EDITORIAL: Vote “NO” on the new SA Constitution

EDITORIAL: The Student Association has attempted to drastically change the overall structure of the body by proposing a new SA Constitution to be ratified by a majority of the student body. The new changes include making the executive vice president part of the executive branch (to run on a slate with the presidential candidate), creating a new “speaker of the Senate” position to replace the former duties of the EVP, and creating a new “Freshman Caucus” to replace the three non-voting freshman senators appointed by the SA every year. The SA Constitution, as a whole, will become 30% shorter, and aims to be more understandable to the average GW student.


Some of the proposals, like making the bylaw process simpler, abolishing secretive executive sessions, and generally streamlining and hastening many processes in both the SA Senate and the SA Student Court, have the potential to make the SA more transparent and efficient. However, these simply do not go far enough in achieving drastic reforms, and judged as a whole, the proposed new structure of the SA is eerily similar to the current. Also, one of the justifications given for incorporating the EVP into the executive branch was that they can “focus on advocacy.” Every member of the SA should be constantly advocating on behalf of students, whether or not advocating is part of their job description.


This fails to serve the interests of the student body and ignores the plethora of issues current SA members campaigned on last February


Attending any SA meeting this semester, it is apparent the Senate has wasted time by trying to change or clarify parliamentary procedures and creating gigantic lists of unnecessary bylaws for every bill that tries to pass. This fails to serve the interests of the student body and ignores the plethora of issues current SA members campaigned on last February, including, but not limited to: reforming the dining system, reducing prices at the GW Book Store, improving the advising system, and attempting to reduce bureaucratic red tape.


Even more alarming, we believe that if the proposed SA Constitution is ratified, it only serves to mask the inaction and ineffectiveness of both the SA Senate and SA executive branch this semester and gives the SA an undeserving vote of approval.


The SA has no notable advocacy achievements this semester. There is no grand vision and agenda emanating from either the Senate or President Julie Bindelglass. The passing of the Constitution will only give the illusion that the SA is making progress, when in reality the new SA Constitution is a simple reshuffling of positions and titles, with no credible or drastic restructuring taking place which will allow the SA to function differently.


The SA has hosted two disastrous town hall meetings to discuss a new SA Constitution. Not surprisingly, both events were poorly advertised, and not a single student besides members of the campus media attended either meeting. The advertising of the referendum itself has been non-existent, with a majority of students on campus oblivious to the changes the SA is proposing. At the same time we believe that even if the event were advertised so few students would care about the proposed changes enough to appear at a town hall meeting. Instead, the meetings only give SA members the chance to say that the matter was opened up to the GW community. It’s self serving smoke and mirrors.


The most curious decision was to hold the referendum on December 3rd, in the midst of the last full week of classes when most students have a serious academic workload to complete. Holding the referendum following winter break would have been more convenient for the student body, and would have allowed the SA to properly advertise the new changes, as well as allow proper debate of the pro’s and con’s of the new document.


It seems ironic considering the dirt the Senate kicked up at the end of last semester with claims that no one had time to read that version of the proposed new Constitution (which the Senate voted to not vote on), and that the workload was so intense for Senators that they were unable to debate the merits of the bill. Now they assume that the average student has the time to deal with this nonsense? Not to mention the Senate is showing it’s narcissistic tendencies once again, assuming that the average student cares about how their body is structured.


We cannot support the ratification of the proposed Constitution. We believe that, by voting “no” on December 3rd that the SA will be sent a message that they are wasting time in office by making meaningless, trivial changes.


We hope the SA will focus almost entirely on advocacy next semester and avoid turning every SA Senate meeting into an irrelevant debate about Senate protocol and procedure. Instead, make the changes students elected you to make.