Issue date: 11/3/09 Section: News

Media Credit: Alex Turco Student body president Nikki Craker leads a small group discussion about possible changes to student congress, in Olin Auditorium on Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009.

Senior Heather Duncan began attending Student Congress meetings long before she became an organization representative.

"We started talking about group requirements and social spaces, what the faculty and president were talking about also," she said. "And I liked knowing."

Duncan is now a representative for Student Organized Drinking Alternatives, and part of a larger body of student representatives. But her enthusiasm might be unusual among representatives.

Many are largely indifferent to the content of congress meetings, Laura Pearce, vice president of academic affairs, said.

Pearce, a senior, said that executive members of congress decided to face this perceived apathy and discuss alternative structures at Sunday's meeting.

"The [executive] members and cabinet were feeling that congress doesn't seem to have a purpose ... and that people just sort of show up and do their homework," she said. "No one asks questions and then we all leave - they don't see the point of being here, and we want to change that."

At Sunday night's meeting, representatives were broken into five groups for discussion, each of which was led by an executive member. Members were asked before the meeting to brainstorm the most important qualities of congress, and how the organization could better meet the needs of the entire campus.

Some representatives said they attend congress meetings only because it is mandatory.

Junior Tyler Archer, representative for WGRE, said funding is the only motivation to attend the meetings.

"The threat is always about allocations," Archer said. "Everything is about money. And if we take that out of the equation, why do we need to be here?"

However, not all representatives feel the same way. Junior Alex Palacios, representative for Italian Club, said congress is a valuable source for student opinions.

"It's a good place to get feedback, and it's different than getting thousands of e-mails a day. We get face to face interaction," he said.

To increase such in-person interaction, Pearce suggested dividing congress into two smaller governing groups. The first would be identical to the current congress, while a second group would meet during off-weeks of congress meetings to give reports to the rest of the organization.

Pearce also suggested a second alternative, in which the structure of congress would remain the same, but topics would be presented two weeks before votes so that groups could discuss the topic, and then representatives could report their groups' opinions at congress.

Freshman Brooke Curtis, a representative for Building Tomorrow, said she supports advance notice about issues before meeting times.

"I don't think I represent my organization since I'm one person," she said. "I'd like the chance to talk to my organization and get a good representation on the issues."

Discussion and examination surrounding the current structure of congress will continue in the coming weeks.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools