GUSA Cuts Senate Seats for Oct. Election

Is there an plan that details what exactly the new districts will be yet? In other words, did GUSA decide specifically which districts will be modified last night?

Patrick I can address that. This article somewhat confusingly amalgamates two different meetings. Prior to this change, they bylaws read like this:

1.01 The Senate shall consist of thirty-five or more elected members, elected as follows:

(a) The Senate shall divide residence halls and apartments into single-member districts of approximately equal students. Off-campus shall for the purposes of election be a single, multi-member district.

(b) To derive the number of districts in each residence hall or apartment the Senate shall divide the total number of undergraduates living on- or off-campus (excepting those studying abroad) by 35 to receive the average district size, then the Senate shall divide the total number of students living in each residence hall or apartment by the average district size and round to the nearest whole number. This number shall be the number of districts in the dorm.

(c) To derive the number of Senators off-campus, the Senate shall divide the total number of students living off-campus by the average district size and round to the nearest whole number. This number shall be the number of Senators elected from the off-campus district.

(d) If, after sorting the districts, there are fewer than 35 districts, the Senate shall distribute the remaining districts at its own prerogative, though customarily preference should be given to the residence hall or apartments which only have 1 member but came closest to achieving 2.

(e) If, after sorting the districts, there are equal to or more than 35 districts, the Senate shall neither eliminate nor add any additional districts.

------

This formula allowed for proportional representation within districts, with the end result that some dorms/residence halls had 3 districts, some had 2, and some had 1. What the bill passed at the latest meeting did was decrease the number of seats in halls that previously had 3 seats to 2, that previously had 2 seats to 1, and those that previously had 1 remained at 1. The bill also created four at large seats that anyone on campus may run for.

The 25 seats break down like this:
- 5 seats for Freshmen dorms (20%)
- 16 in non-Freshmen residences (64%)
- 4 at-large seats (16%)

Hope this helps.

Interesting.

How will the at-large seats work? Are they the same as off-campus, or is off-campus still represented? Also, can someone who's running in one regular district also run in an at-large district?

I'm not necessarily opposed to this change (I was the one who wrote it in on the first place), but I think at the same time the emphasis has to shift to getting the ability to email their constituents several times a year to update them. That's the best way to get in touch, express ideas and solicit opinions, especially now that the districts are being made larger. That's the biggest complaint GUSA's gotten -- that once they get elected, people never hear from them. And I figure if the Tocqueville Forum or the Center for Whatevercausesoundsimportantathtemoment can deluge students' inboxes with several emails, their elected representatives should rank slightly higher above that in priority in email access.

Also, have you figured out how the divisions are going to work? That is, if there were a 3 person residence going down to two, how do you decide / have you decided what floors/areas are the new districts?

Matt:

As I understand it as the election process begins to move forward, potential candidates will come to an election information session and pick up an Intent Form. On the form the candidate will have to list staff, residence, AND his/her intent to run for a residential district OR an at-large district. The form will be due a couple of days after the info session, so the candidate will have this time to evaluate his or her chances in his or her own residential district versus the campus at large and make a decision based on these evaluations.

Off-campus seats still exist independently of the four general at-large seats, though their number has been decreased to three from four.

Your point on the emails is a good one. I agree with you in hoping that the Senate moves in this direction in the upcoming year.

As far as the divisions, from my notes from the meeting, they will go like this:

Copley
G-5

Reynolds
2-6

McCarthy
2-8

Kennedy
2-8

VCE
1-10

VCW
X+Y

Darnall
1-6

NS
1-4

Harbin
2-5

Harbin
6-9

Vil A
A-D

Vil A
E-H

Vil B
1-90

LXR
G-5

Nevils
All

Henle
1-48

Henle
49-96

Townhouses
All

Off-Campus

Off-Campus

Off-Campus

At-Large

At-Large

At-Large

At-Large

I see; looks good. Hope it works out in practice. I take it people vote in both their district and for the at-large seats? Do they get 4 votes for at-large, or just one?

One last suggestion, especially since districts are getting bigger and may have a lot more candidates running in each seat:

Allot a 250 word (or however many words the Senate feels is appropriate) platform summary of each candidate to be displayed before the vote in each district. It's trivially easy to do (since you can have whatever text you want for the vote) and can be configured district-by-district (rather than having to put them all on one page).

Letting candidates give a brief summary of their goals helps voters immensely, and with IRV can be critically helpful. Even if voters have already chosen their first-choice candidate, a solid platform can win candidates voters' second or third choice votes. In a hotly-contested election, that could be the margin for victory.

This seems like a silly change to me. The structure has never been the real problem with GUSA (although Matt's reforms were extremely, extremely positive); the problem is setting expectations for what student representatives do, and holding them to it. Structure at its best should encourage and enable students to be effective change agents, but it should almost never be the story. I'm not sure this reorg is going to meaningfully affect the issue of accountability -- if anything, having larger districts will make accountability more difficult.

Ultimately what matters is the people in GUSA. GUSA has always had many terrific people who get involved, stay involved, and do a good job. But in any group as large and as open as GUSA is and should be, you're going to get high levels of variability. And as with every group, the slackers, incompetents and blowhards may have more of an impact on GUSA's public image than the dedicated and effective workers at times.

A quick word of perspective to the current leadership: GUSA's most important job is getting things done (GUTS buses; Summer Fellows; defeat keg ban; Grab-n-go; funding board accountability). GUSA doesn't get all that much credit for the most important work it does, but don't lose sight of that work in focusing on trying to make the student body happy with GUSA as an idea. Achievement is the best way to win the students' respect. Failing respect, it's still the best way to serve them.

Oh my God, another year of GUSA articles. Shoot me now.