Campus and Local - The Quad

Sunday, 23 May 2010 15:18

Written by Christopher Snyder

Today's Daily editorial on the TCU Senate highlights two important things: First, the editorial page doesn't understand student government, and second, next year's Senate must change how it approaches student issues.

The editorial highlights a variety of projects linked in some way to one or more senators, but gets a number of things wrong:

• It is incorrect to say that campus center renovations were among the "least controversial" topics this year.  The only reason they moved forward was because there was no formal debate and decision within Senate -- instead, advocates for the renovations largely bypassed Senate and worked with the trustees instead.  There were several viewpoints on renovations, and there would have been controversy if there was a Senate vote.
• Senate's Veterans Day decision was much broader than a Columbus Day-for-Veterans Day swap.  Its primary recommendation was to start school before Labor Day when necessary.  If I recall correctly, it was a unanimous vote in favor, followed swiftly by forgetting about the Labor Day aspect entirely.  What gives?
• Senate did not "support initiatives to strengthen ... minority communities' voices."  A Senate committee analyzed it for a while, and then a largely independent task force was set up to issue its own recommendations.  Senate never took a stance.
• Senate actually opposed moving directly into trayless dining (in a narrow vote), not supported it.  Aside from the part where various senators worked with Dining Services to move forward on implementing trayless dining.  The Carmichael trayless pilot wasn't supported by Senate (despite what the editorial says), and there was a Senate debate on trayless dining attended by a couple dozen students with strong opinions on the issue.

There are two takeaways from this list.  The first is that people shouldn't trust the Daily editorial page to know what's going on with Senate.  This isn't the first editorial to get things wrong, and it won't be the last -- not as long as editorial writers remain unfamiliar with Senate.

But it represents a larger problem, one that I've been talking about all year: The Daily editorial page -- and the student body -- does not know what Senate is doing because Senate carries out projects in the most haphazard way possible.  Rather than coming to a consensus on what is in the best interest of the student body, individual senators proceed ad hoc, which works most of the time (most things are uncontroversial) but not always.

With campus center renovations, there was almost a debate about the best way to spend university resources on capital improvement projects -- there was some discussion at one Senate meeting.  But there was no follow-through because the campus center renovation advocates did not have to answer to Senate.  They could work with the administration and trustees and not care about what the rest of the student body's elected representatives thought.  Would it have been better to invest more in dorms, or to save the money?  We'll never know.

With Veterans Day, this is simply failed implementation.  I authored a resolution supporting starting school before Labor Day on occasion to take care of scheduling issues surrounding Veterans Day, and I was pleased that Senate wholeheartedly supported it in a vote.  But those who implemented the proposal focused only on Fall 2010.  Nobody bothered to mention to the Daily that Labor Day was a component of this.  It would have been difficult to convince the faculty to start before Labor Day, yes, and apparently, senators didn't even bother to fight it.  (I had to write the secretary of the faculty myself to get my resolution put before the faculty in advance of the faculty's decision on scheduling!)  Now, according to the faculty Education Policy Committee, any time the fall semester is squished for time, out goes Columbus Day.  That's what the faculty eventually decided.  I shouldn't have even bothered to write my resolution.

On minority communities and community representation: This is a simple case of "stop calling things Senate initiatives when they're not."  Because otherwise, people will think the task force is a Senate thing, and hold Senate accountable for any problems with the task force... even though Senate didn't set up the task force.  People will think Senate supports the proposed changes to the system... even though there's no quantitative evidence that that's true.

Trayless dining should be a wake-up call to senators.  Here was a project that was closely linked with Senate for months because senators were involved with it and it was being reported out by the Services Committee as a Senate project.  But it never got the support of Senate -- Jon Danzig and Cory Faragon had to introduce a resolution opposing trayless to force a debate on it.  Why wasn't Senate debating a student life issue?  And why did Senate allow trayless to look like a Senate project?

I asked the latter question at the last Senate meeting of 2009-10 and was told "it's a grey area."  That's a great comfort, Senate.  You don't know whether you're advocating for an issue or not?  That's why the student body doesn't know what you're doing for it!  That's why minority communities don't know what Senate can do for them!  Because Senate itself doesn't even know what it's doing.

It's time for the 28 senators and four community representatives of the 2010-11 Senate to make a decision.  Is Senate going to be renamed the "Activists Who Get Access to the Administration Club" or is Senate going to debate and come to a consensus on what is in the best interest of the student body?

Students elect their senators to do the latter.  Senate has to keep in mind that there are disagreements about the best way to move forward on certain issues, and if it follows its current trend, it won't be able to handle disagreements.  From AP credit policy to campus center renovations to trayless dining, Senate has failed time and time again to present a coherent view on topics that aren't clear-cut.

This is likely my last post for The Quad, as I will be studying in Washington, D.C. in the fall for my final semester at Tufts.  And I leave the Medford campus disappointed by Senate.  Senate should be more than a series of weekly check-ins and Student Activities Fee disbursement approvals.  The student body is looking for more.  The Quad's readership is looking for more, as I've continually observed this year.

Senate, give them more.

Campus and Local - The Quad

Sunday, 16 May 2010 21:20

Written by Ard Ardalan

Campus and Local - The Quad

Saturday, 08 May 2010 23:10

Written by Ard Ardalan

Ed. note: Please welcome Ard Ardalan '13 to The Quad as our new student government correspondent.  In his first post, he lists the people with power in next year's TCU Senate, and provides some commentary.

The TCU Senate conducted in-house elections on Sunday to determine which of the elected senators would fill positions next year. The executive board, comprised of the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Associate Treasurer and Historian was chosen as well as committee chairs and members of the Allocations Board (ALBO). Here are the results:

Exec Board- It acts as the cabinet of the President and allows for the Senate to function on time and purpose. The members chair meetings and oversee the many affairs of the TCU Senate.

• President Sam Wallis '11
• Vice President Tomas Valdes '11
• Treasurer Kate de Klerk '12
• Historian Tomas Garcia '12
• Parliamentarian Dan Pasternack '11
• Associate Treasurer Matt Schuman '12

General Board (Committee Chairs)- The Senate does most of its work through standing committees that are led by a chair. The chairs meet once a week with the Vice President to coordinate efforts in the General Board.

• Vice President Tomas Valdes '11
• Administration and Policy Chair Yulia Korovikov '13
• CECA Chair Tabias Wilson '13
• Education Chair Chartise Clark '11
• Outreach Chair Tomas Garcia '12
• Services Chair Meredith Goldberg '13

Allocations Board- ALBO meets once a week to consider the finances of the TCU and budgets all TCU-recognized groups. The recommendations of ALBO are then presented to the full Senate and voted on.

• Treasurer de Klerk
• Associate Treasurer Matt Schuman '12
• Assistant Treasurer (freshman seat; selected in fall along with one other freshman for an ALBO seat)
• Wyatt Cadley '13
• Logan Cotton '13
• Yulia Korovikov '13
• Dan Pasternack '11
• Nadia Nibbs '11
• Sam Wallis '11 (ex officio as TCU president)

Commentary: The Senate's leadership sets the tone of meetings and ultimately is responsible for the content discussed and the actions taken. The positions on the Exec Board have been filled with capable people that have exhibited competence in the past. Freshman Senator Faith Blake '13 said that she “thinks the new executive members not only have the right experience but the respect from their fellow senators to do their jobs well.”

However, the majority of the Exec and Gen Boards were Sam Wallis supporters and this is both reassuring and a cause of concern.

• Reassuring Because: The majority of Senate leaders have faith in Sam's ideas and often helped to formulate them. This ensures that the body will be productive and project-driven throughout the year.
• Cause of Concern Because: Senators that worked on the Levine campaign or are not familiar with Sam may feel alienated and their voices may be drowned out by an overbearing executive. This presents a clear challenge to the President. Before any of the Senate work is started, Wallis needs to gain the trust of the body as a whole and show that he is a leader that will listen to all ideas and all senators.

Referenda 3 and 4

As the Senate meeting went on, the Judiciary held a hearing to decide which referendum would be adopted as the new Constitutional amendment. Justice Adam Sax '13 of the Judiciary reported that the Judiciary considers the student body's response to the referenda a tie between the two conflicting referenda, and that a re-vote will happen in September during general elections.

Campus and Local - The Quad

Saturday, 01 May 2010 17:30

Written by Christopher Snyder

Campus and Local - The Quad

Saturday, 01 May 2010 14:31

Written by Christopher Snyder

Update 5/1/10 5:52pm: This story's gotten way bigger -- and not just because TuftsLife used massive print to deliver the new message.  Y'all need to boil your water now.  Go to our new post for the latest info.

Original post:

Excerpt from a Tufts campus-wide e-mail:

The Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) has notified Tufts University officials of a water leak on a major pipe that could potentially interrupt water service to several communities, including the Tufts University Medford/Somerville campus.

MWRA asks that people stop using water for the next few hours.

The MWRA's website says the leak is in Weston -- about 10 miles west of here.

Is it bad that my first thought was "I hope this isn't a repeat of last semester's water problem hoax"?  But at least this time, Tufts e-mailed us on the official Announcements thread, rather than an e-mail from RAs that got forwarded from Dining Services via ResLife.  So it's probably legit.  Probably.