Stuco Votes on Constitution Amendments

By: Petra Orloff, Vir Shrestha, Michael Yang

Student Council (StuCo) voted on three new amendments to the Student Council Constitution over winter break. StuCo passed the State of Emergency and Election Reform amendments with two-thirds majority votes, and did not pass the Dorm and Day Student amendment.

The Student Council Constitution, originally drafted in February of 1989, currently contains ten amendments.

Under the first proposed amendment, the State of Emergency clause, a state of emergency grants officers the power to take action on behalf of StuCo without procedural constraints, organize elections for any position and carry out acts not bound by the Constitution.

The Election Reform amendment, driven forward by senior and Co-head of the Elections Committee Charlie Preston, changes the current voting system into online ranked-choice voting to minimize the number of “useless” votes and more accurately measure the student body opinion. StuCo plans to use ElectionBuddy’s email voting feature. 

The Dorm and Day Student amendment allotted one representative per dorm and six representatives for the day student body, lowering the number of total representatives from 65 to 26. 

STATE OF EMERGENCY CLAUSE

According to Co-Secretary Phil Horrigan, the state of emergency clause was proposed because the inability to meet remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic “immediately sidetracked our administration.” 

“It was agonizing,” Horrigan said. “We all wanted to make a change, but we couldn't. All we had the authority to do for the whole spring and summer was meet with our advisors and other adults on campus. We need our Student Council to be able to serve in our worst moments, not just our best.”

StuCo Co-President Charlotte Lisa elaborated on the overarching purpose of the emergency clause. “There were no directions for us as an executive board when the pandemic hit, and the policy we’ve voted in could solve a large amount of the problems we faced as a board for future boards,” she said.

ELECTION REFORM

The newly passed election system consists of one round of voting per officer election and two for Presidential election, replacing the previous procedure that called for a primary and run-off round for the Co-Secretaries, Vice President, and the President of Student Council. 

Lisa described the purpose behind the election amendment’s reform. “In elections where there are many many eligible candidates, such as 25+… the election’s results aren’t truly representative,” Lisa said. “For example, in the prep rep elections this fall, a candidate could have theoretically won with only about 10% of the class’ vote given the spread of votes across so many eligible candidates.”

Preston was an active supporter of the amendments. “It's important that our voting methods adapt with the times in order to reflect our student population as accurately as possible. Plurality voting, or ‘First past the post’ is hardly an acceptable way to choose our representatives because it does not guarantee that anywhere close to a majority of a constituency actually wants their representatives in office,” Preston said. “I am elated that we've finally made the right moves on this issue and can go forward with more fair elections.”

Lower Jennifer Finkelstein expressed satisfaction with the change. “I think [this amendment] reflects changes that are desperately needed in large-scale politics. To me, it doesn't seem vital here, since the Student Council is not divided into parties the way American politics is, but it only increases fairness in elections, and it probably wouldn't hurt to get rid of ties in StuCo elections,” Finkelstein said.

DORM/DAY STUDENT REPS

The preserved dorm representative system decides the number of representatives by dividing the number of students in each dorm by 20. Horrigan argued in favor of a new system to promote accountability. “This current Student Council is bogged down by a massive voting population that is unwieldy and ineffective,” Horrigan said. “Our day student and dorm reps do very little.”

“I believe [a new system] is necessary to improve efficiency within Student Council while still honoring representation and including varying voices in our StuCo discussions,” Lisa added.

Preston added his support. “[It] would have made StuCo much more efficient,” he said. “I do not see how the council, as it is, benefits from semi-proportional representation. Why should Cilley, hypothetically, complain about having the same representation as Dow? Our ‘representatives’ do not actually represent different interests. There is nothing about being in a different dorm that would make and Ewaldian vote differently from a Hoytian.”

“This begs the question as to whether our reps have any representative power at all,” Preston continued. “Hell, we are a school of little over a thousand students. Do we need representatives at all? If StuCo consisted only of one President it would still represent the school better by far than any single congressional district. Our small community is perfectly poised for direct democracy, wherein any and all students could represent themselves.”

Finkelstein disgreed, arguing that decreasing the number of voters would not increase the efficacy of StuCo’s decision-making process. “If the issue is there is too much time spent on discourse, it doesn't seem like limiting the number of voting members would fix that issue, because Student Council is an open forum. To improve participation and efficiency, it is understood that voting patterns themselves would also have to change,” Finkelstein said.

Braden also opposed the amendment, noting that day student and dorm reps were essential in preserving the democratic nature of Stuco. “I was very strongly opposed. Luckily it was stopped, but if this amendment had passed, StuCo would no longer be a truly representative democracy,” upper and Main Street Dorm Representative Cyrus Braden said. “This amendment undermined the democracy on which the Student Council was founded by giving all dorms the same amount of voting power.”

Despite extensive conversation within StuCo about the proposed amendments, Braden argued that Constitutional reform was impractical. “Trying to use a few bureaucratic amendments to solve the absolute disaster that is the Student Council constitution is a bit like putting three flimsy band-aids over a bullet hole and hoping to stop the bleeding,” Braden said. “It seems silly to continue papering over these pitfalls with futile amendments. Scrap the amendments and just repeal the constitution entirely.”

According to the StuCo Executive Board, the goal in the amendments is to incorporate inclusion and representation into the Constitution. 

The Student Council hopes that the two amendments will work to ensure that the Student Council is fair, democratic and capable of providing for the student body during unprecedented times. “I find it great to see that the Student Council is continuing to find ways to improve the school, even in the unusual circumstances of remote learning,” Finkelstein said. “The way the Executive Board has adopted is really admirable.” According to Lisa, StuCo will continue to re-assess the Constitution in hopes of achieving a more diversified and involved student body. 

“Even though I support all the policies which were proposed, I am in no way upset that the first policy [Dorm and Day Student Representative Amendment] was not passed because at the end of the day, as a member of the Executive Board, I will always support other students’ opinions over my own personal thoughts,” Lisa said.