Voters need time to study proposal

When this proposal and report are voted on, they will have been public for less than a week. When voting is over, they will have been public for only nine days. This proposal fundamentally changes the structure of the executive branch and legislative branch of PSG. For example, the Senate will no longer be based on population. The School of Liberal Arts will have as many senators as the School of Agriculture. My question is, how can anyone, whether they are an active member of PSG or Student Body, have had enough time to consider the ramifications of these changes?

I have not. When I voted in Senate to not accept the Internal Review Committee’s report, it was not because I did not agree with what it had to say. School-based apportionment with an equal number of senators from each school might be great; I just was not given the information or the time to make a decision either way. This did not mean that I did not want to discuss these proposed changes. As a member of the Senate, I was in no way going to let the Internal Review Committee’s report just get shot down. My fellow members of PSG put too much work into it to just let it die and too much is at stake to not listen.

However, I do not think that this referendum is the right way to get the Internal Review Committee’s report heard. I think that we should vote no to the referendum because no one has had time to consider the eventual effects of the changes of the proposal. I am very in favor of change, and I hope most people are. I am not in favor of hasty, thoughtless change, which is what I believe this referendum is.

John Metzcar

Sophomore, Schools of Engineering

Responsibility can cure problems

Martins: Comic

Plan to improve student government

New plan unfairly represents students

School representation defies logic

Voters need time to study proposal

PSG members ignorantly fear change

OPINIONS DESK PHONE:
(765) 743-1111 ext. 256

Opinions editor:
Tom McHenry

Online Columnist Archive