A great deal has been said about the failures of this year's Student Government Organization (SGO) and the recent controversy surrounding the adoption of a new constitution. In reference to these issues, the arguments were laid out well-I have nothing to add to them. I too am troubled by the pre-finals crunch so taxing that it seems as if we are besieged by a cartel the likes of a Professorial OPEC, increasing the amounts of work, while reducing the time available in which to complete it. Simply put, we all have better things to do with our time than regurgitate old arguments, particularly because those who raised the relevant issues did a commendable job of explaining them. Instead, my task is to address the culture of civility within the SGO, or more accurately, the lack of such a culture and how the current climate has done and will continue to do the student body a grave disservice.

I can say without hesitation that I was never before more embarrassed than at the Senate meeting that took place on Monday, April 8. The two issues brought before the Senate by the e-board were an "internal evaluation" of spending on the part of the SGO and the Student Finance Committee (SFC) and the recent contestation of the new constitution. Petty politics has always been a part of SGO business; however, the lengths to which people went in an effort to tarnish the reputations of others was unprecedented. The meeting opened with a brief statement by SGO President Michelle Oliveros-Larsen, after which recently elected Vice President Matthew Moses launched into a discussion that was designed to inform Senators of various expenditures made by the SFC and the SGO. While I view Moses as an honorable and dedicated public servant, some of his statements at the meeting on April 8 are simply incorrect, if only because his term in office began only recently. In what was cast as an effort to introduce some "Florida Sunshine" on the budgeting process, Moses said at the meeting, "ours are the only budgets not made available to the public. We thought this would be a good way to make you aware of how we spend our money and a good way to inaugurate review and recognition before we start to get critical of how other groups spend their money." While Moses is well within his rights to ask for and receive an itemized list of expenditures on the part of the SGO and SFC, he is wrong to suggest that these are the only clubs whose budgets are not made public. There are, in fact, a whole host of clubs and organizations whose budgets are not delineated by line item. As anyone can plainly see, on the SFC website there is a link to a group of clubs marked "General Fund." Certain expenditures on campus fall into the general fund because previous student governments felt that while they should cap the overall spending limit of these organizations, the organizations themselves were in a better position to decide how the lump sums allocated to them should be spent. These organizations include but are not limited to ACEMS, the Olio, and various other administrative expenses, including the budgets of the SGO and SFC. The reasoning behind this is obvious: Members of ACEMS know more about emergency medical care than Senators do, so they would be in a better position to decide whether they needed more bandages or more blood-pressure cuffs.

But the real tragedy is not the personal mudslinging that took place during last week's meeting, but the fact that more pressing SGO business languished as a result. So much time was spent addressing SGO and SFC expenditures that larger constitutional issues were rushed through without adequate time for discussion. The issues of constitutionality were not the only ones to suffer because of the misguided direction of the SGO e-board. I had planned to attend what was to be the President's Forum on Co-education, hosted by our respective presidents Tom Gerety and Oliveros-Larson. However my plans changed abruptly when I learned that the President's Forum was to be cancelled, largely due to insufficient preparation and advertising on the part of the e-board.

The SGO's ineffectiveness and misguided priorities are a testament to it's problems; while many of these issues are structural, the fact that backbiting, personal relationships, and ill will among senators has taken on a more and more dominant role in Senate business cannot be ignored. In addition to being a clearer and more organized document, the new constitution will go a long way to neutralize these issues. Say what you will about this past week's contestation, the new constitution is far and away a better document than the old one, and it does a great deal to remind senators that they are but cogs in a wheel, elected not to strike out at each other, but instead to do what is best for the people and tend to the business of student government. It is for these reasons that I strongly advocate the adoption of the new constitution.