The Student Assembly’s defeat of Resolution 4, the Community Clause, at last Thursday’s meeting presents cause for concern. While the resolution attempted to increase student attendance at S.A. meetings through limited voting rights, several S.A. members were hesitant about both the exercise of S.A. power and the numerous restrictions placed upon community members who would be eligible to vote.

It was not the decision to strike down the resolution that irked us. It was instead the debate that played out surrounding Res. 4 that is of paramount concern. Rather than address the mechanics and feasibility of the resolution itself, members of the S.A. fixated on what the clause would translate to in terms of their share of the “power”.

But why was the focus not on how to fix the system? While all of the S.A. members expressed support for increased student involvement, few of those who voted to quash the resolution offered any innovative ideas. Instead, we witnessed the naysayers recycle old arguments and were discouraged at the lack of proactive discourse.

One representative who struck down the resolution voiced opposition over the restrictions placed upon community voters. Other members objected, stating that giving more power to students would be undermining the representative governance currently in place. Another representative cautioned that the rejection of the clause would reflect poorly on the S.A., yet failed to provide valid alternatives.

We urge the S.A. to spend less time debating whether or not students’ voices should be represented and how these decisions will alter public perception of the organization. Instead, we suggest that time be put toward developing creative new ways to involve students.

In total, we propose that the S.A. considers an alternate approach to garnering public opinion. We would like to see the S.A. present non-binding online student referenda on all S.A. resolutions, allowing community members to become well-versed on the issues and be able to voice their opinions in the form of a campus-wide vote. The S.A. would still accept or reject proposals as they currently do and their “legislative authority” would not be affected. However, their decisions would be made in light of a general consensus — or lack thereof — made by the student body.

This way, the student voice would be heard, while elected S.A. representatives would retain their coveted positions of power. Ultimately, considering alternative ways to incorporate students’ voices other than allotting them “portions of votes with restrictions” will serve the student body and University well.