Structural deficiencies cause Student Government membership instability

As a former Board member, Allocations Committee member and Governmental Relations Committee member, I have heard the entire gambit of criticisms against the Student Government Board: the organization is too exclusive, the Allocations Committee is not transparent, the Board focuses too much on allocations. 

These are all fair critiques, and I have witnessed each one firsthand. If not for the behest of a fellow fraternity brother to join the Governmental Relations Committee as a freshman, I would have probably never heard of SGB. This does not bode well for an institution that is designed to represent the voice of the undergraduate student body, but unfortunately, it seems that nothing changes from year to year. 

This is not to say that the representatives are apathetic or that no one in student government cares about these criticisms. On the contrary, chairpersons and Board members alike spend countless hours trying to address the complaints. The issue, however, runs much deeper than any one individual. The problems associated with the Student Government Board stem from the archaic structure by which the organization governs.

The problems are made clearer when comparing how our SGB operates relative to similar schools of Pitt’s size and stature. But first, it’s necessary to understand the organization’s structure.

There is a single president who oversees eight Board members, all of whom are elected at large. These nine individuals, in turn, appoint the various committee chairpersons and the entire Allocations Committee, which oversees the allocation of nearly $1 million out of  the $2.5 million Student Activities Fund to student organizations each year. This means that in a representative body, only nine students are elected and the rest are decided by appointment. 

Beyond the chair and Allocations appointments, there are of course volunteers on each committee, but these volunteers are not held accountable to any student voter. So in reality, there are approximately 25 students who oversee Student Government’s entire operation. It is no wonder that SGB is viewed as an exclusive organization when 25 students — most of whom were not elected — represent the University’s more than 18,000 undergraduate non-College of General Studies students. 

Other issues arise as a result of this structure. One such issue is the fact that the executive, legislative and judicial branches are all combined into one single governing entity. The Board — which is an executive branch jointly comprised of the President and Board members — selects and oversees not only the judicial branch in the form of the Judicial Committee, but also the legislative branch in the form of the Allocations Committee and other conditional committees. Instead of having a legislature that is elected by the student body, Pitt has an executive-appointed legislature. The Board delegates and oversees legislative functions, which clouds any possible distinction between the three branches of government. In reality, there is not a representative legislature, because the only elected individuals — the members of the Board — act as the executive branch. There is a great degree of power concentrated in the Board, and for nine individuals, this is simply too much work to be a truly effective body.

So how does Pitt’s student government structure differ from the likes of say, UNC-Chapel Hill — a university of similar size? Or to Penn State — a university with a similar private-public partnership? 

Upon examining the two schools, one will see the stark contrast and the strange enigma of pseudo-representation that is Pitt SGB.

 For UNC, the Student Government is set up to have an Executive Branch with a president, vice president and a slew of other officer-cabinet positions. Separate from this branch is the Student Congress, which oversees the legislative efforts of the Student Government. Finally, there is the Student Supreme Court, which is in charge of all judicial matters. This is quite distinct from the president-and-board system under which Pitt operates. The student leaders and representatives at UNC operate within three distinct branches of government that have the proper checks and balances, similar to our own federal government. Pitt fails to have these necessary checks and balances, which contributes to much of the frustration and inefficiencies found within our student government. 

Instead of having Student Congress representatives elected at large, representatives for the congress are differentiated into districts based on living location, which means that each representative is held accountable by a specific group of students. Members running for executive or legislative positions run completely separately, strengthening the distinction between the executive and legislative branches, and the legislature is the only body in charge of funding decisions for student organizations. 

The elected president appoints justices to the Student Supreme Court who have to be approved by the Student Congress. The difference here is that two completely separate branches of government must come to an agreement to appoint members to a third branch of government, which gives the judicial branch more ethos and decision-making legitimacy. As it stands at Pitt, the president and Board appoint a judicial chairperson, who, in turn, selects a Judicial Committee. Because of the intertwining of the executive and legislative branches at Pitt, the judicial system loses legitimacy because there is no check on the selection of its members. 

For Penn State, a similar system applies. There are three separate branches of government, with the General Assembly membership being based on living location, as well as school affiliation. Again, unlike Pitt’s Allocations Committee, elected representatives are in charge of funding, so members are held directly accountable by their constituents. 

Another added benefit of having elected representatives in charge of funding requests means that the executive branch can focus on campaign initiatives instead of being tied up with funding issues. Furthermore, instead of having 25 students bear the entire workload, UNC and Penn State have a much clearer workload division for each branch of government. In total, UNC has more than 40 elected officials and Penn State has more than 45, compared to the nine that Pitt elects. Because both schools have much more expansive student governments when considering elected and appointed officials and individuals represent specific constituents of students, outreach is much easier, and the student government can be more inclusive.

Until Pitt adopts a system that does not encourage the exclusion and confusion associated with a board style of governance, the same complaints will continue to arise with no available solution in sight. If we truly want a student government that represents the needs and interests of the undergraduate student body, major reforms need to be made to the structure by which SGB governs.