By Gregory Tenor
It is the responsibility of Student Government officials to advocate for the benefit of its constituents and, more importantly, fellow students.
However, the SG is severely disregarding these duties. Instead of working on behalf of us, its recent priority has been personal politics rather than the student body.
The Senate's actions have grown increasingly more corrupt, culminating three weeks ago in its actions taken against the SG Board of Elections.
The Board of Elections exists as a third party to facilitate and regulate free and fair elections. Why did the Senate feel it was necessary to dissolve the Board of Elections? The evidence unfortunately leads us to one conclusion: the Senate felt that recent decisions set forth by the BOE went against the Senate's unanimous agenda. So instead of abiding by the rules and bylaws established in the SG Constitution, the Senate eliminated the BOE, creating its own rules to achieve its self-serving objective.
The disagreement is this: the Board of Elections set forth that current members of the SG should not work on the campaigns of candidates, but they may grant endorsements. The rationale for this was to prevent current SG officers from accidentally neglecting their duties as a result of campaigning, and so, hopefully, encourage SG officials to spend that time dedicated to advocating the students' right to vote. In the past, campaigning has taken time away from the Senate that should have been spent serving those who elected them, the AU student body.
However, the Senate believes that this policy is unnecessary. How did they respond? On March 3, the Senate announced the decision to consider, wrote and passed a bill to dissolve the BOE in order to institute a "freer and fairer" Board - a.k.a. a Board that won't disagree with it. In reality, how can it guarantee that the "new" board of elections will be free and fair? Decisions promoted by a new and Senate-groomed "BOE" would clearly benefit the SG, but what about the entire student body?
Furthermore, by dissolving an important body behind closed doors, without warning, and especially considering that several senators hold personal grudges against certain BOE members, how can one say this action is free, fair, or legitimate?
Dissolving a part of government is similar to the actions of past authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union and Communist China. Is this the way to properly solve student government issues, by dissolving branches of the government that disagree with other members? Politics is a game of principles and rules, and the productive beauty of respectful debate. It appears the Senate has forgotten this.
Dissolving an entire branch of government without collaboration or communication with BOE members completely goes against any form of transparency. Nor does the legislature permit the Senate to take such actions. The Senate also neglected to inform the BOE of any wrongdoing prior to the dissolution, only citing "malpractice."
Clearly, the Senate will do anything in its power to institute policy that will benefit the "insiders" of the AUSG and shut down all policy that opposes it.
We can only hope that many of you will support us in the coming years to create a system that will actually advocate for the students and put political agendas aside, once and for all.
Gregory Tenor is a freshman in the School of Political Affairs.
