The day of judgment for Associated Students of Madison's new constitution has finally come, as students can vote Monday or Tuesday online whether to adopt or reject the reformative document. A product of ambitious minds and much deliberation, this constitution holds promise for the future of UW-Madison's student government, an institution that has ebbed and flowed between irrelevant and futile in previous years.
The enduring plan behind rewriting the constitution was the creation of an executive branch, including a president and vice president of the student government. As someone who could serve as the leader and face of ASM, the president's powers are far-reaching, but not absolute. The executive's veto power is subject to a senatorial override, and impeachment proceedings require a two-thirds vote from the senate.
The constitution also allows for executive orders, where the president can take immediate but short-term actions without the approval of the senate, presumably to act in a timelier manner than scheduled ASM meetings can afford. These orders are not only limited in lifespan (a maximum of three ASM meetings), but are also limited in scope, as executive orders are subject to judicial interpretation as well as a clause stipulating that the president cannot interfere with the operation of ASM employees, according to Jeff Wright, chair of the ASM Constitution Committee.
Of particular significance is the politicization of ASM that having an executive position brings. Annual presidential elections allow for people to vote not for a name on a page, but for someone with a distinct platform, serving to align the students in different ideologies. Not only does this allow people to vote for a like-minded candidate, but it also allows students to register as a candidate. The barrier to entry for becoming a candidate is very low—the only requirement is that the candidate be a member of ASM (which is to say, a student at UW-Madison) for at least one semester and the current semester.
Meanwhile, there is a small—albeit obnoxious—dissent to the new constitution in the form of the Vote No Coalition. Employing gross hyperbole, manipulative scare tactics and arguments ranging anywhere from half-baked to outright false, this coalition detests the implication of having an executive ""monumental power"" and the supposed jeopardy of General Student Services Fund appropriations.
Without going into great depth and dignifying the concerns of this coalition, there are copious checks and balances written into the new constitution—something Vote No folks could have bothered to read—and the budgetary process for student organizations is the same, except the budget must pass through both the senate and the executive. If the president whimsically vetoes the budget (the budget can only be vetoed as a whole, not in parts), as the Vote No coalition would suggest, it goes to a conference committee, which has two weeks to fix the budget—lest the initially proposed budget passes regardless. And lastly, if the financial codes were to be changed in the GSSF criteria, groups would be given a three-month notice to comply or challenge the new criteria, nullifying the concern of any ""hastily implemented changes.""
More conventional concern with the new constitution is that the new executive would take away some of the capability of the grassroots committees comprised of volunteers. Currently there is little accountability for the grassroots committees because projects are not salient, do not make sense or are inaccessible to students, according to Wright. The new executive branch would guide these groups to keep their workings relevant and useful.
Our primary concern with the new constitution is that presidential elections could possibly be flooded with candidates, so having a primary or any other measure of sifting down candidates would guarantee the efficacy of the election. It would be a disaster for ASM and the student body if an unqualified candidate won with a small majority over a plethora of other candidates.
Passage of the new constitution could eliminate ASM's forgettable and undistinguished reputation, leading to a positive new era where students have some idea of what ASM is and what they do. Furthermore, if this constitution were to fail, as some vehemently desire, it would be a devastating blow to ASM and the work that went into this new constitution. Just as with the previous constitution, the new constitution would be subject to amendments if an issue were to arise. With all this in consideration, we support ASM's efforts to reform and strongly encourage students to vote ""yes"" for the new constitution, for both the benefit of a revitalized ASM and contempt for the status quo.
Log on to www.asm.wisc.edu to vote on the ASM constitution Feb. 23-24.
