Last week, we urged the ASUO Student Senate to reject a proposed resolution that would condemn the government of Iran for continued development of the country’s nuclear program. Expected to come before the Senate in upcoming weeks, the resolution is beyond the purview of the Senate and might disenfranchise students from Iran and other Middle Eastern nations, we argued (“Kudos to ASUO for rejecting exclusion,” ODE Jan. 25, 2006).
Since our last editorial, it has come to light that Senate rules actually prohibit the body from passing resolutions that don’t relate “to the allocation and/or expenditure and/or other use of incidental fees” – the $191 students pay each term that is used to fund student groups. Unfortunately, some members of the Senate are now trying to change Senate rules to bring this resolution to a vote.
Why is this issue important? Student government, and the 18-member Senate specifically, play a key role behind the scenes of University life. They have final say over how student fees are spent and provide checks and balances on other branches of the government.
The ASUO Constitution clearly states the purpose of the Senate: acting on “matters relating to the allocation and appropriation of incidental fees” and representing the “collective and constituent interests of students in all matters considered and/or acted upon by the present General Assembly and University Senate, and/or any matters coming before a shared governance body or University or departmental administrative channels relating to: student personnel services, University administered housing, campus design, and University budgeting, except as otherwise,” according to the document.
In essence, the Senate should focus on issues affecting the fees, issues broached by the University Senate and other issues that relate directly to students at the University.
Thus we do not oppose changing the Senate’s rules to allow it to vote on some matters not directly related to the fee, such as the proposed Westmoreland Apartments sale. Such actions pertain to the latter part of the Senate’s mission as stated above.
But the Constitution’s framers clearly did not intend for the Senate to become involved in international politics. Resolutions such as the Iran proposal waste the Senate’s time and undermine its credibility. If the Senate votes (today) to change its rules about resolutions, it must include specific language clarifying that resolutions must pertain to the Senate’s mission as stated in the Constitution.