Spring Break
EDITORIAL: Union violates constituion
Faults in funding Ayers visit
Editorial | 3/10/09
Posted online at 12:09 AM EST on 3/10/09
The Union Senate recently voted to spend $900 of Union money to bring controversial guest speakers Bill Ayers and Robert H. King to campus. Although the nature of the speakers doesn't bother us, we maintain that the Senate should not have spent Union money on these speakers. We also feel that two senators involved in bringing the speakers to campus should not have voted on the Union resolution to fund this cause.
Senator for the Class of 2009 Eric Alterman brought suit against the Union for this last Saturday. The Union's constitution states: "All Senate Money Resolutions must be used for Student Union Government projects and/or operation."
As Mr. Alterman points out, this practice raises the risk of the Union becoming its own independent Finance Board, giving money for causes and events that should just have been brought before the actual F-Board. We expect Union money to be allocated to its designated government-related affairs.
It's true that the Union has given money to non-Union operations before. For instance, the Union recently gave $1,500 to the hopeFound event, which raised money to fight homelessness. But however noble these causes are, the Union shouldn't violate its constitution to serve them. As Mr. Alterman said in the trial, once a precedent is set for discreet rule-bending, it becomes easier and easier for future rules to be stretched if the right situation arises.
We also take issue with the fact that Senators for the Class of 2011 Lev Hirschhorn and Alex Melman voted on the resolution even though they are members of Democracy for America, one of the organizations sponsored by the Senate's $900. This is a conflict of interest, and the senators should have recused themselves.
In the interest of good principles and open practice, the Union should avoid creating future similar situations.
Senator for the Class of 2009 Eric Alterman brought suit against the Union for this last Saturday. The Union's constitution states: "All Senate Money Resolutions must be used for Student Union Government projects and/or operation."
As Mr. Alterman points out, this practice raises the risk of the Union becoming its own independent Finance Board, giving money for causes and events that should just have been brought before the actual F-Board. We expect Union money to be allocated to its designated government-related affairs.
It's true that the Union has given money to non-Union operations before. For instance, the Union recently gave $1,500 to the hopeFound event, which raised money to fight homelessness. But however noble these causes are, the Union shouldn't violate its constitution to serve them. As Mr. Alterman said in the trial, once a precedent is set for discreet rule-bending, it becomes easier and easier for future rules to be stretched if the right situation arises.
We also take issue with the fact that Senators for the Class of 2011 Lev Hirschhorn and Alex Melman voted on the resolution even though they are members of Democracy for America, one of the organizations sponsored by the Senate's $900. This is a conflict of interest, and the senators should have recused themselves.
In the interest of good principles and open practice, the Union should avoid creating future similar situations.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Anon
posted 3/13/09 @ 5:06 AM EST
Did someone write this, or is this editorial the default text box in Publisher?
Post a Comment