SGA ignores student vote

By: Megan Henderson

Posted: 4/28/08

The Student Government Association (SGA) at UMKC has forgotten its purpose.

During the week of April 14, students were asked to approve a revised constitution for SGA. Per the old constitution - still the governing document at the time of the vote - a new constitution would need a two-thirds majority of the voting body to be accepted.

Of the 104 students who voted regarding the new constitution, 55 voted yes and 49 voted no. It was a close vote, and a failure for the constitution, as the two-thirds majority was not met.

But the lack of student support did not stop SGA from adopting the new constitution anyway. Yet again, our elected officials have proven themselves to be nothing more than a slew of self-serving resume builders. But hey, at least they're consistent.

During last week's meeting, SGA President Sean McClain and SGA Executive Vice President, Tara Kloeppel, submitted a resolution to the Student Senate to override the outcome of the student vote and accept the new constitution. The senate voted to support the resolution, with all but one senator voting yes.

The resolution cited five reasons the student vote should be ignored. The first reason stated the students of UMKC "have little knowledge of the [SGA's] governing documents."

I would counter this by saying unless McClain and Kloeppel asked every student enrolled at UMKC, they could not make such a statement. Also, from my attendance of SGA meetings, I would say most members of SGA "have little knowledge" of their own constitution.

I attended an SGA meeting in November that had to be recessed for nearly 20 minutes so the executive board and senate could learn their constitution for an issue at hand. For assistance, they consulted a member of the gallery.

The resolution also cites the "many hours" put in by SGA to revise the constitution as reason to override the student vote. Couldn't it be revised to meet students' needs? Maybe it was written in crayon, in which case it cannot be erased.

Real members of the U.S. Senate can spend months working on a bill, only to have it die instantly in committee. That's the way it goes. Tough luck. Maybe if SGA actually had a finger on the pulse of student concerns, the new constitution would have passed in a legitimate, democratic manner.

Part of SGA's job is to be the voice of the students. After all, our fees pay the executive board members' salaries. No matter how dense McClain and Kloeppel think we students are, we spoke. They ignored us, and the senate followed suit.

Interestingly, the constitution they violated to pass the new one carried the same two-thirds requirement (see Article 11, Section 1). There's nothing like violating the very document you're trying to enact.

"We kind of think it's one of our civic duties to make sure students vote and come out for elections," McClain said of voting for the new Student Union in a University News story run last November. Apparently this only applies when the voting goes his way.

The passed resolution is a recommendation to Mel Tyler, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management. Maybe he will uphold the process of student voting. Otherwise, what's the point? Can you really blame those students who show apathy and disillusionment with SGA?

Why vote if SGA will just do what it wants anyway?

I heard the People's Party, the executive board for the 2008-09 school year, talk often of their goal to increase student involvement with SGA. The way this year has gone for SGA, the new board has their work cut out for them.

mhenderson@unews.com