Opinion
April 6
After the initial decision on the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate recovered funds, I co-wrote an op-ed on Feb. 4 concerning fiscal and moral responsibility. I believed, and still believe, that the two can coexist and that we can serve our constituents while still being fiscally responsible. I believed that was true until the final vote concerning the recovered funds.
In the final TCU Senate meeting of the year on Sunday, April 5, the TCU Senate voted to allocate $230,000 to the Tufts Mountain Club (TMC) to build a Trips Cabin as an addition to the existing Loj facilities in New Hampshire. The property is owned by the University but is managed by the TMC.
I find this absolutely appalling and a far cry from fiscal or moral responsibility. We voted down the Loj as a possibility during the initial discussion on the recovered funds, but things have apparently changed since then … somehow.
I spoke about this during the meeting, so I have nothing to hide concerning my true feelings on the subject. Under any normal circumstances, I believe that I would support adding to the Loj. I have used it and enjoyed my visit. I plan to go in the future. However, as senators we have an obligation to vote how we believe our constituents would vote.
Over the past few days, I have talked to a number of people and I have often asked, "Do you think that an addition to the Loj is an appropriate use of the recovered funds?" The answer that I got that came closest to approval was that of ambivalence.
Given that information, I went to the Senate on Sunday night with the intention of allocating no money for this project. I went, endorsed the motion of $0 and entered debate. As debate drew on, I could sense that the body was moving toward awarding the full amount. A total of four senators, consisting of two seniors, one sophomore and me as the lone freshman, spoke up against the allocation of any money for the Loj. Yet the amount passed through the Senate with only five dissenting votes, with another senior senator adding her resounding "no" when the role call vote came around.
I left that vote infuriated but hopeful that the money would ultimately be spent wisely. I hoped that I was wrong in my initial reaction. I realize now that my initial reaction was correct and that it is money wrongly spent.
I have the utmost respect for those in the Senate but find myself very disappointed with them. The TMC argued that Senate uses the Loj for our retreats and that we know how much an additional sleeping facility would mean to the Loj experience. The majority of the Senate seemed to vote with their own experiences in mind rather than what would best serve their constituencies. This self-service went so far as to even lead senators to ignore potential conflicts of interest. While no one is forced to do so, senators are encouraged to abstain from a vote if they are part of the organization being voted on or have other things to gain from the vote. For instance, there are two members of the Senate who are proud to admit that they are members of TMC. They spoke passionately about their side of the argument, as I did. However, when voting came around, rather than abstaining, they voted "yes." I don't know if they forgot or simply chose to ignore it, but they had a conflict of interest in this vote that was neglected.
Concerning the remaining senators in the room, I realized an interesting trend after the vote had finished. Of the five seniors that were able to vote, three of them ultimately voted "no." This was the highest ratio among the other classes, with the "no" votes ultimately coming to 0 juniors, one sophomore out of 10, and only one freshman out of seven.
Is it possible that, since the seniors will not be returning in the fall, they have clearer heads as to how the Tufts community would want them to vote? Is it possible that, in their time at Tufts, the seniors have gained a higher level of understanding of what is truly important to the students? Possibly.
I have been talking to people since this vote and have not found a single person who is pleased with the decision. The best I have gotten is ambivalence. This leads me to believe that the Loj is not a proper use of the money that truly belongs to every student at Tufts, the money known as the recovered funds.
I think that we senators need to get back in touch with those whom we represent and really vote based on what they want. With this vote, we effectively exhausted the recovered funds that were not already allocated for a Student Activities Endowment to be set up by the Senate. In addition, we as a body blatantly disregarded how our constituencies would have wanted us to vote.
We could have achieved so much, but rather chose to effectively give a single group $230,000. This is absolutely ridiculous to me. It is ridiculous that most senators did not consider how their class would want them to vote. A few said that they had spoken to some people and a few of them said that those people advocated for the Loj. In these cases, I suppose it just depends on who you talk to. For the people that I talked to, the Loj was not even an option to be considered. So to those senators who voted based on what they were told by their constituencies, I apologize and I do not direct my frustrations at you.
Later that night, the Allocations Board, the financial leg of the TCU, came to us with a recommendation of giving no money to Torn Ticket II. Torn Ticket II wanted to replace the sound system in Cohen Auditorium, a system in dire need of repair, cleaning and potential replacement. Yet the Senate did not approve any money, on the grounds that the University would eventually take care of it, even though this would not necessarily occur in the foreseeable future due to the economic crisis. The same was said for the Loj earlier this year. They said that the University would provide the renovation at some point, while not necessarily in the foreseeable future.
Although the Cohen request was only for $15,000 and the nature of the requests were completely different, I still believe that the cases of Torn Ticket II and TMC seem to follow the same logical train of thought, yet in the end, they yielded different results.
If you are as angry about this decision as I obviously am, tell your senator. You are all represented by the Senate and the members deserve to know your feelings on this. If you support the decision, let them know. If you disagree with it as I do, tell them that, too. If you really do not care one way or the other, then they deserve to know that. Do not sit idly by and watch your money go to waste! Stand up and make your voice heard.
