Dean of Students Ben Lieber and Associate Dean of Students Samuel Haynes answered queries from senators and voiced their opinions about the possible impact of the proposal at the session's outset. Both deans took a cautiously optimistic stance on the reformatting, which would cut each class year's senate representation from eight members to six, and open committee leadership-now the exclusive domain of the AAS-to the entire student body.
One of the senate's main concerns was that spots on less glamorous committees would go unfilled if left to the public. Under the proposed system, committee chairs would be elected by the student body. Therefore, because the allocation of positions would be contingent on notoriously fickle student body engagement, a particularly trivial committee position might be carried by a candidate receiving only five votes. "I think the students who care about [committee positions] are a limited number," said Senator Avi Das '07.
Lieber acknowledged the dilemma. "There's always been a hierarchy of committees. Some are always going to be more interesting than others, and some of the more obscure ones could be difficult to fill," he said. Haynes, however, attempted to alleviate this worry. "We will widely advertise and promote these elections. I'm willing to bet that faculty committees will all be filled, although some of the internal Senate committees might not be [owing to reduced senate membership]," he said.
Another apprehension, voiced by Senator Paul Nielsen '09, was whether the smaller ranks of the senate would allow for accurate representation of each class. Lieber expressed similar concerns. "There's currently a greater diversity across the student body," Lieber said, "but I don't know which students would choose to run for the senate." He also pointed out, however, that increased availability of committee spots could yield greater diversity, if not in the senate, at least among other governing bodies.
After addressing budgetary concerns and other resolutions, which proceeded past midnight, the senate refocused the discussion to the proposed amendments to its constitution. Senator Jessica Rothschild '06, the primary architect of the proposal, stepped to the podium to discuss the changes, but was interrupted by Senators David Gottlieb '06 and Andrea Gyorody '07, who cited the late hour as reason to adjourn.
"It's obviously frustrating, since this is the third time I've brought this to the senate," Rothschild said after the meeting. "I didn't appreciate the discussion being tabled, but I did understand that there were time constraints."
The senate agreed to table the debate and then spent nearly a half-hour trying to decide whether an emergency meeting was necessary, and, if so, when it should be held. The senate ultimately decided that such a meeting was not required, and that the proposal would be the first order of business at next week's meeting, to Rothschild's dissatisfaction. "This proposal would restructure the constitution and the body of the senate. It's an extremely important issue, and a special meeting needed to be called," she said.