Union E-board actions undemocratic

In response to the article in The Daily Free Press entitled “Tribunal leaves in protest,” I would like to inquire whether the student body knows the ruse behind the recent Student Union Senate amendment to reduce the number of college governments needed to pass a constitutional amendment (April 8, pg. 1). Originally, two-thirds of colleges needed to ratify a constitutional change to the Student Union. According to the new amendment ratified at last Monday’s Student Union Senate meeting, only four need to ratify any further changes. According to The Daily Free Press, this change was made “with little opposition.”

This amendment is different than the original amendment proposed which would have allowed the Senate to override the college government’s vetoes. I applaud the senators who realized the tyranny of this. If that original amendment had been ratified, there would be no stopping the Student Union from doing whatever it wanted, without consent of any student government. (Theoretically, even if all 10 colleges vetoed an amendment, the Senate would have still been able to override it with a three-quarters vote.)

This new amendment requiring only four college governments to ratify amendments to the Student Union constitution is a travesty. There is no “hope” in Mr. Clay’s “Hope Amendment.” Essentially, not even a plurality of college governments is needed anymore; either the smallest four schools (representing the smallest amount of students) or the four largest schools (a tyranny of the majority) are able to hoodwink the rest of the university and let the Student Union move unchecked.

The original purpose of having all college governments ratify an amendment is to make it inherently hard to change the constitution. This is true not only of our Student Union constitution, but also our federal Constitution. How the Student Union can be such an affront to democracy is mind-boggling.

Lastly, it seems that Monday night’s Senate meeting is not valid and unofficial due to the lack of a Tribunal member. The fact that John Underwood’s appointment was not at an official meeting is not an issue. No one has questioned his legitimacy until it was deemed politically feasible for those in opposition to the Tribunal. In fact, by never questioning his legitimacy, the Senate had consented to his legitimacy de facto. His meetings are valid. Last Monday’s is not.

I would like to convince the student body to scrutinize their current and next year’s Student Union. These tactics seem treasonous to the objectives of a student union that purports to represent the entire student body. In other words, the Student Union Executive Board is blatantly hoping to manipulate the Senate and college governments for their aims, one of which is the total revision of the Student Union Constitution, which may not even include student involvement from the student body.