Editorial: Balancing the checks: SGB needs consistency

With Student Government Board elections tomorrow night, the incumbents are set to leave behind a legacy mired with haste and confusion.

Besides temporarily disposing of its Elections Committee chair two weeks before the election, a referendum passed on Oct. 12 which extended the incoming Board’s term on conditions that violate SGB’s Constitution. 

Like the Board’s meeting to discuss the dismissal of Lauren Barney because of alleged misconduct, the legwork for the invalid referendum occurred behind closed doors, devoid of proper procedures or substantial student input. 

But the abrupt decision to dismiss Barney, who was reinstated a week later, proved to be more detrimental to the elections process than Barney could have been. 

Her sudden firing and replacement with Elections Committee Vice Chair Kevin Tracey — who resigned from his position on Friday, Nov. 7 — triggered more confusion among candidates. Moreover, testimonials from SGB candidates and witnesses during the hearing echoed a sentiment that Barney was dedicated and loyal to her job.

This comes as another inefficiency in an election that didn’t start out smoothly, as the Board rushed a referendum that extended its next term by a semester.

The referendum aligned SGB’s term with the academic year, rather than the calendar year, giving the incoming Board prolonged distribution of the $2.6 million annual Student Activities fund designed to help students’ ideas and initiatives flourish.

But, much like the decision to dismiss Barney, this referendum wasn’t executed properly. The Board passed the referendum without an adequate amount of checks on its power or an effective and informed student vote. 

SGB’s Constitution only requires 3 percent of the student body to vote on a referendum, and a simple majority of those who vote need to approve the measure for it to pass. After the student vote, SGB must obtain a two-thirds majority vote of approval from the Constitutional Review Committee. 

For the referendum to extend SGB term limits, the Board gave the student body three days to vote, and the Constitutional Review Committee that assessed the referendum consisted of five members — a low number compared to that of years past.  

Therefore, because of the obstructive dismissal of Barney and the rushed referendum process, it would not be fair to the students or to the next Board to extend the length of the next SGB term. 

The Board shouldn’t have thrust a term extension on members who may not have expected a lengthened term when they were considering running and without evaluating a more extensive list of options.

Barney’s dismissal shows that the current Board is incapable of pursuing an action by the book as determined by the SGB Judicial Committee, so why would this referendum be any different?

Perhaps, then, it would be best to wait to pass a referendum that approaches a term switch under a new, fresh-faced SGB that is excited to serve and utilizes time to effectively and efficiently pursue policy.