NU SGA changes, a band-aid on a broken bone

It looks like all the drama that came forth during Northeastern's student government presidential elections this spring has resulted in some changes to how the SGA will operate going forward.

The Northeastern News is reporting, New Rules in Town, the SGA has abolished the Rules Committee to give the task of running elections to the Senate Nominations and Elections Committee, which means that no one is quite sure who will undertake the other tasks that the Rules Committee used to handle. If it all sounds a bit convoluted that's because it is and the article certainly doesn't help clarify.

Following a contentious election season, the Student Government Association (SGA) voted last week to eliminate its Rules Committee, the body formerly charged with tasks including running elections, legislative oversight and parliamentary procedure, SGA president-elect Rob Ranley said.

SGA voted last Monday to create the Senate Nominations and Elections Committee (SNEC) to head the direct presidential elections process.

In addition to running the direct elections, the Rules Committee was also the "the oversight and advisory body for the legislation, parliamentary procedure, and the history and traditions of the Association," according to SGA's constitution. SNEC will focus only on elections, leaving the Rules Committee's other responsibilities in undetermined hands.

"The idea behind [SNEC's creation] is really that there needs to be a committee that's focused on making the elections successful and not have to worry about all the other stuff," Ranley said.

I don't really see this change having much effect when the SGA has to somehow inspire the student body to care and vote for the SGA president in nine months.

The News ran a pretty positive editorial, calling the change "admirable" and blaming the internal drama of the Rules Committee for dismal voter turnout.

It's a move that's being praised by some within SGA who say the Rules Committee overstepped its bounds far too often. These proponents are right, and the decision should be lauded for getting rid of a committee whose actions helped damage the credibilty of the election process.
...
As of now, SGA members have theorized these responsibilities will be absorbed to e-board members, and the parliamentarian, who will also chair the new Nominations and Elections Committee. However, it's important that SGA not throw these tasks aside. Allowing an independent body from e-board to review legislation only increases the transparency that politicians should always try to achieve.

It's too early to tell if the new SGA e-board will repeat the missteps of adminstrations past. But with the decision to cut a committee that did more harm than good, at least it seems to be heading in the right direction.

I'd challenge that the poor elections was not just the fault of one committee, but rather the SGA as a whole. Advertising and promotion was beyond dismal, the rotation of candidates did not inspire much confidence in the process and there didn't seem to be any real change or progression for the future promised by anyone.

Calling the members of SGA "politicians" just exemplifies one of the biggest issues that I see with the Association. The SGA shouldn't be made up of or run by wannabe "politicians," but rather by regular students who want to advocate for change and protect students' rights on campus. There seems to be too much focus on the titles and the gloss of politics, instead of what the Association is at its core: a sounding board for student complaints and a go between with administration to try to find a solution for said complaints.