The first draft of ASM’s new constitution was released publicly on Monday. My experience as chair of ASM has helped instill in me the belief that huge changes like these are necessary to sustain the organization, but I’m approaching the new constitution with a degree of skepticism. We’re at a critical juncture and need to ensure students think about the implications of a new structure. The constitutional committee has made huge changes to the student government, and although the new structure has been an attempt to address ASM’s failures, any structure inadvertently creates new problems that will have to be worked out. We must be critical of the new structure in order to make sure that we are appropriately addressing ASM’s failures. We need students to give their input as to whether the new problems that will arise will be a greater hindrance than they are a solution.
In his article, Alex Gallagher states ASM is “fettered by a structure that is as confusing as it is flawed.” I’ve heard this critique several times, but I’m still wondering if the new structure is any less confusing — or flawed, for that matter. ASM’s current structure is relatively simple: There is one main decision-making body — Student Council — and several committees that function underneath it. Much of their work — especially in regard to finances — must be approved by Student Council. It is very much a bottom-up approach, which allows committees to operate relatively autonomously.
However, the new plan flips the current structure on its head. The Student Senate will dictate the functions of the student government and delegate smaller tasks to committees. Although this sounds good in theory, I’m worried how this will actually be applied, for two reasons.
First, members of the Student Senate will have to make a significantly greater time commitment to the organization. From my experience within ASM for three years, there are few people willing to spend so much time working with student government, particularly in meetings. If this is due to the fact that the student government has not been appealing to them because of its perceived ineffectiveness or its lack of a relationship to students on campus, then the new structure will provide an appropriate solution. However, if it is because students are generally — with a few exceptions — not willing to commit 25 or more hours to working with their student government due to other time commitments, the new structure will be plagued with the same lack of involvement.
These reforms make the Student Senate even more bureaucratic. Once one considers the likelihood that slates will form more easily, we have to worry about student government shutting down completely because of bickering between the parties. Or maybe a slate could become so powerful it could take over completely. This isn’t too far-fetched, given it’s happened at several other universities around the country — the Machine at the
Additionally, ASM’s advocacy efforts are fractured and uncoordinated. While the observation that this is due to a lack of organizational unity may be correct, the new structure doesn’t solve the problem. The new constitution gives the legislature the power to draft all policies but delegates the implementation to the executive. All advocacy efforts are under the executive branch; this creates a larger chasm than currently exists. If the members of the executive and legislative branches are from different slates, what interest do they have in seeing the other succeed? Furthermore, if those crafting the policy have no experience, I would seriously question the efficacy of the policy.
Finally, the argument that the new structure resolves the problem of the elected body being heavily invested in the organization is as simplistic as it is repeated. The senate may very easily serve as a rubber stamp. Student Council members are currently required to sit on a committee, so the only real change is that senators would be required to sit on more committees. This does nothing to get elected representatives involved in the “real” decision-making structure. The current flaw that needs to be addressed in ASM is that Student Council members do not have enough resources to become invested and make decisions that will advance the organization. Although some Student Council members are extremely proactive, providing more resources to members is something that needs to happen internally. ASM could also do more to create higher expectations for Student Council members and not allow people to remain on the council if they do not participate. It would be possible for us to address this problem within the current structure. If we were to mandate that all directives taken by committees would have to be initiated by Student Council, the legislative body would be guiding the organization without completely starting from scratch with a new structure.
I remain hopeful the new structure will bring a stronger student government to UW. But as much as my experience thus far has shown me the necessity of some reforms, others can be made from within. While ASM has its flaws, there are parts that work quite well. At this point, we need students to read the draft of the new constitution and think critically about everything the new structure entails. If students do not participate in the shaping of the new government, I would not be surprised if the new government fails within the first few years and students are back to the drawing board.
Britanny Wiegand ([email protected]) is the Chair of the Associated Students of Madison.