When is a Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate initiative not a TCU Senate initiative?
This seems a silly question — there must be a clear distinction between what Senate advocates for and what individual members or committees advocate for. But I can't figure it out. Neither can The Tufts Daily's Senate reporter, freshman Brent Yarnell, who asked at last Sunday's Senate meeting how he should differentiate between the two.
Why is it so confusing? Let's take a look at some "Senate initiatives" from this year. First, there is the trayless dining pilot program that is coming to Carmichael Dining Hall after spring break, according to freshman Senator Alice Pang, whose Senate project is researching trayless dining. Senate never debated or voted on the merits of trayless dining.
Next, the new task force analyzing community representatives is not a Senate initiative, despite what TCU President Brandon Rattiner said in a Feb. 18 op−ed. Senate wasn't even briefed about the task force until the night before a Feb. 16 Daily article by Yarnell about the task force was published.
Third, Senate's response to last semester's new alcohol policy did not include "a harm−reduction policy, specifically grounded in medical amnesty," contrary to Rattiner's claim in an Oct. 26, 2009 op−ed. Its policy committee didn't even present the body with a proposal until two weeks later, at which point "medical amnesty" was watered down to "if Tufts' goal is to create a healthy campus environment, then students cannot feel discouraged from calling TEMS."
Last semester, Senate voted only two or three times on student life issues. By contrast, it voted on 30 funding recommendations from its finance committee, the Allocations Board.
It's this last point that merits the most attention. Much of Senate's advocacy work happens either by implied consensus or by personal initiative, where members simply announce to the rest of Senate what they're working on. Debating the merits of a specific proposal, and then expressing a consensus through a vote, happens sporadically — but it should happen whenever Senate plans to lobby administrators and faculty on behalf of us, the student body.
Senators have objections to debate and voting on specific proposals. Those senators who support the status quo are concerned that debating proposals in Senate meetings would take up too much time, and that it's easier just to work on projects. I disagree. Senate has numerous committees to do much of the legwork in vetting proposals, much as the Allocations Board does for funding requests. And Senate handled 30 funding votes last semester with barely a hiccup.
Debating specific proposals gives Senate a chance to stop and consider briefly the merits of one project at a time. A proponent must be able to show, after doing research, why something should be changed. It shouldn't be up to opponents to show why the idea isn't good and to lobby administrators against listening to the proponents.
Status quo supporters are also concerned that some ideas may be rejected by Senate, making them less likely to succeed. However, if our elected representatives are not going to support an idea, that probably indicates problems with the idea. Besides, individual members of Senate can still pursue advocacy without Senate's stamp. Every Senator works on at least one project by virtue of being on Senate. If they are researching something as an elected representative of the student body, they should at least try to obtain Senate's endorsement when they shift from research to advocacy.
The status quo doesn't work, and for a variety of reasons. When sophomore MJ Murphy, community rep for the Pan−African Alliance, brought up concerns about the Voices (formerly Telescope) recruitment program last semester, the Senate response should have researched, then debated, then had a vote. Instead, it has consisted of a few members of Senate discussing the concerns with administrators. This approach facilitates access to the administration, but it removes Senate (and therefore the student body) from the equation. By Senate not taking a stand, it looks like the student body isn't all that concerned.
When the faculty Education Policy Committee (EPC) debated proposals last year to change the Advanced Placement credits policy, Senate's reps to the EPC did not bring the proposals to Senate for debate and a vote. Instead, one rep briefed Senate on the existence of the proposals and said that they were a good idea. Only after the EPC endorsed the proposals did Senate debate them, subsequently rejecting parts of the proposals in a 15−5 vote. By then, Senate (and therefore the student body) had already lost its seat at the table, for the faculty accepted the EPC recommendations with little debate.
Things therefore need to change. Three things need to happen to make the system clearer and more effective. First, each Senate committee should set priorities each semester that are ratified by the full Senate. Second, Senate representatives to faculty committees should bring proposals to a Senate vote. And third, each time that a senator's project moves from the research stage to the advocacy stage, Senate should first vote to endorse the advocacy.
First: Right now, priority setting is vague. This year, the Senate officers drafted a list of priorities, and members of Senate debated the format and the merits of various items, and that was that. No vote, no follow−up. Instead, each committee, working with the Senate officers, should draft a list of specific priorities — either areas to research or areas to continue advocacy that has already been endorsed by Senate.
Senate should debate and endorse each committee's priorities list so that there is ownership within Senate of the priorities. Committees and individuals can research other issues as they come up, but a priorities sheet highlights to Senators and outsiders alike what is most important for the semester.
Second: Faculty committees have student representation to get student input. Considering that Senators are the student body's elected representatives, it only makes sense that Senate debate the merits of faculty proposals that will affect the student body.
Third: Whenever a proposal researched by a Senator is ready to move to the advocacy stage, Senate should debate its merits and vote to endorse a statement supporting it. The statement can be as simple as a sentence or as complex as an 11−page report, depending on what the situation requires. That way, it's clear what our elected representatives think is best for the student body, and a consensus is reached that's bigger than any individual senator.
When the two outsiders who pay the most attention to Senate — Yarnell and myself — say that they can't distinguish between Senate initiatives and individual ideas, change is necessary. The primary way for a democratic body to express an opinion is to come to a consensus through a vote. It's what I elect my senators to do.
--
Christopher Snyder is a junior majoring in political science. He is the editor of The Quad, a campus blog.
