EDITORIAL: No panaceas here

The furute of studentThe furute of studentgovernment depends on yourThe furute of studentgovernment depends on yourvote: Cast a blank ballot.The furute of studentgovernment depends on yourvote: Cast a blank ballot.___________________________ Yes, folks, the University's annual round of student government elections is upon us. And for the second consecutive year, students dissatisfied with the way the system now works -- or doesn't work -- have introduced constitutional referenda and a resolution designed to remedy all that's wrong with the Undergraduate Assembly. Some things are new: This year's referenda don't have fancy names like "A-1" -- they're denoted simply "A" and "B" on the ballot. And the resolution, known as No. 1, would alter only one part of the current system of student government, how student activities are funded. Neither of the new constitutions has a slogan. And they weren't crafted by power-mongers aiming to shepherd themselves into prominence by crafting a new political system to personal specifications and then passing themselves off as the only ones capable of running it. But some things about these plans are old, and remain nettlesome: Under the system created by plan "A," elections would be much less democratic. An Elected Committee of 21 would handle the operations of a new Student Council on Undergraduate Life, but the committee's agenda would be set by a non-elected Council of Advisors, comprised of leaders of 12 to 15 unidentified student groups. We don't know how the membership of this Council would be determined, and how it might change or remain stagnant year after year. Secondly, referendum "A" does not mandate public meetings of the Elected Committee. Allowing the committee to keep its proceedings secret from the constituency of students it ostensibly represents has dangerous implications. The current UA constitution explicitly prohibits closed meetings. Referendum "B," the dictator plan, would place all student representation into the hands of an elected student body president and vice president. For all of the UA's inane antics and its inability to get things done, it's infinitely better to spread out power among 33 students from various areas of University life than to concentrate it in two positions that could be won and used for group gain by representatives of a large campus faction. Resolution No. 1, which would allow students to allocate funds from their General Fees to deserving groups -- with each group getting money in proportion to the number of votes it receives -- worries us, too. A slew of small yet vital cultural, literary and peer-education groups that not all of us are familiar with but could easily be forgotten and under-funded if this resolution were to pass. Right now, the future of student government at the University is a toss-up between the status quo and two highly flawed alternatives. We should not be forced to pick the lesser of these evils. n Aside to the SAS Personnel Committee: Add our voices to the chorus of disapproval echoing across campus after you once again denied tenure to English Professor Gregg Camfield, a respected and admired teacher and advisor. Your decision makes us increasingly uneasy about the future of and value placed on undergraduate education at this world-class research university. We're sorry to see Camfield go, and we wish him the best at the University of the Pacific.