Editor's note: This is an updated staff editorial. The original, published Feb. 4, inaccurately implied that the pending legislation regarding the Clean Energy Revolving Fund was to create the fund, as opposed to simply clarify the rules regarding its financing. This is a serious error and the editorial staff at The Eagle believes it warrants an updated staff editorial, in addition to the usual clarification and corrections. The Eagle regrets this error.
U.S. Senate Democrats, take note. In a manner of wheeling and dealing that would make LBJ proud, the AU Undergraduate Senate clashed, debated and eventually compromised with Student Government President Andy MacCracken on contentious legislation that will clarify the SG’s role in funding the Clean Energy Revolving Fund. The final product will be introduced for a first reading this Sunday and could be passed as early as Feb. 14. Student senators should follow through on their commendable progress and pass the bill.
Essentially, CERF’s goal would be to finance renewable energy generators to be used on campus. Money saved through these efforts would be redirected back into CERF, making it self-sustaining. Not only is CERF a great idea that helps AU fulfill its pledge to be carbon neutral, but similar programs have also been instituted by the State of Pennsylvania and Macalester University in Minnesota. Clearly, this fund is something we want sustained.
However, the initial CERF program had several wrinkles that needed to be ironed out. Class of 2010 Sen. Steve Dalton was rightly concerned that AU students would be forced to automatically contribute to this fund through student activity fees. The Eagle shares Dalton’s belief that students should not be coerced into funding CERF — which is ultimately a political project. Certainly, clean energy is a noble cause, but the means to this end should still benefit AU students, not add on to the seemingly endless fees we already pay.
Accordingly, Dalton’s original bill barred SG from funding for CERF through virtually all means — including the student activity fee. Despite passing the Senate, MacCracken vetoed the bill. Without the votes needed to override the veto, Dalton chose his next best option: compromise.
The two have hashed out their views and what is left is a great bill, one that should be a satisfactory compromise for all. In an appropriate representation of the middle ground, the SG would be allowed to hold fundraisers to raise money to contribute to CERF. More importantly, AU students would not be saddled with additional charges on their activity fees. Dalton is satisfied and MacCracken has pledged he will not veto. All that remains is an affirmative vote from the Senate.
Of course, this process was not without its flops. Confusion arose in the Senate as to what the bill actually entailed. Claims that many senators went into session without actually reading the bill only coupled the misunderstandings. Still, these regrettable and avoidable mistakes should not overshadow the efficiency of SG in fulfilling its purpose: acting on student input to produce results.
