I keep reading in The Post that overwhelming numbers of students are coming to Student Senate meetings and demanding that senate take a stance on state Issue 2. I then read that Student Senate has allegedly turned a “cold shoulder” to these students despite their continued demands.
The only entity giving the cold shoulder is The Post, and they’re giving it to the many students who have come to Student Senate meetings and asked that senate not take a stance.
Every meeting for the last three weeks has featured members of both groups. For every speaker in “Student Speakout” demanding that senate take a stance, there is another speaker demanding that it not take a stance. It’s not as cut and dry as it sounds.
The idea that Student Senate’s executives are somehow “blocking” this measure is absolutely incorrect. Any resolution can be added to the agenda at any meeting with the same number of votes.
The failure of a motion to muster the necessary votes is exactly that: a failure to muster votes. It is not significant of a systemic failure to understand the reasoning behind the motion.
If the rules behind agenda modification were misunderstood, it was not a malicious attempt to deceive. When the senate rules do not specify what action to take, the parliamentarian is forced to find a reference in Robert’s Rules to follow. He found a reference, and the reference called for a two-thirds majority. A two-thirds majority was not reached.
When two people are yelling in your ear, you can’t help but hear both of them.
On one side, Student Senate is being asked not to take a stance. Those students say they want university advocates, not state advocates, here at Ohio University.
There are elections for state office, they say, and they intend to use those elections to voice their opinions on state policy.
Students passionate about Issue 2 can vote on Nov. 8, they contend. They have also taken care to point out the myths spread about SB 5 in the first place. They have grown angry that senate’s time has been devoured by needless controversy and are ready to see Student Senate take action on things such as the book exchange and campus safety.
On the other side of the argument is the group of people who have been coming to the meetings demanding that senate take a stance. They repeatedly stress the potential for Issue 2 to have an effect on students and say that a failure on senate’s part to take a stance is an abdication of responsibility.
The unionized janitorial and food-service staff at OU is in the crosshairs of SB 5, and it is incumbent upon student advocates to ride to their aid. They also stress student reliance on police aid and the Athens Fire Department.
Those populations are directly affected and thus deserve a clear stance, they contend.
There are two sides to this issue, just as there are two sides to SB 5.
Some demand a stance. Others (just as vehemently) demand no stance. Thus far, senate has heard both sides. When resolutions are controversial, a vote is often asked to add them to the agenda.
It is common in parliamentary procedure when a consensus is not clear to find that consensus with a vote to add the motion to the agenda.
I know this isn’t over. There will be more demands to add this to the agenda, and the senate executives welcome those efforts.
Failure to report the entirety of the story is equivalent to a faulty defense. The best way to defeat a cause is to defend it with faulty reasoning. Report the whole issue or the dialog cannot advance.
Chris Wimsatt is a senior studying political science and the treasurer for Student Senate.
