Read our endorsements of the candidates and amendments that were published in Monday’s issue.

It’s a scary thought, the notion that such intense, condensed, active participation in life will be lost amid a sea of apathy when we move out of the Wash. U. bubble and into the real world. And so the only viable option when presented with the reality of such short-lived engagement is not to take such an atmosphere for granted.

Vote in the upcoming elections. Vote because you’ve decided who you want to control a $2.2 million budget. Vote because you’ve chosen the representatives who will bring positive change to SU and campus. Vote because the system works only if the student body feels connected to its government. Vote if you know every detail about both slates, and vote if you know nothing but their big ideas. Vote if you’ve voted in every SU election since coming to Wash. U., and vote if you’ve never voted in any election, Wash. U.-related or not, before. Vote to increase transparency. Vote to bring the kinds of speakers you want to campus. Vote to increase funding for individual student groups. Vote because you can. Vote because you only have four years at Wash. U. and because such an opportunity for direct involvement may not last past graduation.

The executive officers are currently elected in the spring semester, usually the week before spring break, and the vice president of finance presents the general budget later in the spring semester, usually a couple of weeks before the end of school. At the same time, executive officers usually serve from the middle of the second semester of their junior year until the middle of the second semester of their senior year, although some serve terms that overlap their sophomore and junior years. It would be better if the officers were elected near the end of the fall semester and they began their terms at the very beginning of the spring semester.

The executive officers should serve on a calendar that empowers them to accomplish as much as possible. As a general rule, they only experience momentum twice during their tenure—when they begin their terms and at the beginning of a new school year. These are the times when they are most motivated and students are paying the most attention. But the potential in the first of these instances is not fully realized because officers begin their terms in the middle of the second semester, when there is a little more than two months before the end of school.

If the executive officers were elected near the end of the fall semester, either right before Thanksgiving or sometime between Thanksgiving and finals, and began their terms at the very beginning of the spring semester, the potential at the beginning of their terms would be fully realized because there would be more time between then and the end of school, while the potential at the beginning of a new school year would be unchanged.

It would provide additional transition time because the newly elected executive officers would have the time between their election and winter break, as well as between winter break itself, which would be between one and two months, during which they could focus on preparing themselves for their new responsibilities. Currently, they have the weeklong spring break and two weeks after school starts again, for a total of three weeks to focus on this task. Any increase in transition time benefits students and their representatives in Student Union.

It would provide additional time in which the outgoing executive officers would be available on campus to provide guidance to the newly elected executive officers, because they would be available for the entire spring semester, which is almost four months. Currently, the outgoing executive officers are only available on campus to provide guidance to the newly elected executive officers from spring break to the end of school, which is a little more than two months. Any increase in access to outgoing executive officers benefits students and their representatives in Student Union.

Assuming the timing of the general budget would not change—and there is no reason why it should change along with the calendar—a new calendar would provide additional time in which the newly elected executive officers would be able to prepare the budget, because the time between their election and when the general budget is presented would be extended to almost four months. Currently, the time between their election and when the general budget is presented is a little more than a month. Any increase in the amount of time available to discuss the general budget benefits students and their representatives in Student Union.

I reject the notion that freshman voters are significantly more informed about Student Union executive officer candidates in February and March than they would be in November or December, or, at least, I think that this cost would be outweighed by other benefits. While changing the Student Union executive officers’ calendar would provide seniors an opportunity to focus more of their energies on friends, graduate school programs and job opportunities, perhaps most importantly, it would provide more momentum for newly elected officers to push their agenda, more transition time, more access to outgoing executive officers, and more time to present the general budget.

Trevor is a junior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at tsmattea@wustl.edu.

President

vs. Nate Ferguson, Bold

Morgan may not belong to the Bold slate, but we think she’s the one with the truly bold ideas for SU. We like her plans to create bigger, better programming on campus, to make the Women’s Building a gathering space for student groups, and to make SU resources, including Treasury allocations, more accessible to all students. Nate gave a great pitch with substitutive ideas about how to make SU into a forward-looking institution. Were he elected, we’re sure some good conversations would arise from his five-year plan. Morgan’s focus on the present, however, was even more impressive. We think she has a much-needed willingness to shake things up and challenge conventional SU practices. She shares our desire to see SU be a more forceful advocate on behalf of the student body. We have said many times this year that SU is need of change, and for those who want to see improvements to SU, we think Morgan is the best bet.

Vice president of administration

vs. Kirsten Miller, Open

This was a tough choice, but Mike impressed us with his enthusiasm and knowledge about the inner workings of SU. Vice president of administration is very internally focused position, and, therefore, we believe it requires an experienced insider to do the job. It can also be a difficult, dull position, and we think Mike’s knowledge of what it entails and ability to self-motivate will best enable him to do a consistently good job throughout the year. We like his plan for improving the SU archives to create greater institutional knowledge within SU, as well as his plans to expand campus card functionality. We also hope that he can fix SU’s broken retention process and stem the tide of resignations that has characterized this year. Kirsten Miller’s ideas on this topic mostly included reactive measures, such as exit interviews for those who resign. Mike seems interested in how to keep them from quitting in the first place.

Vice president of finance

vs. Olivia Hassan, Bold

Eliot has clearly done his homework and knows the ins and outs of this position, and the SU budget, very well. Vice president of finance is a job that requires a lot of knowledge of SU’s intricacies, and we believe that makes Eliot the more-qualified candidate. While Olivia presented good ideas, such as reducing the number of phones in the SU office (which would result in $12,000 worth of savings), she described herself as willing to move Treasury in a less “nit-picky” direction. We feel this is not the right philosophy for such a detail-oriented body. We think Eliot’s consistent experience in Treasury gives him the acquired wisdom necessary to do his job properly, yet we also believe he has a willingness to reconsider SU’s established practices when necessary. We like his plan to allow individual students to appeal to Treasury, his plans to expand the Treasury liaison program, his intention to be actively involved in the Treasury allocation process, and his plan to use the increased activities-fee revenue for the Assembly Series.

Vice president of programming

vs. John Harrison York, Open

Both John Harrison and Tricia are SU outsiders and seemed ready to address the main issues of their office. While we liked John Harrison’s suggestion of bringing back club night, he provided few specifics on how he might achieve such a plan.

Tricia, however, was detail-oriented and explained how she would tap into existing SU resources to achieve her goals. For instance, she noted that over-programming was an issue, and said student groups who plan collaborative events will be rewarded through the budget allocation process. Tricia has a clear knowledge of what the position of vice president of programming entails, well-conceived plans, and a strong sense of what makes for effective programming at Wash. U.

Vice president of public relations

vs. Ehi Okoruwa, Bold

Constitutional amendments

The constituents of Student Union shall consists of all full-time undergraduate students of Washington University in St. Louis. This group may also be referred to as the constituency.
for: This amendment will allow students studying abroad to vote and run in elections. Full participation by all full-time students, including those abroad, should be encouraged, because they have a serious stake in SU’s direction. These students should have a say in who represents them upon their return to Wash. U., and if they are willing, they should be able to run themselves.

[The president shall] have the power to veto, in writing, any appeal by the Treasury of the Student Union within three (3) business days of its passage; [The president shall] have the power to enact, by a two-thirds (2/3) of the total Representatives of the Treasury, legislation or allocations previously passed, which was subsequently vetoed by the President of the Student Union.
for: Since the president already enjoys this power over the Senate, we think it important that these same powers be extended over the Treasury. This might help untie some of the bureaucracy, as well as enhance the president’s power to effect change over the year.

All constituents shall have the right to appeal for Student Union funding regardless of whether or not they are in a Student Union recognized group.
for: We feel that individual students are just as capable of bringing dynamic and interesting programming as student groups, while allowing students put off by the lengthy group-recognition process to seek funds.

Elections for Executive Officers shall be held in the Fall Semester.
against: The concern that the obligations and apathy that students experience in the second semester of senior year hinders effective SU leadership may be a legitimate one. But these issues are possible throughout senior year; no matter when elections occur, those running for SU office must know what they are getting into and must be committed enough to balance their responsibilities with senior theses, graduate school applications and senioritis. Also, fall elections would disadvantage freshmen, who would have only a few weeks to become familiar with SU before the election.

Preceding the fall and spring semester elections, the number of constituents in each school shall be obtained by the Election Commissioner. Each school shall have one (1) Senator for every three hundred twenty-five (325) constituents. If the remaining number of constituents in that school is greater than one hundred sixty-two (162), there shall be one (1) additional senator in the school. Each school shall, regardless of its enrollment, have a minimum of two senators.
for: Students should have equal representation in both bodies of the SU legislature. Also, reducing the number Senate seats will make Senate elections more competitive and lessen the need for appointments to fill vacancies.

[The president shall] prepare an annual budget for the Student Union accounting for all planned expenditures of the Student Activity Fee. The President may delegate this power to the Vice President of Finance.
against: While we understand that the outlined budget largely determines what the president is able to do, we’re unsure that eliminating the powers of other elected officials (in this case the vp of finance) is the proper way to address this problem. Budget planning is a complex responsibility that should be and the skills we look for in a vp finance are not the same skills we seek in our president.

[The president shall] present a State of the Student Union Address to all branches of the Student Union at least once each semester that shall include legislative priorities and action plans for the Legislative Branch.
for: It is slightly worrying that such a thing needs to be spelled in the constitution, but we’re for any effort to inject some substance into the political discourse.

Elections of Representatives of the Treasury will be held twice annually, in the fall semester and in the spring semester.
for: We generally believe that Senate and Treasury should be held to the same standards, and be thought of as similar representative units. This might help people to actually pay attention to these elections, might allow interested freshmen to run, and might make ballots more manageable.

The Executive Officers of the Student Union shall be the President and Vice President; Appoint a Secretary of Programming, Secretary of Finance, and Secretary of Public Relations with consent of the Senate and Treasury and have the power to remove such persons from their positions, with the consent of the Senate and Treasury.
against: We are inclined to think that the increased powers that the president will enjoy if some of these amendments pass would be better balanced by a full suite of elected officials. Furthermore, we are skeptical that a president would act in good faith in the appointments of his or her cabinet. We feel there is no fundamental difference between choosing a slate and appointing additional executive board members once in office.

The creation of the Diversity Affairs Council (DAC) represents a firm commitment from Student Union to issues of diversity, with a focus on facilitating: (1) Diversity Training, (2) Collaborative Diversity Programming and Scheduling, and (3) Issue Advocacy. The DAC will provide a forum for students and student groups interested in multicultrual, socioeconoic, religious, and GLBTQIA issues and more. As a core component of Student Union, the DAC will work closely with the Student Union President, VIce President of Programming, and Senate to improve the Washington University student experience. Most importantly, the DAC will recieve no budget and cost ZERO DOLLARS of your student activity fee.
for: with reservations. In talks with the DAC’s representatives, we were left with the impression that many of its aims (lobbying the administration’s admission criteria, reducing over-programming) might be beyond their reach. But we were also left with the impression that, given the chance, this group of passionate people might effect some good. We’ll be watching closely over the next year to see they make good on their promises. But in the end, we still think they deserve a shot.

Block funding

S.A.R.A.H.:
S.A.R.A.H. (Sexual Assault and Rape Anonymous Helpline) is a 24/7 pager-based helpline providing counseling and support for students. S.A.R.A.H. is applying for $5,500 per year for two years, which constitutes 0.24% of the Student Union budget.

Hatchet:
Hatchet, the Washington University student Yearbook, is asking for subsidies to lower the publication costs for the next two years. The funding will lower the price of yearbooks to students $75 to $10 per yearbook.

Habitat:
Washington University’s Habitat for Humanity chapter is requesting $7,000 dollars for next year’s chapter budget. The budget accommodates costs for events such as HFH St. Louis Trivia and a Build Challenge. One of the stated purposes for the chapter’s budget is to implement programming that allows students to “strengthen the St. Louis communities in which Habitat homes are located.”

The council ruled that signatures on petitions for initiatives, referendums, recalls and block funding must refer specifically to the item or action that is to be voted on in the election. Signatures are invalidated should the item or action that is being referred to be changed.

But the Election Commission released its own statement later Wednesday afternoon, stating that Mattea’s proposed amendments to the Constitution would remain on the ballot. Since the ruling by Constitutional Council was not ex post facto, it will affect only future decisions.

Constitutional Council called a hearing for Tuesday night to determine the validity of Mattea’s petition to amend the SU Constitution. When Mattea started collecting the 900 signatures for his petition, the exact wording of each amendment had not been finalized, so according to the ruling, these initial signatures acquired before Mattea finalized the amendments are invalid.

In the unanimous opinion of Constitutional Council, “The Council finds that a petition requires a specified amendment prior to collecting signatures so that the signatures can support a petition calling for an election on that specified amendment. For the same reasons, language in the amendment cannot change while collecting signatures or after signatures have been collected. Should the language change, the petition would refer to a new amendment, thereby invalidating all previous signatures.”

According to a post on the SU Web site, the election commissioners wrote, “[Since] we had already approved or rejected all petitions submitted to us based both on our own definition of a valid signature and established precedent for accepting petitions, we do not find it appropriate to overturn our own decisions…We believe that such late-game disruption to the election process is in itself unfair to both the candidates and the student body.”

Testifying before the Constitutional Council, Speaker of the Senate Chase Sackett filed a petition dated Feb. 15 that asked when a signature on a petition to amend the Constitution is valid and whether these amendments must be voted on as one unit or may be voted on separately. Sackett said that he filed the petition because there was a lot of confusion about the exact petition process.

“A lot of students were concerned about how the process was going because it didn’t seem to be working right in terms of the signature collection because they weren’t sure what they were signing for,” Sackett said. 

Constitutional Council scheduled the fact-finding investigation for Tuesday and agreed to an open hearing upon constituent request. While this was the first time that Constitutional Council had conducted an open hearing, the appeal for an open hearing isn’t unusual.

“Constituents are free to request an open hearing,” Chief Justice of SU Natacha Lam said. “This is the first time that request has been made.”

At the Constitutional Council fact-finding investigation on Tuesday, Mattea stated that he believed he had correctly followed procedure. He questioned Constitutional Council’s equality of treatment, mentioning that the council had singled him out at the hearing while there were other students who were circulating petitions.

“The grievance process has been extremely confusing, and the Constitutional Council has not been answering my questions and is denying me my procedural rights outlined in the [Student Union] Constitution,” Mattea said in his opening statement. “As a result, I believe that whatever decision is reached is illegitimate.”

Sophomore Joseph Marcus, an SU senator, is one person who testified during the fact-finding investigation. He originally opted to attend the hearing because he was curious to see how Constitutional Council operated. He went in with a neutral position but changed his opinion as the investigation proceeded because he said Mattea seemed very well read on the constitution and made a strong argument.

“Trevor’s argument was leaning towards ‘OK, this makes sense. Everything’s that’s been done is valid,’ ” Marcus said.

After the decision was released, Marcus said he did not plan to vote in support of any of Mattea’s amendments, but he was glad to see that the amendments were going to make it onto the ballot. He added that he found the decision by Constitutional Council to be entirely valid.

“I don’t plan on voting yes to his changes,” Marcus said. “However, I do believe the principles under his amendments because it causes more accountability on the executives. I think that it’s better to have it on the ballot and have the discussion go on. And I might hear a point that convinces me otherwise. And to arbitrarily remove it from the ballot is something I’m against.”

Mattea was less satisfied with the decision.

“I think it’s a decision that makes sense, but I don’t believe it was a decision that took anything I said into account, nor did it take the testimony of Colin [Towery, one of the Election Commissioners] or any of my witnesses into account,” Mattea said. “So what was the point? I don’t know. I would just like to hear why my arguments are invalid. And I haven’t heard that either.”

Sackett was just glad to receive a definitive ruling on the matter.

“It’s a legitimate question that a lot of people have,” Sackett said. “I wasn’t trying to have a specific result. I’m glad it got answered to whatever degree it was.”

Senate questioned the process Wednesday night during the weekly Senate meeting and has called for the issue to be discussed at next week’s Senate meeting.

The Council deliberated on whether to endorse candidates individually or an entire slate, but ultimately decided to endorse the entire slate due to time constraints.

The debate was the first between the two slates. After 40 minutes of dialogue, the Olin Business Council voted on an endorsement, choosing to support the [open] slate.

The candidates were presented with three questions prior to the event from the Olin Business Council (OBC), and the floor was opened up to other questions from the crowd. About 30 people attended the event, which had mostly Olin Business School students.

Before the event began, sophomore Ben Furtick, a member of Olin Business Council, said, “I’m looking for them to understand us as a business school student group. They are a new organization and there hasn’t been much in the way of connecting other student groups through the OBC specifically. I think a direct outreach approach to Olin Business School students would be the best.”

The questions posed by the council focused on how each slate would improve career services for business school students, how to close the gap between the different schools at Washington University, and how each slate’s agenda corresponds to the needs of each school. Finally, the council asked, “If revenue from the student activities fee were cut in half next year, what would you take out of the budget?”

DeBaun, SU president candidate for the [open] slate, said in regard to improving career services, “We would work with OBC and students in the business school. We would want to bring back the Netwurk, an initiative that has died over the past year, which would really help students.”

Netwurk was an initiative passed in fall 2009, which allowed business school students to network with Olin alumni to gain an advantage in the job market. The initiative lost momentum when the founder of the program and president of the OBC, Alex Rosenberg, went abroad.

Sophomore Kirsten Miller, who is running for vice president of administration for the [open] slate, commented on the importance of following through with initiatives.

“Netwurk started as a Senate project, and SU needs to be accountable for the things that we start,” she said.

Sophomore Cody Katz, the slate’s candidate for vice president of public relations, emphasized the need for all career centers on campus to respond to the changing economy and the strains it places on students as job applicants.

Junior Mike Post, the Bold slate’s candidate for vice president of administration, noted that improving career services is one of the most important issues in the campaign.

“Making sure that Career Center knows what students want and what their needs are would be a main priority for the slate,” he said.

Sophomore Ehi Okoruwa, the Bold slate’s candidate for vice president of public relations, agreed.

“We need to advertise the resources the Career Center offers, not only for students in the business school but for all students on campus, for those who aren’t in the business school but are business oriented,” she said.

The next question, about programming and outreach to bridge the gap between the different schools at Wash. U., allowed Bold slate’s presidential candidate, junior Nate Ferguson, to explain plans to make SU more accessible and strategic. He emphasized building a relationship with business fraternities Delta Sigma Pi and Alpha Kappa Psi. He also emphasized open office hours in public places on campus, as well as reviving OlinPalooza, a free concert organized by students in the business school, which hasn’t been put on in a year because of administrative concerns.

Miller brought up the revival of OlinPalooza as an example of a way to demonstrate support for the business school. She said that while other schools may receive funding for events such as Vertigo or Bauhaus, the business school requires more funding to put on such an event.

In an open round of questions, freshman Justin Blau, a member of the Olin Business Council executive board, said that OlinPalooza would require at least $15,000 in student funds. He asked the candidates if this was a viable target.

Junior Olivia Hassan, candidate for vice president of finance for the Bold slate, said in response, “One of the problems is getting finances for it, but if the passion of the student body is there we can all come together to make it happen and we would make it happen.”

Finally, regarding how to deal with a theoretical cut to the student activity fee, both slates emphasized making cuts across the board.

“We would cut things that aren’t used by all Washington University students,” DeBaun said.

Hassan stressed the need to gauge what the student body wants most when deciding what to cut in the event of a decline in student activity allocations.

“We need to prioritize money for things that people can participate in on campus and making Treasury more consistent,” she said.

An executives debate designed for the whole student body is scheduled for 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Monday.

Correction: The original version of this article stated that DeBaun was in the business school. She transferred out of the business school.

Junior Trevor Mattea (bottom left) testified before Student Union Constitution Council late Tuesday night as one of his supporters held a sign that says “Give the People What They Want” with 900 tally marks. The Constitutional Council held a fact-finding session in order to define what constituted a valid signature and whether a petition can be split up into multiple items on the ballot. Mattea is being questioned for how he went about collecting the over 900 signatures needed to put his proposed amendments on the ballot for the upcoming SU election. His amendments seek to restructure various parts of SU. As of press time, Constitutional Council had yet to make a decision. The ballot is set to be finalized at noon today, and unless Constitutional Council makes a decision blocking the petition, the Election Commission will go ahead with the measure. (Matt Lanter | Student Life)

Whereas, on February 16, Student Union Treasury voted 7-6-1 for the DAC, failing to reach the needed two-thirds majority of members present for approval;

Whereas, the Treasury approved each individual component of the legislation but not the legislation as a whole;

Whereas, this episode shows that either Senate or Treasury misunderstood the legislation it was considering;

Whereas, students deserve to be involved in and informed of significant campus initiatives; and therefore be it

Resolved, that the student body is confused by or mostly unaware of the push for a DAC; and be it further

Resolved, that Senate and Treasury need to get on the same page; and be it further

Resolved, that SU has not sufficiently and widely publicized the plan for a DAC; and be it further

Resolved, that SU needs to explain clearly the purpose and responsibilities of the DAC; and be it further

Resolved, that SU should hold an open forum regarding the DAC to allow students to learn more and to provide feedback; and be it further

Resolved, that while the DAC may be a good idea, it must be more than a superficial SU initiative; and be it further

Resolved, that SU must demonstrate what the DAC will accomplish that current student groups cannot; and be it further

Resolved, that SU must demonstrate how the DAC will improve current diversity initiatives and increase diversity within the Wash. U. community.

Editorial Board
Student Life

Over the past two weeks Trevor Mattea has sought signatures for nine proposed amendments to SU’s constitution. Some of these amendments include allowing undergraduate students who are abroad to vote in elections and run for office and allowing the president to propose the general budget. Mattea has already collected well over the 900 signatures that are required to put these amendments on the ballot in the upcoming SU elections. But an anonymous grievance lodged against Mattea alleges that his methods of collecting these signatures violate constitution protocol. Should the majority of the five judges on the Constitutional Council rule against him on Tuesday, his proposal will be dead in the water.

The grievance submitted to the Council does not elaborate on the nature of Mattea’s alleged infraction. Mattea said that Associate Justice Justin Taylor, a sophomore, wrote in an e-mail that the hearing will answer the question of when a signature on a petition to amend the Constitution is valid. Additionally, the hearing will determine if a petition proposing a body of Constitutional amendments signed by 15 percent
 of the constituency of Student Union must be voted on as one 
unit or if the amendments can be voted on separately.

These are legitimate questions so far as they go. As Americans we take some pride in the rigorous discourse that any change to our constitution entails. But we fear in this case, undue regard for procedure might strangle much needed reform.

The argument appears to be that since Mattea intends to try each measure independently, he should have sought signatures for each amendment. Or, conversely, that his amendments currently deserve only one referendum.

The student judges have the responsibility to ensure that Mattea’s amendments see the light of day. But such an outcome is by no means promised. The court could very well decide to have Mattea’s initiatives summarily rejected. An individual student trying to enact change of such magnitude within SU is unprecedented, and preventing these proposed changes from going on the ballot would create a dangerous precedent.

It would have been practically impossible for Mattea to have gathered the 8,100 signatures needed for his nine amendments. We can presume that a defeat for Mattea will discourage such bold attempts in the future. It therefore strikes us as oddly self-defeating that SU, a group long-plagued by the apathy of its community, might smother the only issue in recent memory about which 15 percent of people demonstrably care. The message it would send to Mattea’s 900, and to the student body at large is potentially dangerous: SU doesn’t care what you think. For his part, Mattea is confident he followed the rules.

“I think I did everything honestly, and my arguments are sound. To the degree that this is something vague, I think the council should err on the side of the students,” Mattea said.

We couldn’t agree more.

Our Student Union could be focused on new, creative ways for spending our general budget. We could fund more large-scale programming so that students have a reason to come together more than twice a year. We could host workshops with community organizers to teach our student representatives how to more effectively challenge the administration when it seems to ignore our interests.

We should be fighting to be recognized as legitimate stakeholders at the University. We should focus more of our resources on securing the right to vote for our student representatives on the board of trustees. We should try to get the University to commit to allowing students to select who represents them on University committees. Our Student Union could be an effective advocacy organization on our behalf. We have already missed opportunities like these before. Our Student Union could have taken a stand against the smoking ban that was approved without sufficient student input and followed it up with sufficient resources. Students don’t want our Student Union to make these mistakes again, but I believe that they are inevitable unless we elect students who actually have these priorities and improve the flawed structure in our student government that currently undermines them.

I believe that the structure of our Student Union excludes many students who have an interest in our student government’s spending and advocacy priorities. Its structure makes it unnecessarily difficult for us to hold our student representatives accountable for their priorities and actions. It distracts us from engaging in a real debate about the direction of our student government and hinders our student representatives from taking action on the big issues that we elect them to address. As a result, I am proposing the following amendments to the constitution. I believe these amendments will give us more influence in our student government, and they will give student representatives the power to take on the issues most important to us as students.

• Allow undergraduate students who are abroad to be represented and give them the right to vote in elections and run for office.

• Allow all undergraduate students to appeal to the Treasury for funding for their initiatives and programs regardless of whether or not they are in a Student Union recognized group.

• Allow the President to actually set the agenda by giving him or her the right to propose our general budget.

• Allow the President to put a check on Treasury spending by giving him or her the right to veto appeals in the same way that he or she can currently veto other legislation.

• Encourage collaboration between the executive and legislative branches and more ambitious advocacy by giving the President the right to propose legislative priorities to Senate and Treasury.

• Allow undergraduate students to hold Treasury more accountable by holding fall and spring elections like Senate instead of one election a year.

• Allow undergraduate students to hold Senate more accountable by reducing its size to that of Treasury.

• Limit the elected executive offices to the President and Vice President to encourage more people to run for the top offices and make elections about who has the best agenda for students.

• Hold executive elections in the fall semester instead of the spring semester to relieve students from having to serve in executive positions during the second semester of their senior year.