Student Government Board’s Constitution only requires three percent of the student body to vote in a referendum, and only half of those who vote need to approve a measure for it to pass. 

SGB recently passed two referenda that were open for students’ votes for three days. One referendum proposed the elimination of Saturday finals, and the other proposed to change the Board’s term to align with the academic year. 

Although more than 80 percent of people who voted approved the measures, they still amount to roughly between six and eight percent of 18,371 undergraduate students. 

The results are great for that majority who actually voted, and of course, for SGB, in the interest of implementing change. But what about for the rest of us?

SGB should raise the minimum number of votes to pass a referendum, and with a higher standard, bolster student engagement in voting. That way, SGB can ensure that change on campus reflects the interests and concerns of its students. 

Limitations also still exist after SGB passes a certain referendum, which doesn’t necessarily guarantee that anything will come of it. On the elimination of Saturday finals, the Board now plans to present the results to University administrators, who will review and decide whether to alter University policy.

It’s probably safe to say that most students would be in favor of eliminating Saturday finals (it’s harder to know what the average student would say about term lengths), so why did less than 10 percent of the student body vote on the issue?

A comprehensive representation of the student voice should be vital to administrative change. A low bar of three percent of students willing to vote simply lacks numbers that demand action. 

The problem lies within a lack of motivation and effort by SGB to engage students and involve them in issues that they should, and most likely do, care about.

Of course, SGB lacks incentive to strive for more than the three percent of the student body’s participation required by its Constitution. And one can’t expect the average college student to sacrifice a lot of time to vote.

That doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, though. Board members can utilize grassroots efforts outside of Internet blasts to determine whether a more significant number of students support or oppose a change.

Much like campaigns during SGB elections, Board members can visit student organizations’ meetings, table outside of the Union or in Towers or even create and place physical advertisements in popular campus locations. 

Besides raising the minimum number of votes to pass a referendum, the Board should give students more time to decide on referenda by advertising the issue earlier and more effectively.

SGB advertised the open vote for the most recent referenda through its usual channels — social media, email and MyPitt — but this was not enough to prepare and draw a substantial amount of students.

Additionally, the referendum that changed the SGB’s term to align with the academic year means that potential Board candidates now face an extended, three-semester term. This extension cuts rather close to the elections, which are about a month away, and it may dissuade some potential candidates. So why wait to do it now?

Board President Mike Nites said SGB proposed the referendum before elections to ensure that prospective candidates would know the length of the upcoming term. 

It’s fair to hold the referendum before elections, but why didn’t the Board announce the proposed changes publicly until Sept. 16? According to Nites, the Board originally brought up the idea to change terms in March but decided it wasn’t the right time to announce it to the student body. 

“We needed to spend time evaluating the possible benefits and issues with it, so we decided to put it to rest over the summer,” said Nites.

The summer was ample time for SGB to weigh the costs and benefits and relay them to the student body. But the Board didn’t revisit the idea until September. 

Nites said he “rekindled” the idea over Labor Day weekend after attending the ACC Student Body Presidents’ Conference. There, he learned that most schools student governments’ terms aligned with their respective academic years.

It doesn’t seem the Board spent much time “evaluating” the benefits — perhaps to the dismay of some potential SGB candidates.

If the aforementioned referendum voting standard was higher, maybe we would have seen more effort on the part of SGB over the semester to actually convince and motivate students to care about this particular issue.

A larger pool of votes will allow the Board to fairly evaluate students’ positions on any matter.