Student Assembly

Dear Vincent,

Thank you for your communication in July about the SA Charter Revisions and the revised copy of the document. What an incredible undertaking on the part of last year’s assembly.

I recognize the amount of work and thought that went into this resolution, and want to convey to all of the Assembly how impressed I am with its intent. However, I cannot approve the Charter revisions as presented and therefore ask that this year’s Assembly reconsider Resolution 81. There are a number of specific issues in the areas that require the President’s approval: authority, membership and charter amendment that I outline below.

Article III: Authority and Responsibilities

Section 1, paragraph B - I think there is a typo here as it references Article I, Section 5 when I believe it is intended to reference Article III, Section 6.

Section 3, Paragraph A - This section empowers the SA to require that requests by the President for reconsideration of legislative actions be delivered verbally. I infer that I will be asked to make such requests in person, upon request of the SA. Practically speaking, I cannot accept this change, as I believe it to be unrealistic given my schedule. While I remain willing and enthusiastic to appear before the SA, when practical and consistent with my schedule, I cannot support codification of this chart amendment. Also, I wonder if it was intentional to remove the language related to Presidential approval that currently exists, that is, when reconsideration is not requested, the action of the SA is presumed to be approved. This language currently is in the UA Charter 1.3.1 that is now referenced in the SA Charter but is being removed in the proposed rewrite.

Section 5 - I note that you state that the calendar is available for approval at least 30 days before any public announcement. The decision about approval rests with the Provost, upon recommendation of the Faculty Senate and in consultation with the various assemblies. I ask that you replace the words ‘for approval’ with ‘for comment’ to be clear.

Article IV: Membership

Section 4 - The provision that the SA President will appoint a member of the administration to serve as a consultant to the SA seems out of order. The decision to appoint a formal liaison rests with me, as President. If the SA wishes to ask for the advice of someone else, that is perfectly fine, but the appointment of the formal liaison (currently Dean Hubbell) is mine. Thus, I cannot accept this change.

Section 8, Paragraph G - I am concerned about the expectation that each college representative must devise a climate survey of students and faculty in the college that is to be conducted once each semester. I must ask you to reconsider this suggestion. We work very closely with our Office of Institutional Research and Planning to define our university research agenda, trying not to over-survey our students. While I applaud your desire to obtain feedback from your constituencies, this provision poses an administrative burden on the units. Moreover, it is not appropriate for the SA to oblige the dean or any other party to consider an SA designed survey before making any administrative changes.

Article XIII: Amendments

Section 2 - As an editorial matter, the title to this section would more accurately include “Membership” and “Amendments” as these two important topics are addressed here as well.

A more fundamental question that emerges from the redesign of the charter and the bylaws is the elevation of some matters from the bylaws, which are not binding on the administration, to the Charter, subjecting them to my approval where it is not currently required. One such item is in Section two of Article XIII, requiring the President to “provide a detailed written or verbal report to the SA indicating the reason for disapproval” within 30 days of receipt of the proposed amendments. Now that such language is in the Charter, it is technically subject to my approval.

Also, by moving all of the bylaws to the charter you are setting the requirement that changes will need to pass by two-thirds vote. I wonder whether this change may become a hindrance to the SA, especially in areas that pertain solely to internal operations.

Moreover, I am left wondering if you intend to have any bylaws after this process, or shall all of the legislation be in the Charter?

In asking the Assembly to reconsider this resolution for the above reasons, I also would like to suggest that you work closely with Ari Epstein in the Office of the Assemblies to redesign the charter and bylaws. Your intent is on target, but I think the document presents considerable difficulties.

Ari would be an excellent resource, along with Vice President Murphy’s office, to help the SA accomplish the very worthwhile goal of simplifying the two documents’ organization to distinguish clearly between what requires my approval and what remains as a matter of internal focus for the SA.

I have not opined on all of the other changes noted in the submitted document as they are, in the main, existing bylaws which do not require my approval.

Sincerely,

David Skorton