Spring Break
SGA ignores student vote
Megan Henderson
Issue date: 4/28/08 Section: Forum
The Student Government Association (SGA) at UMKC has forgotten its purpose.
During the week of April 14, students were asked to approve a revised constitution for SGA. Per the old constitution - still the governing document at the time of the vote - a new constitution would need a two-thirds majority of the voting body to be accepted.
Of the 104 students who voted regarding the new constitution, 55 voted yes and 49 voted no. It was a close vote, and a failure for the constitution, as the two-thirds majority was not met.
But the lack of student support did not stop SGA from adopting the new constitution anyway. Yet again, our elected officials have proven themselves to be nothing more than a slew of self-serving resume builders. But hey, at least they're consistent.
During last week's meeting, SGA President Sean McClain and SGA Executive Vice President, Tara Kloeppel, submitted a resolution to the Student Senate to override the outcome of the student vote and accept the new constitution. The senate voted to support the resolution, with all but one senator voting yes.
The resolution cited five reasons the student vote should be ignored. The first reason stated the students of UMKC "have little knowledge of the [SGA's] governing documents."
I would counter this by saying unless McClain and Kloeppel asked every student enrolled at UMKC, they could not make such a statement. Also, from my attendance of SGA meetings, I would say most members of SGA "have little knowledge" of their own constitution.
I attended an SGA meeting in November that had to be recessed for nearly 20 minutes so the executive board and senate could learn their constitution for an issue at hand. For assistance, they consulted a member of the gallery.
The resolution also cites the "many hours" put in by SGA to revise the constitution as reason to override the student vote. Couldn't it be revised to meet students' needs? Maybe it was written in crayon, in which case it cannot be erased.
During the week of April 14, students were asked to approve a revised constitution for SGA. Per the old constitution - still the governing document at the time of the vote - a new constitution would need a two-thirds majority of the voting body to be accepted.
Of the 104 students who voted regarding the new constitution, 55 voted yes and 49 voted no. It was a close vote, and a failure for the constitution, as the two-thirds majority was not met.
But the lack of student support did not stop SGA from adopting the new constitution anyway. Yet again, our elected officials have proven themselves to be nothing more than a slew of self-serving resume builders. But hey, at least they're consistent.
During last week's meeting, SGA President Sean McClain and SGA Executive Vice President, Tara Kloeppel, submitted a resolution to the Student Senate to override the outcome of the student vote and accept the new constitution. The senate voted to support the resolution, with all but one senator voting yes.
The resolution cited five reasons the student vote should be ignored. The first reason stated the students of UMKC "have little knowledge of the [SGA's] governing documents."
I would counter this by saying unless McClain and Kloeppel asked every student enrolled at UMKC, they could not make such a statement. Also, from my attendance of SGA meetings, I would say most members of SGA "have little knowledge" of their own constitution.
I attended an SGA meeting in November that had to be recessed for nearly 20 minutes so the executive board and senate could learn their constitution for an issue at hand. For assistance, they consulted a member of the gallery.
The resolution also cites the "many hours" put in by SGA to revise the constitution as reason to override the student vote. Couldn't it be revised to meet students' needs? Maybe it was written in crayon, in which case it cannot be erased.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 40
GET IT RIGHT
posted 4/28/08 @ 4:59 PM CST
SGA did not adopt the constitution in the meeting on April 23, 2008. The item that was voted on were the SGA Bylaws. The Senate voted on the constitution back in March to have it go to a referendum. (Continued…)
Get it right, you're an idiot
posted 4/28/08 @ 5:28 PM CST
Hey Get it right, this isn't a U-News staff editorial, it's the opinion of one person. Also, the fact that Sean and Tara think UMKC students have little knowledge of SGA governing documents, but ask them to vote on them anyway, just goes to show how useless and full of it self SGA has become. (Continued…)
Joshua Seiden
posted 4/28/08 @ 6:50 PM CST
It's a known fact that SGA is worthless. The executive board is a clown convention. When they aren't hemorrhaging student funding, they're embarrassing themselves and their school during SGA "meetings. (Continued…)
JoshueSeidengetsitwrong
posted 4/30/08 @ 8:03 PM CST
Joshua,
If you want to talk about hemorrhaging money, let's talk about the UNews.
How much does your executive staff make when combined with their scholarships? And why don't you ever write anything about that?
JoshueSeidengetsitwrong
posted 5/01/08 @ 1:15 PM CST
A few comments on your response:
"As news editor, I received $110/week each week we published an issue. There were no scholarships or grants involved. (Continued…)
JoshueSeidengetsitwrong
posted 5/01/08 @ 4:15 PM CST
Unews editor in chief and ad managers are just two of the positions that receive scholarships. When combined with their salaries and commissions, they make more than most graduate assistants. (Continued…)
No name, so just deal with it
posted 5/02/08 @ 4:25 PM CST
As a former UNews staff member and editor, I think its great to see Joshua Seidon shooting down misconceptions about the paper. What's not so great, however, is his arrogance in doing so. (Continued…)
JoshueSeidengetsitwrong
posted 5/02/08 @ 5:52 PM CST
What misconceptions did he shoot down? Let's review the facts:
1) The University News receives over $50,000/year in Student Activity Fee money while a recent news editor attempted to parse words to make it appear they did not. (Continued…)
Joshua Seiden
posted 5/03/08 @ 7:06 AM CST
First off, to address the former staffer: yes, name calling is a low road to take. But, I stand by my comments; comments to which I signed my name. Speaking of names, please spell mine right. (Continued…)
JoshueSeidengetsitwrong
posted 5/03/08 @ 2:10 PM CST
Seiden, you're the news editor. Why didn't you ever publish the amounts going to other clubs and organizations? All you had to do was walk over to the Student Life office to obtain that information. (Continued…)
Post a Comment