| OCR Text |
Show Vote against proposed constitution Students are again faced not only with the problem of electing new studentbody officers, but also in deciding if they want their constitution changed again. If it is altered, it will make the sixth time in the last six years that a new or modified modi-fied constitution for the Associated Students of the University Univer-sity of Utah (ASUU) has been ratified. Faced with another yearly change, one might rightly question its validity and the forces and reasons behind it. It seems that changing the constitution has become a panacea pana-cea for the problems of student government. Instead of consistently altering the constitution, it might be wise to have more soul searching on the part of our studentbody officers to see if the failure is due to their shortcomings and dedication to ASUU, and not to the system. It might cost our officers more time, more commitment, more work and more sacrifice to make the system work, but then they will know if the problems are with them or with the constitution. And they might also discover that lack of representation is due to them, rather than to the board-type of government. Of course, those involved in the system can always find ils faults. Certain faults should and ought to be corrected even correction to the point of drawing up a new type of system. But that revamping should not be necessary on an annual basis. And when alteration is imminent, then the new structure should be so well publicized and debated that the students who do vote will know about the referendum and understand its pros and cons. Then the change will be brought about by all of the students and not one or two or a council of 21. This year, the students do not know about the constitution, so how can they vote for it or against it? In fact, until it was reminded, the Elections Committee had not even planned to have it on the ballot. But this lack of general interest began long ago when the proposed constitution was still on the drawing board. It began in Executive Council when on Jan. 8 it was first brought up and tabled. It appeared Jan. 15 and was again delayed. On Jan. 22, two proposals were voiced where it be accepted, (1) the constitution would be put on the ballot, and if it passed, it would take effect this spring. This proposal was defeated. The second proposal, which was passed, called for a referendum this year, and if it passed, the constitution go into effect a year from this spring. Beyond getting it on the ballot, the Executive Council has largely ignored the proposed pro-posed constitution. With this lack of interest, the sad thing is that it could be passed by only 1 vote with the rest of the voters abstaining, abstain-ing, or it could be defeated by one vote with the rest of the voters abstaining. Is this method of change representative? More discussion is desperately needed before the constitution can be voted on. We encourage students to talk about it, to read about it, to see if it serves them. And they should do this before they vote. If students are not sure, they should vote against it. It can also be brought up again if it doesn't pass, but an absentien will only be a vote for the proposed constitution. To begin the discussion the Chronicle would like to quote John Kesler, 1967-68 ASUU president who said: "It has been my observation as I watched and participated in student government for three years that the student executives execu-tives are often so concerned about finding a new structure or altered constitution for the ASUU and are so worried about their own internal problems they forget about the basic reason rea-son they are there: to serve the students. Since student government gov-ernment is a part-time government, it is able to concentrate on only a limited number of things and still be at all effective (in terms of innovation). Nothing makes me happier than every once in a while to see student governments stop running run-ning around in circles, make more than noise or protest and do something." |
