Is Senate Too Decentralized?

When we elect our student government representatives each year, we expect that they will act both as delegates (representing what we think) and trustees (representing what they think is best for all of us).  We also expect that the collective will of Senate will lobby administrators.

But what if it's actually the individual wills of 28 senators, 4 community representatives and 3 reps to Tufts' Board of Trustees, with the occasional Senate-wide decision?

This came to mind on Wednesday, reading a Daily article and editorial that implied that the Senate had a plan to do something, when in fact it was just individuals proposing ideas.  I thought, "Wait -- when does it cross the line from individuals to the collective will of Senate?"

And then I recalled a quote from a former TCU senator in a Daily article from April:

“I’m not running because I think that a lot of the things I’m passionate about can be accomplished without being in the Senate,” said Shabazz Stuart, a sophomore who served as a senator this year.
Stuart said that while the body’s lengthy Sunday evening meetings are not necessarily inefficient, a lot of extended bureaucratic measures can be avoided in committee meetings, where he believes progress is best made.

And then I thought about just how few votes the Senate takes in a year.  The body passed maybe eight resolutions in 2008-09.  If it weren't for financial matters (like the TCU Recovered Funds or Allocations Board buffer funding requests), Senate would be more of a roundtable discussion -- like a Pen, Paint, and Pretzels meeting.

Compare this to Harvard's Undergraduate Council, which has already passed seven resolutions (it calls them "legislation") since September.  In 2008-09, it conducted at least 81 votes (including financial matters).

What's the difference?  Since I don't know the ins and outs of the UC, I'll simply state what it looks like: The UC approves ideas (thus representing the student body's opinions) before going further with them.  Even when it comes to mundane matters (like a Secret Snowflake program among the council members), it is voted on by the full council to ensure that it represents what the council wants to do.

In Tufts' Senate?  Senators have ideas, and they work to implement them.  Whether the student body (as manifested through Senate) has signed on to the ideas is another question.

Going through Senate's list of projects for 2008-09, I see a lot of things that I either don't recognize or never saw Senate debate the merits of.  Roommate matching, extending library hours, adding a "classroom climate" question to course evaluations, a 24-hour nurse call-in center, a bike share program, a Senate-run book buy-back program... the list goes on.

Not that some or all of these projects aren't worthy.  But I have to wonder how far these projects (some of them listed as "completed") went.  Was it just fact-finding, or was it actively lobbying (as the case seems to be for a couple of them)?  If it was the latter, shouldn't such issues go through Senate first?

And what about our representatives to the Board of Trustees, or to faculty committees?  Does Senate endorse the projects and ideas of the reps, or are they on their own?  It's certainly not a bad thing for them to have their own opinions.  But since they're supposed to represent the student body via Senate, shouldn't the Senate have something to say about what they do?

Take, for instance, the change in Advanced Placement credit acceptance.  Senate knew about it well before the faculty Educational Policy Committee passed a proposal.  But it wasn't until after the EPC's proposal that Senate took an opinion on the topic -- and its opinion contradicted the thoughts of some of its representatives to the EPC.  It seems like Senate should have been ahead of the curve, particularly on a faculty proposal that affects students.  And it seems like the EPC reps could have told the Senate Education Committee, "Here are the ideas the EPC has," the Senate committee could prepare a resolution (or in this case, multiple resolutions), as well as recommendations, and Senate could debate it out over a couple of weeks.

The beauty of a deliberative body is that you say, "Let's debate Issue X," and you gather facts on both sides, and you debate it out.  In the U.S. Congress, debate time is controlled by a representative supporting and opposing a bill, and the back-and-forth goes from there.  After hearing the evidence for and against, Senate (which is supposed to represent the student body) votes, and that vote is carried as the will of the student body.

Here's a potential model for resolutions/legislation:

• An individual has an idea.  After doing fact-finding on it (with assistance from members of the relevant committee, other senators, etc.), writes a resolution -- or maybe we could call them legislation.  (The resolution doesn't have to be as drawn-out as some Senate resolutions are.)  The resolution would generally authorize the committee to lobby the administration to do something, or direct the committee to prioritize a particular effort.
• The committee pertaining to the matter debates the merits, and would amend the resolution as it saw fit.  It would then take a final vote for or against the resolution.  The committee chair would draft a statement with reasons for and against the resolution -- effectively, minutes from the committee debate.
• The resolution would proceed to Senate regardless of the committee recommendation.  At a Senate meeting, questions would be asked, and some debate had.  This would be limited to 10 minutes, at which point the resolution would be tabled.  (Note: For emergency consideration of a resolution, a 2/3 vote would be required to move to a vote at this first meeting.)
• The following Senate meeting, the resolution would be put on the agenda and discussed some more, with a vote taken at this time (unless the Senate chooses to table it again).
• If the resolution passes, the committee will work on the project under Senate auspices, and the administration would know that the committee's work does represent the will of the representatives of the student body.

How this would work (in a practical sense):

• Senate priorities sheet: A series of legislation, each debated.  Should alcohol policy be a Senate priority?  Should freedom of expression?  Should dorm room renovations?  First have a roundtable discussion on whether there should be a couple of priorities or a lot of priorities, and then let the members of Senate decide how many priorities there will be with a thumbs-up/thumbs-down vote on each.
• ResLife policy changes: Sure, we should talk to ResLife to get the reasoning behind various sections of its overnight policy.  But how can the Administration and Policy Committee work with ResLife to change its policy if A&P doesn't actually have a mandate of what students think?  Much as I think my criticisms are valid, I don't want A&P operating just on what I say.  Once we hear ResLife's reasoning, have legislation drafted taking various positions (it should go entirely, or one listing all the problems with it, but endorsing its premise, etc.), and have the Senate vote.  Once we know what Senate thinks, then go to ResLife and say, "So here's our position."
• Veterans' Day being a class day: Sure, Senate can't change it -- I doubt anyone will get Wednesday, November 11, 2009 to be a day off.  But if the student body has an opinion about it, that's what Senate is for.  Draft legislation (calling on the administration to restore the holiday; endorsing the day off while calling for more educational programs to honor Veterans' Day) that expresses a point of view, and the administration will know where students' elected reps stand.

In the end, Senate is just a convenient way to get the student body's thoughts into one room, and to have various pro/con reasons debated, with a final outcome decided on by a group.  To some extent, it doesn't matter whether every resolution yields actual change.  But here's

Full disclosure: Shabazz Stuart, who was quoted herein, is a co-president of Tufts Roundtable.  The Quad's editorial control is independent of Tufts Roundtable, however -- I'm quoting him because of his idea, not because of his Roundtable affiliation.