At last Thursday’s SA meeting, a “Community Clause 2.0” resolution was introduced. In this newly proposed resolution, the entire body of non-SA students that attend meetings would be allocated 2 community votes. Instead of each member in attendance getting one vote, the entire body of non-SA attendees would vote on a given motion/resolution and then 2 votes would be allocated to whatever the majority of those students voted for. If it’s a tie, then the two votes would be split. If only one person shows up, then he or she will only get one vote.
This new rule gets around one of the biggest issues with the original Community Clause Resolution. As many students pointed out, what would prevent a large student organization, like the Cornell Republicans or Cornell Democrats, from bringing their entire club to SA meetings and then having a consolidated majority on every vote?
We’ll have to wait until the next meeting for a vote on the new resolution, but I’m still skeptical that it will increase student interest/involvement in the Student Assembly. Read the fine print. Just like the original resolution, “community votes” come with five asterisks attached:
The community clause may only be exercised on final votes of sense-of-body resolutions pursuant to Bylaw 1.3.a.4, which excludes (1) funding and budgetary decisions, (2) amendments to the SA Charter and Standing Rules, (3) the ability to make motions, (4) creation/dissolution of committees (5) selection of officers, committee members, and liaisons from the popularly elected SA (i.e. allocation of the Student Activity Fee, SAFC appeals, approval of Parliamentarian, Liaison to the Provost, etc.).
So what exactly are the non-SA attendees going to be voting on? For more skepticism, check out John Farragut’s Resolution 4- A Postmortem article from the latest print issue of the Review.
