The proposed ASM constitution did not become one of ASM's few victories last Tuesday. However, a mandate for reform was certainly conveyed by the 15 percent of the student populous who voted. So the question is where to go from here.
From what I understand, there are three main areas of concern that spelled the demise of the proposed ASM structure: 1) Jeopardized funding to organizations. 2) Too much power centralized in the executive branch. 3) Decreased attention to grassroots organizing and student issues.
Considering these concerns and the blatant realization that ASM's role with the average student is tenuous at best, it would be unwise for the momentum of reform to halt with the defeat of ASM's proposed restructuring. I foresee two routes that should be pursued simultaneously to ensure that effective changes can be made to increase ASM's accountability and representative capacity, as well as address and assuage the concerns of Vote No.
First, I think it is important for members of Students for ASM Reform, most of whom were on the Constitution Committee, to sit with Vote No representatives and modify the proposed Constitution so that it reflects the concerns of Vote No. Do not let the work and effort that people invested in the proposed constitution construction go to waste. I believe restructuring ASM can still aide in prolonging the longevity of ASM and ultimately, increase the efficiency of our student government.
This mode of reform would address the first two concerns:
1) To guarantee that segregated fee funding to student organizations is not endangered, I propose amending the current bylaws by adding the two timelines suggested in the bylaws that accompanied the proposed Constitution. This would ensure that any amendments to fund stream bylaws are ""made public at least three months prior to the potential date of enactment,"" and that any amendment resulting in the abolishment of a funding stream is ""made public at least six months prior to the potential date of enactment."" These securities are not currently in the ASM bylaws, yet were of great contention in the debate over the proposed constitution.
2) Modify the proposed constitution to limit the executive branch's power, but maintain the position of a popularly elected president. Such a figure would be the face of ASM, to which the student body can applaud or berate for the functionality of the student government. Also, have both the modified constitution and accompanying bylaws approved by ASM's student council with an understanding that the tentative bylaws will be adopted upon student body approval of the constitution. This will alleviate the fear that bylaws will change after the modified constitution's approval, another fear conveyed by Vote No.
The second route of reform returns to, and enhances, the grassroots organizing that was feared to be lost if the proposed constitution passed. This is the most immediate form of reform that can currently be completed because legislation for such a solution is being presented today.
The College Student Council Funding (CSCF) stream will be proposed at the ASM meeting Wednesday. The structure and relationship that this funding stream would establish strengthens the tie between ASM and the individual colleges. It allows students and RSO's to communicate individual concerns and student issues within each college. These concerns and student issues will gain momentum and can then be addressed at the university level through ASM. Ultimately, the CSCF opens communication channels between ASM and the individual constituents in the colleges' communication channels, which are either nonexistent or effective. Furthermore, in addition to the creation of such channels, the College Student Councils can focus on programming that specifically addresses the unique needs of students in each college, similar to what General Student Services Fund (GSSF) groups do to address the shared needs of students across the university. This is the type of grassroots organizing that will decrease the average student's apathy toward ASM.
I proposed one method of reform, but I do hope that those in Vote No were not just killing the proposed constitution for kicks but were actually hoping to change ASM and make it work for students. I believe that this series of legislation would be the first step in the right direction and would be very quick to effect.
Sean McMaster is a junior majoring in biochemistry and mathematics. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
