The student body will
soon need an outlet for their opinions. The question is: Can the
Student Government Association (SGA) handle this?
A recommended plan to expand varsity athletics facilities is making
its way to the Board of Trustees. The plan will expand seating in
Kidd Brewer Stadium, renovate Varsity Gymnasium, resurface the stadium’s
playing field and expand Owens Field House. Robert L. Shaffer, associate
vice chancellor for public affairs, said these projects might total
$30-32 million.
If this recommendation becomes a reality, students may be looking
at a student fee increase in order to pay for these projects.
It is a given that some students will support this recommendation,
while others will be unwilling to provide funding with personal
dollars.
In other issues, a proposal to create a housing lottery for juniors
and seniors wishing to stay on campus is being reviewed. This will
deal with the statewide increase in freshmen students entering universities
and the housing overflow expected.
This plan will also displace a large number of juniors and seniors
in order to make way for incoming freshmen and sophomores desiring
to stay on campus.
Those juniors and seniors planning to stay on campus may have a
problem with this plan.
Both of these issues are controversial. Students will likely form
an opinion on one side or another.
Since both weighty issues directly affect students, it would only
make sense that students will wish to speak out.
One often suggested method of allowing your opinion to be heard
is turning to your SGA senator. SGA has been considered the “voice”
of the students.
In order for this “voice” to operate effectively, SGA
must present itself as a useful resource that takes action and can
be taken seriously.
SGA’s Nov. 5 meeting gave a less than professional display.
Emotions stirred by President Ryan M. Eller’s decision to rescind
legislation passed by the senate created a scene that brought the
meeting to a complete halt.
Senator H. Dustin Bayard chose to show his dissatisfaction with
Eller’s choice to rescind and take questions after the meeting
by interrupting the proceedings of the meeting.
Bayard may have held just cause for his frustration, but there was
no justification for the manner in which he handled his emotions.
This scene is an example of what SGA must avoid to be successful
in any campaign against student fee increases, to speak out against
junior/senior housing lotteries or to tackle any other issue of
interest to students.
How can students or administration seriously consider an organization
with a mess of internal strife?
Issues must be dealt with expediently and worked out so unnecessary
public displays of disapproval can be avoided. SGA needs to up their
respect level held by students, not take it down a notch.
Constituents should be able to feel like they can take an issue
to their senator and that the senator can handle this issue responsibly.
Scenes like during Nov. 5’s student senate meeting certainly
take away from the confidence level constituents should be able
to hold for their senator.
Problems should be encountered more peaceably. Sit down, talk it
out and save emotions for after the meeting. Or better yet, focus
those emotions into fighting against student fee increases.
This is not a time for SGA to be divided over internal issues, but
rather they must be unified in the interest of the student body.
Internal bickering must cease before a necessary unification of
the senate can begin.
