. The proposal states that if over half of the student body signs a petition requesting to have a certain issue be put to a vote, or the majority of StuCo votes in favor of having a campus-wide referendum on some issue, a referendum will be held. Whatever policy being proposed through the referendum would then pass if a majority of the student body votes in favor, with a voter turnout rate of over 50 percent. In addition, the proposal allows the student body to recall any elected official by earning over two-thirds of the vote in a recall referendum, which can be triggered through a petition signed by over two-thirds of students. The particulars of this plan were discussed by council members throughout the meeting.
The referendums would be held on one of three major election dates during the school year, the date of the Prep Class Representative elections, the Discipline Committee elections and the Executive Board elections. The referendum for a certain issue would be held on the election date closest to when all of the signatures on a petition have been verified or to when StuCo votes to hold a referendum. Any decision made through a referendum would be considered binding. However, the Executive Board will be given the discretion to rule any referendum question invalid despite having gained the requisite number of signatures for “reasons of blatant impracticality and sensibility,” according to the proposal. Failed referendum questions may be raised again, within certain limitations. If less than one third of the student body vote for a certain referendum, the matter at hand cannot be voted upon again until one year after the voting day. If a referendum gains more than one-third of the student body’s vote, but less than a majority, it cannot be raised for the next referendum date but can be voted upon for subsequent referendum dates. Referendum votes do not have the power to allocate or appropriate funds.
StuCo President Matthew Robbins ran on a platform last spring during the presidential elections which included this referendum proposal as part of his larger goal of democratizing StuCo and giving a greater voice to the student body.
“The referendum policy is meant to get the entire student body involved in political decisions.”
The Referendum policy is intended to give students agency in campus politics. “Referendums are a way for the student body to directly put in place a policy,” Robbins said. “This will allow for all students to have a say on matter of high importance to them.”
In proposing this referendum policy, the Executive Board hopes to give more power to students and to encourage the general student population to participate in campus politics. “The referendum policy is meant to get the entire student body involved in political decisions,” lower and Secretary Jackson Parrell said. “It allows students to bypass decisions made in StuCo by instead presenting policy changes to the entire student body.”
There was some debate at StuCo on the threshold for the number of signatures necessary on the petition and for the voter turnout rate that must be met for an initiative to pass. Certain members of StuCo felt that both thresholds were too high, considering the historically low voter turnout rates for major campus-wide elections. The voter turnout rate for the final round of the 2015-2016 executive board election was 50.6 percent, while the voter turnout rate for the final round of the 2016-2017 executive board election was 44.6 percent.
Cade Napier, a dorm representative for Soule Hall, was in favor of the referendum policy remaining as it is. “I think that the [current] referendum [policy] is pretty reasonable, because if there are important issues being voted upon half of the student body will show up to vote. The referendum policy isn’t designed to be overused,” he said.
On the other hand, upper Will Soltas, a dorm representative for Cilley Hall, felt that the current proposal was impractical. He felt that the elections committee would not handle the logistics of hosting the proposed referendum. He thought the introduction of electronic voting for referendum proposals could improve the policy. “While I do think the referendum process is important, I don’t think the process, as it stands right now, is possible,” he said.
The referendum amendment will be put to a vote in StuCo at a later meeting.