Both as an SGA senator and as a member of the Newspeak staff, I was appalled to read last week's editorial regarding Student Government. From a writer's standpoint, it is incoherent, skipping from one topic to another, with one intent - to bruise the reputation of a dedicated student organization. If you had a point, I might have taken you seriously.
Now, I'm afraid I must do some damage control to try to salvage some dignity, both for me and for the Senate, since you made several statements that were either twisted to suit your need for harmful insults or taken totally out of context. First, I'll address the first statement of the editorial, that there were no minutes from the SGA meeting in last week's paper.
It is extremely unfair and unprofessional of you to blame the entire organization for the shortcomings of one individual. True, the Secretary failed in his duty to submit the minutes to you in time for printing. That's once this year, that I know of, that this has happened. How many issues have we had now? It's one person's responsibility to submit the minutes, yet you make it sound like a cover-up to hide the issues covered at that meeting. Reality check, guys. Everyone loves a great conspiracy, but I assure you, it's nothing of the sort. In fact, the minutes are posted in the window of our office for all to see!
Second, you twist a quote from myself so that it sounds like we are a money-hungry organization. When you quoted me as saying, "it's our money to do with as we please," you failed to take into account the rest of that statement. I believe I said something to the effect that we would NEVER do such a thing, that we had the classification system and budgeting process in place to avoid just such an instance, and I explained how the money goes from the social fee to SGA to other organizations. Tell me, what in the world would we do with $300,000.00? If you have any ideas, let us know...
You then go on to give a brief summary of the rest of the meeting, brushing over the remaining two issues and skip right to "the meeting ended when there were not enough senators in attendance to discuss the upcoming election." What you left out of that is that we had already been there for over an hour debating the issues and the motion to hear new business passed only marginally. I'd like to point out here that a majority of the people I talked to knew what was to be discussed should the call for new business pass - the extension of the deadline for senate petitions.
Furthermore, we didn't feel it appropriate to push the deadline or to even discuss the issue. The deadline was set, we had enough petitions in to hold an election, and pushing the deadline would force the elections schedule off as well. We were not prepared to postpone the elections as we need a full Senate as soon as possible.
The fact that so many people were forced to leave the meeting before its end is unfortunate and highly uncommon. In my year as a senator, I don't think we've ever had more than two people proxy their votes and leave a meeting. This was an unusual circumstance, one which you generalize in the next paragraph, "if there aren't even enough senators to attend meetings." We did have enough senators to hold the meeting, if I may remind you. Quorum count is in the beginning of the meeting. Without quorum, we don't have an official meeting, period. We had quorum until a senator called for another count, which is perfectly by the book. We had discussed the issues to our satisfaction, and did not wish to discuss the election petition deadline, since it's been pushed for the past three years, if memory serves.
You talk about a "Meet the Candidates Night," an unsuccessful event which had in attendance last year less than ten students. I don't feel that such an event is appropriate; do we have one for normal elections outside of WPI? No. Why? Because the candidates campaign. If each candidate had written a letter of candidacy (only half did this year) and gone out campaigning, it would be a much more interesting race in which students got to know the people for whom they were voting. As I write this, there are still two days left in the election. In the past two weeks, I have met and talked to over 50 students whom I have never met before, and asked them what they thought the issues were. I've gotten feedback, I've encouraged people to vote, and on Friday, I plan to campaign all day (when I don't have class) outside of Daniels Hall. I'm not campaigning to win, I'm doing it to help people.
One of the problems inherent with a "Meet the Candidates Night" is promises. Under the harsh glares of constituents and the stone-cold stares of journalists, candidates make promises that, once elected, they can't keep. I'd rather not get sucked into that, myself, because it is very easy to promise people what they want to hear, only to get ripped apart in the newspaper when a year passes and I haven't followed through.
Finally, you state, "Frankly, we are disappointed in our leadership for their lack of interest in us and we see no other option but to call it to their attention." Thanks for the favor, gang, but we're doing what we can. We know there is a lack of communication between the students and SGA, and we're doing the best we can to rectify that. I know that sounds like a load of bull, but all I can say is that it starts with one senator going out and talking to people, perhaps not in the middle of the Quad, but in other places. And it's being done, folks, because I do it and I've seen other senators do it. We go to dorm floors and talk to people in their rooms, we chat with people in the lounges, in the library, and in the computer labs. Just because we haven't come down to your little office in the basement of Riley Hall doesn't mean we aren't communicating.
That's another thing I want to bring up. You say we're ignoring you, yet you ignore us as well. Sure, you come to meetings, which are open to everyone, but how often do you ask a senator what committee he or she is on and what they're dealing with? Have you ever written a news article about an SGA issue? No. You count on us to do that for you. Now, we realize that you don't have much of a staff, but wouldn't it have been more appropriate for you to have reported on last week's meeting than to have written a harmful editorial? I don't see the City Council writing up and submitting summaries, agendas, and minutes to the T&G, do you? In fact, I distinctly recall reading news articles that reported the outcomes of those West Street closing meetings. I also remember Newspeak covering that issue, as well - why is there never an article about SGA in this paper?
Perhaps in the future you could help us get the word out to students by doing the following:
1) Don't print the minutes. They don't tell the readers anything significant. Instead, since you're at every meeting, write a news article, without inserting your opinion.
2) Talk to senators, not just to execs, because the real work is done in committees, like the Committee on Academic Initiatives, chaired by Marni Hall, or the Committee on Student Life Issues, chaired by myself. Meetings are Thursdays at 8:00pm in Gompei's and Wednesdays at 7:00pm in the SGA office, respectively, if you are really interested in reporting the news.
3) Sponsor a "Meet the Senators Night" if you are really concerned that students aren't getting to know their senators. I find it highly inappropriate that we have one at all, but even more so that we should hold one for ourselves, since half the candidates this year are incumbents.
The next time you write something about SGA, I sincerely hope that it will be constructive, cohesive, and appear on the News page, rather than on the Commentary page.
Sincerely,
Senator Amy L. Plack
Chair, Committee on Student Life Issues
Assistant Treasurer for Class III
Newspeak Features Editor
Give feedback: newspeak@wpi.wpi.edu