Diversity senators
Under the current constitution there are five diversity senators on the SGO. Each senator represents a minority group on campus and is elected by the student organization serving that minority population. The senators cannot serve on faculty committees and cannot vote on financial matters.
According to the proposed constitution, a student organization that feels it serves "groups that have been historically silenced" may apply to the SGO for a diversity chair. Some senators expressed concern that five groups-Asian and Asian American; Latino/a; Black, African and African-American; gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered; and international students-would automatically receive seats under the proposed constitution.
"[Diversity senators] have … to do with a community's ability to raise an issue," said Matt Moses '02.
"[The diversity senators' limited responsibilities] make them second tier senators," said Marisol Thomer '03E.
Some senators contested the necessity of diversity seats and their validity as representatives of minority groups. As a compromise, a straw vote of the Senate that would include diversity seats as an amendment to the constitution, to symbolize that they are simply a temporary part of the constitution, passed by a vote of 10-1, with five abstentions. Straw votes of the Senate are non-binding.
"I'm not really sure we need [diversity senators] … It creates partisanship where there isn't any," said Jake Kaufman '02.
"The real question is 'are these clubs silenced?' If they are, then we have a problem on campus," said Lincoln Mayer '04.
By a vote of 14-0, with two abstentions, the Senate said it would prefer the that the next draft of the proposed constitution not include any groups to automatically receive diversity senator seats, meaning all interested clubs wanting a seat would have to apply to the executive branch. The executive branch would then present the applications to the Senate for approval.
Other senators raised concerns about the method of appointing diversity senators to the SGO. Particular attention was paid to whether or not groups receiving diversity senators should be required to use that seat and if groups could lose their seat if it is left vacant for too long.
By a vote of 16-0, the Senate voted that the next draft of the constitution should say that filling a diversity senator seat should be the choice of a group, but if a chair is left unfilled for two years it would be taken away from the club. The club would have the choice to re-apply for a new chair.
"As I went through the process and talked to these groups, I realized there is a need for these seats," said Julie Babayan '03, explaining to fellow SGO members why she changed her mind on the issue.
Proxy campaigns
After the discussion about diversity senators, the Senate moved on to evaluate article eight of the proposed constitution, which concerns election codes and proxy campaigns.
Under the proposed constitution, if a student were not on campus to campaign for his or herself-such as if the student were abroad-he or she could have a representative on campus campaign for him or her. A straw vote of the Senate supported the requirement that any representatives be "authorized" before they could act on a candidate's behalf.
Class council
The SGO continued its discussion of the new constitution at its meeting Monday night, focusing on a proposed amendment and the judiciary council. The Senate will vote as soon as today on which parts of the constitution can be sent to a campus-wide referendum.
An amendment proposed by Eric Osborne '04 was adopted by an overwhelming majority vote in the SGO, after slight modifications. The amendment proposed the creation of a class council that would be required to complete one class project and one school-wide project. The projects would have to be approved by the SGO executive board and classes would be allowed to work together. In addition, the council would have the authority to call all class meetings.
The SGO deleted one part of Osborne's proposal stating that class dues would be imposed to finance the council. The dues would have started at $25 and increased each year, included as an increase in the student activities fee that appears on each student's tuition bill.
"The committee's problem was with raising the fee. We felt it was a Trojan horse, added at the last minute," said Michael Flood '03. "That's not to say that the idea is necessarily illegitimate."
Judiciary council
The SGO's discussion of the judiciary council proposed in the new constitution focused on who should serve on the council. The final decision was to adopt a policy of having three non-senators, two senators and a non-senator, non-voting chair. "The council is primarily to address formal complaints about violations of the constitution and election code," said Luke Swarthout. '04.