I spent some time in student government during my junior year at Buena Vista University, serving on several committees, managing the Student Senate website, and most notably, being a thorn in most everyone’s side as a progressive voice that asked a lot of questions. I opposed giving $8,000 (of the university’s total bill of about $30,000) to the “drunk bus,” which transported students to and from the local bars three nights a week – this contribution, which was later approved, bankrupted Student Senate for most of the academic year. I challenged Student Senate leadership when they tried to pass a “student activity fee” to pay for the drunk bus, lied to the student body about what the money was for, and threatened to punish any senator who would not stand behind the lie.
I proposed holding regular open forums to discuss students’ concerns, one in particular to explore alternatives to the university’s policy prohibiting coed living arrangements. I criticized proposals to lower academic eligibility standards for student athletes. I supported increased funding for community service projects, multicultural groups, and “alternative” programming for party nights. And as you’ll see below, I called out Student Senate for being secretive and treating students as if they were stupid.
I wish I could say I did more. But frankly, we wasted a lot of time on Student Senate. The hardly revolutionary rap sheet above was enough to provoke an impeachment attempt. The claim was that I misrepresented my constituents when I voted against the drunk bus, but that fellow senator dropped the complaint when he discovered that I had in fact represented my constituents fairly and accurately, and had actually done more to solicit input than most senators.
As one of two resident advisors (RAs) on Student Senate, I apparently had some hand in provoking a long series of attempts to ban RAs from serving in student government. The argument was that students serving in residence life and student government were making and enforcing the same policies, thus creating a conflict of interest. There is not enough space here for a full explanation as to how insane that argument was. I believe the actual concern, revealed time and time again in senators’ rhetoric in support of a ban, was rooted in the assumption that RAs are somehow inherently anti-alcohol, and are generally incapable of thinking outside the stereotype of their RA position. In any event, we spent a significant chunk of the year discussing those proposals, without so much as a valid argument to support them, if that’s any indication of the group’s propensity to waste time.
At some point in the spring of the year, the question was raised, under what circumstances should Student Senate use roll call voting, enabling students to see how each senator votes? A lively debate ensued, during which I was told, in no uncertain terms, that BVU students don’t care and are too dumb to make sense of the results of roll call voting. It seemed that many senators worried that students would be unable to infer, for instance, that there might be complex reasoning behind a senator’s vote.
So, given that logic, if Senator A voted against giving money to a student organization that provides free daycare services for non-traditional students with children, students would inevitably infer that Senator A hates babies, shortly thereafter concluding that Senator A eats babies for breakfast, and that Senator A probably makes other babies watch – and the inevitable conclusions just flow from there! Students would be incapable of considering that maybe Senator A voted against the proposed funding because the group did not give a clear idea of how the money would be spent, in which case they could easily present their proposal at the next meeting and secure funding. Student Senate passed a motion prohibiting the use of roll call voting, presumably for the entire academic year (though, given our lack of organization, it’s certainly possible folks had no idea what they were really voting on – it wouldn’t have been the first time).
While I didn’t care much for roll call voting, and I didn’t find it necessary very often, I was very concerned that Student Senate would reject the practice outright, especially with such an arrogant rationale. So I organized a petition asking Student Senate to reconsider and got a few hundred student signatures (at a campus with just over a thousand students). I also debated the issue with another student in the campus newspaper (see below). I went to the next meeting prepared to present my petition, but that was thwarted by the student body president who facilitated a “punish the disobedient” session. Everybody got a shot at me, and in response, I calmly suggested that we ought to be open to criticism as an organization, including criticism from our own members.
The Student Senate censorship fiasco marked the beginning of the end of my experience with student government. Shortly after the point/counter-point exchange, I ran unopposed for secretary on a platform of improving our communication with students and providing more accurate and detailed information about what goes on in Student Senate meetings. The student body president then extended the deadline to run for office, and miraculously, the secretary position became the most sought after position on Student Senate, drawing an unheard-of five candidates. I lost that election, but thanks to support from progressive and multicultural groups on campus, was elected as a senator.
I was ready to have another go at student government, recognizing that it would still be an uphill battle, but at the very least, one for which I would be more prepared this time around. In the end, though, I decided that I could make more of a difference on campus outside of student government. I resigned at the first Student Senate meeting the following fall semester, and after the initial shock of hearing my resignation, I would guess folks were glad to see me leave. Below is the original point/counter-point from April 7, 2006, with a brief follow-up comment at the end.
*
For Roll Call Voting – Kyle Payne
It is discouraging to see that such a fundamental democratic right has become a subject of contention in our student government. However, I also recognize that there are concerns about the impact of allowing students to see how their individual senators are voting. So I think it is important to state the case for roll call voting and address some concerns.
The primary reason I see for supporting roll call voting, when necessary, is that is supports fundamental purposes of student government – representing students while promoting citizenship and democracy. By informing students, we hold senators accountable to their constituents and ensure that students have the tools they need to make informed decisions during election time.
Before I address arguments against roll call voting, I should mention that roll call voting is not always necessary. However, the almost unanimous vote from Student Senate last month did not suggest reserving roll call voting for appropriate occasions – it threw the idea out completely. Second, roll call voting is only one of many ways Student Senate can and should fulfill its responsibilities of keeping students informed.
Concerns with roll call voting seem to be that students will misunderstand the information and jump to conclusions. This is a legitimate concern since roll call voting does not tell the whole story. However, we are fortunate to have a student body that can understand this basic fact and look for other sources of information to fill in the blanks.
While I sympathize with these concerns, I am troubled by the picture other senators have painted for me, suggesting that students are incapable of handling basic information or making informed decisions. I do not share in that dreary outlook on our student body.
There is a wealth of information available and necessary to support democratic discussion – the answer, then, is not censoring information, it is giving students enough information to use.
*
Against Roll Call Voting – Taylor Jones
The issue of roll call voting in Student Senate is not as simple as some woudl make it seem. Many student who were asked to sign a petition recently to force full-time roll call voting were only told it would hold senators accountable. Students were told roll call voting would help students make more informed decisions. Sure it was easy for students to accept this as the solution to problems, but unfortunately they were not told the full side of the story.
First, roll call voting, despite the rumors, is not forbidden in Student Senate. According to Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary style Student Senate follows, a roll call vote can be requested by any voting member at any time. This is not a regular practice, as it creates a lot of unnecessary paperwok. Roll call votes are generally only used in voting decisions that are very close as a means to double check for ties or possible changes to the accepted decision.
Second, there is a reason why roll call voting would cause mroe problems than it would solve. Students would see certain decisions made by senators and not fully understand the decisions made. For example, a senator may decide to vote against suggested funding for a group because he or she feels the group deserves more than the proposed funding. Unfortunately, with roll call voting, students would only see the “no” vote, and they would not get the full explanation of why the senator voted in such a way.
One of the arguments in favor of roll call voting is the idea that students on campus do not care about anything and that roll call voting will open their eyes to decisions being made. This sort of action not only belittles the intelligence of the BVU campus but appears to be the final solution on a list that was never fully explored.
Roll call voting is an unnecessary evil that will only hinder the process of Student Senate making their job more difficult.
*
FOLLOW-UP (because I can): The purpose of the petition, as well as every statement I made on the issue, was to ensure that Student Senate could not ban the use of roll call voting for the entire academic year, which is precisely what the original motion was that passed. I never supported, or even mentioned, forcing “full-time roll call voting,” but insisted that roll call voting be an option when necessary.
Also, Taylor’s second-to-last paragraph is inaccurate, though I do give him credit for being creative. He took a criticism of my petition (“Students don’t care”) and my response to that criticism (“If that’s true, providing more accurate and detailed information may help students understand what is happening in Student Senate and their stake in it”), and re-packaged it to look like it was my original argument, i.e. “Students are dumb – let’s try to educate the poor, illiterate fools through roll call voting.” And far from a “final solution,” I intended occasional roll call voting to be a small part of a comprehensive plan to help students stay informed about student government and hold their senators accountable.
Taylor did not, as far as I know, go on to work for the McCain-Palin campaign.
