To the Editor:

Re: “Rambo Versus the Student Assembly,” Opinion, Sept. 10 and “Power to the People, Re­prise,” Editorial, Sept. 15

As you have probably heard, the Student Assembly voted last Thursday against Resolution 4, a measure that would extend limited voting rights to the general student population. We opposed the said measure for many reasons; however, none of which were in “fear of masses,” as the presumptuous column in Friday’s Sun suggested. In the following paragraphs, we will attempt to explain our reasoning in voting down this controversial bill.

A more investigative look at this proposal reveals a resolution lacking substance. All major powers, including those of appropriations, forming committees and drafting legislation, would still remain in the hands of the elected representatives. Under Resolution 4, the limited voting power granted to students can be overturned by a two-thirds majority of the elected assembly. Consider the case of a large group of students with the acquired right to vote, taking a passionate stance on an issue. While this group would consume the majority of votes and skew the result, elected representatives could simply veto any radical measure. As this veto power renders the student vote ineffective, Resolution 4 all too much resembles a publicity stunt.

In the past, nothing has stopped students from attending meetings and voicing their concerns. This forum provides students with the ability to express their opinions and we look forward to basing our decisions off of their persuasion. That being said, serving on the assembly is a holistic experience. Salient issues of one week’s meeting carry over throughout the year, and past resolutions, discussions and precedents are very applicable. It is not a week-by-week commitment. Members of the assembly are responsible for attending all meetings whether or not they have a particular passion for the matter at hand.

While the primary goal of Resolution 4 was to increase participation in student government at Cornell, we are concerned that this legislation would do just the opposite. Although it may increase attendance at Thursday meetings, Resolution 4 disincentivizes running for elected position and joining committees. Why take the time to prepare statements, collect signatures and campaign for a week when one can just come to three consecutive meetings? And why join one of the many committees where, despite the lack of recognition, much of the assembly’s most valuable work is accomplished? Participation in elections is currently at a historically high level, and due to increased interest, committee sizes have just been expanded. Let’s continue to boost interest in student government in this manner.

Student Assembly members such as ourselves realize the value of serving on the Assembly. It is not about being recognized in “coveted positions of power” or having our face in the public every Thursday; it is simply about making the undergraduate experience better for all students. Last year approximately 4,500 students voted in undergraduate S.A. elections. It was the students’ duty to choose candidates who they did and did not want to represent their constituencies. These were clearly the people — the masses if you will — and they have already spoken.

Alex Latella ’10, S.A. CALS Representative

Jon Rau ’12, S.A. Arts and Sciences Representative