The TCU constitution surely requires revision, but those changes should not be implemented this year. Though some worked hard on the proposed amendments, fundamental problems with the document, coupled with a serious procedural gaffe, make any change unadvisable. Whether the constitution and amendments actually pass, and whether they are actually counted in light of the pending TCUJ hearing on a dubious e-mail sent 24-hours before the polls opened, the referendum should be thrown out and the process should be started anew.
A controversy erupted on Tuesday with an e-mail sent by Dean of Students Bruce Reitman, which read like a flier from the constitutional committee, that discussed only the positive aspects of the proposed changes, and was described by the Elections Board as "deceitful" and one-sided. That the e-mail was disseminated bearing the sender name TheElectionBoard@tufts.edu, though ELBO contends it never approved the text, represents a further corruption of the democratic process.
The e-mail in question was prepared by reform committee chairman Ben Lee, who says the decision to place the Elections Board name at the top of the e-mail was the result of a "misunderstanding." When asked about the ELBO attribution, Reitman, who himself listed ELBO as the e-mail's sender, pointed yesterday to a message he received from Lee on April 13, which states, "This would be a purely factual e-mail approved by the Elections Board and would not urge students to vote in any particular way." Lee never again addressed the approval matter in following correspondences, and Reitman did not check with ELBO to verify if, in fact, the e-mail had been approved.
Both Lee and Reitman made mistakes in the process. And though neither seems to have had deceitful intentions, opponents of the changes should not be cheated out of their rightful chance to respond to a one-sided, widely distributed, e-mail.
Supposedly sent to remind students of the upcoming election, most of the e-mail focused on why changes were being proposed to the constitution. Questions are referred to the reform committee, with no mention of those opposed to the amendments. When the Judiciary meets, perhaps as soon as Monday, to discuss the complaint filed by junior Jesse Levey, it will have no choice but to throw out yesterday's votes. If the amendments pass and the TCUJ does not mandate a new vote, Tufts' Judiciary will have allowed important constitutional changes to be ushered in under illegitimate circumstances.
This whole mess is reminiscent of the days of the last student government - of which I was a member - when acrimony over a cabinet amendment dominated campus news. To avoid the prolonged bickering of the past, this issue should be disposed of expeditiously and fairly. In recognition of the biased e-mail, the constitutional committee should not oppose throwing out this year's vote. Intentionally or not, basic fairness has been violated.
Furthermore, a new election would not be the worst scenario for the constitutional committee. Lee and other proponents of change could use the extra time to produce a truly effective document, not one that reads like the "tale of missed opportunities."
The proposed changes to the constitution are incomplete and do little to address important issues. The rule that allows only two candidates to run for Senate president is a preemption of the students' rights to vote for whomever they want, and precludes many qualified people from participating in the process. This issue of opening the election process must be addressed before the constitutional committee limits its focus to "grammatical errors" and creating "a student outreach committee."
The next set of amendments should eliminate the controversial proposal that would give culture representatives the right to vote - an amendment that was defeated miserably several years back. Culture reps are assigned by specific communities to represent a smaller portion of the student body. They are not afforded a vote because they are on the Senate only to make sure the voices of their constituency are heard. Anyone who wants a vote is free to seek a Senate seat, after first having had their views evaluated by the entire student body.
Giving culture reps decision-making power defies logic, as giving these representatives the right to vote would be tantamount to giving certain culture groups - remember groups including Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and others do not get special representation - a double opportunity to voice their concerns. With time to reevaluate the amendment, perhaps even the constitutional committee will realize the inherent unfairness in extending voting rights to non-elected representatives and spare the voting public the effort of voting down, once again, the amendment.
The students for whom these changes are purportedly being made seem to have no idea what most of these constitutional revisions mean - a sure sign that the committee did a poor job of publicizing the changes. No public forum was held and the extent of public disclosure was one questionable e-mail and several fliers distributed just a few days before putting the question to a vote. Even eager committee members should want more conversation on their work before any change is implemented.
Student government has changed for the better in the last year, and continued the success by presenting two eminently qualified presidential candidates in yesterday's election. But the problems with the proposed constitution, the lack of student familiarity, and the procedural disaster precipitated by a slanted e-mail, are a throwback to the student government of old, where questions of personalities and procedural accuracy dominated official dialogue. That's a shame and should be remedied quickly.
