At last Wednesday’s Student Union Senate meeting, the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) announced their proposal for a revised SU constitution and answered general questions about the changes they are advocating.

Some of the most significant changes include the adoption of a bicameral legislature, which would be composed of a senate and a treasury. The senate would be responsible for representing the interests of the student body, while the treasury would manage the allocation of the student activities fee to WU’s student groups.

“We feel that this separation creates the transparency that SU needs,” said Jason Green, SU vice president and a member of the CRC. He added that eliminating monetary issues from the Senate allows senators more opportunities to interact with student groups.

Emily Reinhart, SU treasurer and a CRC member, said that another aspect of the new constitution is that it is structured in order to attract a “new type” of SU representative.

“This type may be the student who is very interested and concerned about our campus but does not want to deal with what seems to be the politics and red tape of the current SU,” Reinhart said. She noted that representatives will not have to meet the requirement to serve on two committees as they have in the past.

Another proposed change to the structure of the government is the elimination of the Attorney General position. The duties of the Attorney General will be divided between the Election Commissioner and the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Council, two new positions proposed by the CRC.

The committee mentioned some potential drawbacks to the new constitution: an increased need for student participation, the removal of financially-based legitimacy from the Senate, and the possibility of confusion over the revisions to the constitution.

But the CRC added that the possibility of stagnation and the lack of student participation are natural to any student government.

The CRC does not plan to officially propose the new constitution until early next semester, allowing them ample opportunity to educate the entire student body about the changes.

“We are looking at pushing the actual proposal date back to very early second semester,” said Green. “This way, we will have adequate time to publicize the changes in the constitution that are beneficial to the student body-hopefully sparking interest [in WU students] to run for SU and also the desire to participate in the new structure.”

Last spring, SU formed the CRC in response to problems in the original constitution with three goals in mind: creating a structure for SU that provides for the most activism, while also supporting flexibility and accessibility.

The original constitution was riddled with problems and contradictions, according to a handout distributed by the CRC at the Senate meeting. Primarily, SU positions were restricted by constitutional duties, the judicial branch was undefined, and the existing constitution was outdated and obsolete.

Initially, SU decided to revise the constitution when the executive council realized that holding their elections on the scheduled dates, March 28 and 29, was in direct violation of the constitution, which stipulated that elections be always held in April.

Green said, “One of the main reasons we began to take a look at the constitution was because it was so limiting. A constitution must be flexible enough so that it doesn’t have to undergo change often, but can [also] endure the rapid change incurred by time.”

He explained that a successful constitution is one that is less specific but is complemented by more specific, renewable statutes.

Contact Laura Liberman at [email protected]

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, October 19th, 2001 at 12:00 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.