Time for an Update

Well, it's been a very stressful week, but I've got some free time now so here goes. I've received comments from some of you about various aspects of my last post, not the least of which is that I wouldn't have the authority to do what I've suggested be done.
Here is my response.

First and foremost, democratic government of any sort is cooperative by its nature. Those who are elected don't operate in a vacuum, and the people who participate (if they participate) offer their support, suggestions, complaints and constitute a source of political pressure when they don't get what they want.

This generalization applies to the criticisms leveled against my last post in a couple ways. On the one hand, turnout at Student Senate elections is abysmal. If little gets done, one has to wonder whether lack of student participation might have something to do with it. Hmmm. On the other hand, there are realistic bounds to what Senate can accomplish, even if there is full student involvement. I know this. You know this. Good.

So what are those limits? Anything that requires the approval of either the General Faculty or the Board of Trustees is not under the direct purview of the Student Senate. This doesn't mean we can't make those kinds of changes, but it means it's that much harder. Some of my ideas fall under this category, like changing the structure of the General Faculty itself. Other people's proposals, I might interject, are difficult to pass for the same reasons, like the ban on bottled water.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue these things, but we also have to ask WHY we're doing it. My campaign focuses on more fundamental issues regarding elections and government, not only because that's an area in which I have some experience, but because it could serve as a stepping stone for those other ideas. For instance, let's suppose we wanted a ban on bottled water. This proposal was tabled in the General Faculty last year. Even if we assume Senate had 15 votes against tabling the motion, look at what the structure of college government tells you right there: the voice of students is deliberately diluted. Maybe not for malicious reasons, but it is diluted nevertheless. Thus, changing the more fundamental rule, while not under the Senate's direct control, would give Senate more freedom to take stands on issues, and on the flipside, halt policies it objected to! (If you say, made Student Senate the lower house of a bicameral system)

Many of my other ideas relate to changes within Senate that we CAN change. Altering or eliminating the quota for elections, expanding the size of Student Senate,etc. All of those things are available for us to change.

But the central message is this: your government, whether it's on campus or off, is what you make of it.

President Krislov recently urged us all to vote in Ohio. Fine. Sure. Do that. But it's a damn shame that the one thing we as students have the most control over and the most to gain from, is the one thing that people don't participate in enough. And that's why I'm running and that's why I'm proposing changes, some of which I can influence directly, and some of which I can't.

Student Senate isn't a cheerleading squad for the student body, and it ought not to be a popularity contest. Maybe I'm no worse than the people who want to put wind turbines on top of all the dorm buildings. Are you going to tell them that's not under their control, too? In short, I challenge you to think about what you'd like, not about what you think I can't fix. I'm out to represent everyone, not just myself. But I can't do it alone. We're going to have to work together.

Who Wants to Debate?

I offer to debate all running Senate candidates at least twice over the course of the election, with questions selected from the student body at large and the moderators of the debate.

Those interested should email me. Anyone up for moderating a debate, feel free to announce it loudly.

Welcome!

This is the inaugural post of my campaign blog. Throughout the Senate election, I'll be posting regularly on issues central to my campaign as well as any issues you feel are important to Oberlin. I'm also happy to answer any of your questions.

I thought I would begin by addressing Senate as an institution. How it operates formally and in practice, and what it can do for all of us as students.

Formally, the Student Senate, along with Faculty Senate, comprises the General Faculty, the central policy making body of Oberlin. Student Senators not only vote on policies before the General Faculty, but sit on and approve student committee assignments. Senators serve for one year, and are subject to recall, although the threshold for a recall petition is quite high, and I don't know of any petitions that have ever been circulated.

In practice, the influence of Student Senate on college policy is regularly and cynically questioned by many students. Every spring, students are presented with a “referendum”, which, despite the name, looks more like a long-winded survey. The real or perceived low importance of these elections leads to low voter turnout, perhaps a result of ballot fatigue.

The tragedy here is that Student Senate could be a very powerful institution, in theory and in practice. And the fact of the matter is that it ought to be. Not for any nefarious purpose or as a result of hubris, but because students are perhaps the biggest “stakeholders” (I hate that word) on campus. We're at Oberlin because we want to be. We (or our parents) are paying for it. Most of all, for a majority of the year, we live here. We not only have the right, but the obligation to shape our college and how it operates.

Taking such an approach, however, means (1) that students have to think about Student Senate differently and (2) that Student Senate might need to be restructured so it can fully represent us. Here are some possibilities to consider (I will expand on these ideas in future posts):

Changing the Size and Composition of Senate

Right now, Senate has 15 members elected for a year each. They're elected at large by the single-transferable vote (STV), a preferential voting method (see Wikipedia for more info on this) which is fairer than plurality and faster than a runoff. [NB: As a political activist in Phoenix, Arizona, my focus is electoral reform; many of the points I present about elections are drawn from that experience.] This is largely fine. But Oberlin has many communities of interest (OSCA members and members of program houses are two examples) an at-large election system might not directly account for. In fact, the Constitution already provides for representation by Conservatory students. One possible solution here is the use of proportional allocation, where seats could be “districted” to engage more kinds of people.

The second issue here is size. In last year's spring referendum, the Senate asked voters how they felt about increasing Senate's size. Although reception to the idea was not very positive (perhaps due to the fact that Senators pull an hourly wage), an increased size would mean a bigger voice for students in the General Faculty.

Changing the Rules for Referenda/Expanding Senate Authority

In Arizona, where I've lived for six years now, initiative, referendum and recall are mainstays of state politics (IR&R was largely adopted by states west of the Mississippi during the Populist and Progressive eras.) Citizens are allowed to petition for new laws to be placed on the ballot, the legislature can (and regularly does!) place laws on the ballot, citizens can request a vote on anything the legislature passes and members of the legislature can be removed in a special recall election.

But the important thing is that these ballot questions aren't polls—they're actual votes on important issues. Furthermore, in Arizona, once a law has been approved by voters, it can't be repealed without their consent, and the governor has no veto. And because the signature threshold takes some effort to reach, you don't typically see long lists of questions at each election. Contrast this with Oberlin's elections, and you start to see why people don't return their ballots, electronic or otherwise—there's just too much stuff. At to that the fact that these votes have no “legal” force (College rules certainly don't stipulate that Student Senate votes have any kind of binding authority!) and you have a recipe for voter apathy.

One obvious solution is to change the way Senate referenda work, and possibly all elections. Vague wording of questions, the need for twenty percent voter turnout that is rarely met in a timely fashion and ballot fatigue are all things that could be addressed with a Constitutional amendment put to students. The other half of the equation, the degree to which Senate's votes matter, would have to be addressed on higher levels: General Faculty, administration, etc. I myself would advocate for college governance to be devolved into a fully bicameral system: Student Senate as the lower house, the rest of the General Faculty as the upper house. Radical? Maybe. But it would certainly allow students a large voice in college policy, if we can show we're willing and able to take on that job, and that we can work with administration as well as anybody else.

Senate Continuity

It might be worth considering expanding the Senate's term to two years rather than one. Under such a system, the Senate could be dissolved early, as in many parliamentary systems. The goal here would be to ensure Senate's membership is stable, especially if the body's size were increased.

Other Thoughts

The ideas I've presented here lie on the fundamental side of things. The issues aren't particularly sexy, but they get to the heart of what Student Senate is and what it does. In future posts, I'll talk about my ideas for the environment, energy usage on campus and the like. I'd also love to hear what you care about and if there's anything in particular you'd like to hear me post about.

Drop me an email: helpertcell@gmail.com and give me a recognizable subject line.

Also, Tuesday, September 21 is the deadline for endorsements. If your organization, co-op, underwater basket-weaving club, etc. wants to endorse me or have me come give a short stump speech, write me before then. Or if you just want to hear me talk without an endorsement, email me after that ;-).