Letter to the Editor
Issue date: 2/9/10 Section: Opinion
At this past Thursday's (February 4th, 2010) Senate meeting a resolution written by the Student Body President/Regent, Michael Crabb, was discussed and voted on. The Resolution titled SR 09/10-013, asked for $4,100 of student fees to be used in splitting the purchase of eight trash/recycling receptacles with campus facilities. Simple math shows that each trash would cost roughly $2,050.
Understandably there was a considerable amount of debate on the issue. Each side of the argument had several key points, President Crabb continually emphasized that the cost is small when looking at the big picture of the University's spending, and that there is a decent size pool of reserve funds available for large purchases.
The opposing side stresses the importance of fiscal responsibility and how student fees should not be spent carelessly. The opposition also brought up evidence that the student body as a whole does not support the proposed purchase, and that there is no need for additional trash and recycling containers on campus due to the lack of littering present to date. Those that were against the resolution made it clear that they were supportive of making the campus a green and cleaner environment but that it can be done in more economical way then $2,000 trash cans.
Sen. Smith of the graduate college made other senators aware of University policy, stating that three bids have to be submitted, from which the final choice is made. In this case, only one vender submitted a bid. When debate had ended, votes were cast and of the 24 Senators present, 11 voted for the resolution, 11 voted against the resolution and two abstained. Because the voting resulted in a tie, President Crabb was given a vote, and he voted in favor, thus passing the resolution which he wrote and submitted to Senate. Normally, when senators are the author of a resolution they abstain because they are a biased party, but obviously Crabb ignored this courtesy and voted anyway.
After the meeting the two abstaining senators were approached and asked about their reasoning for why they did not vote in favor or against the resolution. One of the senators had just been appointed into office earlier in the meeting and was unaware of the resolution. Since she didn't have the opportunity to discuss the proposed spending with her constituents she felt that she could not accurately represent them. The other senator was the second person called upon to vote and she felt intimidated by the President because of the way that he handled himself in the debate. If she could go back and vote, she would have voted against the resolution, and she now regrets her actions.
Understandably there was a considerable amount of debate on the issue. Each side of the argument had several key points, President Crabb continually emphasized that the cost is small when looking at the big picture of the University's spending, and that there is a decent size pool of reserve funds available for large purchases.
The opposing side stresses the importance of fiscal responsibility and how student fees should not be spent carelessly. The opposition also brought up evidence that the student body as a whole does not support the proposed purchase, and that there is no need for additional trash and recycling containers on campus due to the lack of littering present to date. Those that were against the resolution made it clear that they were supportive of making the campus a green and cleaner environment but that it can be done in more economical way then $2,000 trash cans.
Sen. Smith of the graduate college made other senators aware of University policy, stating that three bids have to be submitted, from which the final choice is made. In this case, only one vender submitted a bid. When debate had ended, votes were cast and of the 24 Senators present, 11 voted for the resolution, 11 voted against the resolution and two abstained. Because the voting resulted in a tie, President Crabb was given a vote, and he voted in favor, thus passing the resolution which he wrote and submitted to Senate. Normally, when senators are the author of a resolution they abstain because they are a biased party, but obviously Crabb ignored this courtesy and voted anyway.
After the meeting the two abstaining senators were approached and asked about their reasoning for why they did not vote in favor or against the resolution. One of the senators had just been appointed into office earlier in the meeting and was unaware of the resolution. Since she didn't have the opportunity to discuss the proposed spending with her constituents she felt that she could not accurately represent them. The other senator was the second person called upon to vote and she felt intimidated by the President because of the way that he handled himself in the debate. If she could go back and vote, she would have voted against the resolution, and she now regrets her actions.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Jason Curtis
posted 2/14/10 @ 1:50 PM CST
This debate was a strong one I will admit. One side was afraid to spend the money and this was their standpoint. The arguement of the the student body as a whole being against this proposal was unfounded and unsupported. (Continued…)
Post a Comment