Senate calls for internal reform

Senators and the Associated Students of Linfield College Cabinet members alike called for reform to the ASLC Senate on Feb. 22, on issues ranging from the size of the Senate to senatorial duties to committee restructuring.
“There’s definitely improvement to be made to the Senate,” senior Duncan Reid, chair of the Campus Improvement Committee and one of Senate’s most outspoken senators, said. “Two major improvements deal with interactions with constituents and interaction among other senators.”
In a rather heated explanation, several senators, including Reid, vocalized disappointment with how the current ASLC Senate runs. This exchange was sparked by senior Chris Norman, ASLC vice president and chair of the Senate, in a question to the senators: “What would you like to see changed?”
“I like the way Senate runs,” Norman said. “That’s why I ran for vice president. But I’m more than open to change. But that’s up to the senators to decide.”
Certain issues kept resurfacing in the discussion, particularly about the lack of participation from the senators themselves. During the last two meetings, Review editors noted multiple observations of senators texting, e-mailing and talking during Senate’s meeting time.
“I would like for senators to take Senate more seriously,” Reid said. “For example, we should start at 6:30 p.m. sharp, and if Norman has to enforce the rules, then so be it.”
As an idea for restructuring, both Reid and Norman brought up changing the number of senators, preferably to a lower number. Right now, there are about 60 senators, one for each residence hall, club and Greek Life organization, plus several at-large senators. Some senators said that is too many to have productive debates and conversations.
“There should definitely be fewer senators,” Reid said. “Some senators don’t want to be there. Most senators don’t view it as a privilege, just an obligation. But students should want to be there. Maybe they should be elected? Although, that does come with some pros and cons.”
The problem with fewer senators, he said, is that there would be less direct contact between senators and their constituents. However, that could be countered with a more robust Senate.
Reid has been a part of Senate since his freshman year, and he said the change in atmosphere between then and now is palpable.
“There used to be more discourse, more interaction, more debate,” he said. “But now there’s just this inaction and apathy.”
Norman said his main concern is that senators needed to fully participate and complete their assigned senatorial duties, which boil down to reporting on Senate business and voting on Senate matters.
“I’d love to see increased participation,” he said.
That was the case at the Feb. 22 meeting, however, as senators from across the spectrum voiced their opinions about how to better the Senate.
“This current discussion is good for a couple of reasons,” Norman said. “It can give ideas to the new vice presidents for the future on what to change. And this doesn’t have to be the end of the discussion. If this is what sparks students’ interests, that is a good thing.”
In an effort to spearhead this campaign of change, Norman met with the Senate’s Executive Committee, which is composed of himself and the Senate committees chairs, to discuss what senators wanted done. The general consensus, he said, was that Senate could be more efficient, especially regarding committee structuring. This conclusion was then sent to the Senate Standing Rules and Bylaws Committee, chaired by freshman senator Justine Beaton, for evaluation.
As an aside, Norman said that the lack of residence hall elections for senators this year might have had a part in why some senators seem more apathetic than others. Normally, at the first residence hall meeting during Fall Semester, residents gather and vote on a hall senator. However, Norman said Residence Life just had residents write down if they were interested in hall positions, with no debate or voting.
“I would have hall elections,” Norman said. “They are more competitive, and they bring out the leaders of the group.”
Another issue revolves around the idea that Senate is not in sync with the campus and that most students have no idea what Senate does.
“We should bring the discussion to the school and see what students want to see done,” Reid said. “We should tailor ASLC and Senate to fit that. There’s a disconnect, and it’s easy to say, ‘That’s not what I’m into.’ That should involve being more visible to the campus however we want to go about doing that: publicity, campaigning, what have you.”
Reid also suggested adding committees that better represent student body interests, including a food committee and a Residence Life committee, and staging some type of retreat for senators to discuss ways to improve the campus.
“Senators need to recognize Senate as a power of change on campus,” he said. “Right now, Senate is good at keeping the status quo with the way it’s designed. There’s not a lot of progress. I would like to see a more active role, with more students engaged in Senate.”
Discussion will continue at the next Senate meeting on March 8 in Riley 201. The ASLC presidential and vice presidential debates will take place after Senate adjourns.