@ Megan: First, there were no assumptions made about the Council’s intentions. After looking at the language in your Constitution (as amended in 2000) that said, “The proposed amendment or Amendments shall be temporarily in effect once they are approved by the Student Council,” I took the logical step of noting that this language would bar anyone with fewer than three semesters of involvement from running.

And let’s look at this paragraph from your comment: “Given that there is this interim period that requires Council to operate as if the proposed constitution is the standing guideline for Council, technically the requirements do stand. However, Council is not looking to unfairly restrict people from running for certain positions. As such, prior to the hype around this issue, the Elections Committee had planned to make a provision stating that all amendments that affect this election will be suspended until next year – if ratified by the Student Body, that is.”

If technically the requirements do stand, then I clearly wasn’t assuming anything.

Also, I don’t think it’s just semantics to note that you write, “…Council is not looking to unfairly restrict people from running for certain positions.” You are explicitly acknowledging unfairness in the proposed amendments. And you write that the “…Elections Committee HAD PLANNED to make a provision…” I’ll take you at your word that they were planning that provision. However, the Elections Committee is specifically sanctioned under the Constitution, so do they even have the authority to override other parts of it?

Finally, you write, “In doing so, [potential candidates] would realize that humility and selflessness are needed to admit that prior Council knowledge is essential to do justice to these positions (and in turn the Council and student body).”

Can we not rely on the CAS student body to determine the best candidate for President and Treasurer? Why is it right for the current Council to decide for CAS what’s best for them?

(Boom. Roasted.)

remember freshman year when some chick in CAS council was impeached for embezzling money for her grandmother’s trip to new york or something?

Yes, we all vividly remember that. Perhaps thats why we are so adamantly against allowing progressive convolution of CAS Stu-Co policy.

“Because leadership experience alone does not mean that you are qualified to be the President of just any organization.” Bullshit. You’re telling us that a competent, assertive, and intelligent leader would in fact be completely inept at running the council. That somehow, his or her past experience and leadership abilities have absolutely no relevance to the actual workings of the council. Maybe if you had a multitude of strange rituals and etiquette necessary to participate within the council your reasoning would be justifiable but to the best of my knowledge, you don’t have any(at least I hope not). Someone with the appropriate leadership qualifications(whether from student council or elsewhere) could come in, perhaps with a two-week learning period at the end of the previous semester or simply prior to the new school year, and start running the council with competence and efficiency.

Questions such as “How do they organize their meetings?” and, “What issues have they been working toward this past year?” do not require three days to answer, let alone three semesters.
Further, you, the elected representatives of the CAS student body, are essentially telling the student body who is qualified to represent them, instead of maybe the crazy idea that the people should be able to democratically elect whomever they deem the best candidate for the job, no matter what regime might think otherwise. Really, the problem of a candidate being uninformed of council activities and inner workings would send up a red flag for any reasonably intelligent voter, but apparently you think we are either too stupid to notice or too ignorant to care.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but you’ve stated before that, “…this is about ensuring the preservation and continuing success of the Council for the foreseeable future.” Did you ever think that the student body might at some point NOT want to see the continuing success of a particular year’s council? I know many people don’t like hypothetical situations but bear with me. If for some reason the student body decides they don’t like how or what the student council is doing, they might want to elect completely new officers next year. Under this proposed amendment, the position of the president and treasurer could still be held by previous members simply because nobody else is “qualified” to run. This in turn could create an even less effective student council simply from internal bickering or whatnot. So, instead of creating this very restrictive rule, why not just let us, the represented, have the right to decide the direction of the council?

On one final note, you stated, “that all but two positions on Council are open to anyone…all these positions have the same level of power and influence as the President” If this is true, why are there such heavy restrictions on only two positions? If this amendment is truly meant to help the council be run by better, more competent individuals, why would you still allow every other position, which you stated have the same power and influence, be filled with incompetent fools? As many intelligent commenters(On previous article) have already shown, your reasoning behind this amendment is flawed. Therefore, you simply did not think it through enough or you are only giving us half of the truth. Which one is it?

PS Jessica^ I think the more common internet phraseology is, Boom, headshot! alternatively you may leave your caps lock on while typing it.

Adding on Andy’s suggestion to Jes, Pwnt or gg would have worked just as well.

Charlie Eisenhood: When practicing journalism, it is traditional to fact-check and ask for comment from various sources before making wild accusations in the public sphere. If you had asked various members of student council for comment before publishing the initial article, you would not have had to “assume” anything about the proposed amendment.

Has it occurred to anyone that Student Council might be trying to prevent future scandals (like that mentioned by Mike Ross) by ensuring that the Treasurer (who controls all the money) and the President (who acts as the council’s mouthpiece) are not people who just walk in off the street and gain immediate power?

You might argue that we elect the student leaders, and that we as a student body are fully equipped to judge the character and experience of the candidates. However, we have not shown that to be true. Think hard about how you decide whom to vote for in SC elections. Do you pick your friends? Whichever candidates handed out candy at Kimmel? Whichever candidates present themselves well in an online bio that reveals little more about them than their rhetorical ability? How often do you make an informed decision about the ability of the individuals in question to represent you? In this case, the amendment might be a good safeguard against student body apathy.

We will have the opportunity, as a student body, to vote on the new constitution. Hopefully, by that point, everyone will have thought deeply about these issues and will vote accordingly.

I doubt it.

@Megan

I thank you for responding so quickly, however, and although I do see some of the merits of your argument, although I still think your underlying logic, while based on the best of intentions, is inherently flawed. On one hand, you say that you ask for humility and selflessness, and then you say that only you and people with the same experience as you are qualified to lead. The hallmark of the democratic system is that the voters get to decide who is qualified out of an unrestricted pool of applicants. For any strictures to be placed upon the democratic process is an insult, not only to the electorate who could get the impression that the council does not believe them qualified to choose a competent leader, but also to the time honored ideal that democracy is.

Specifically, you say that; “Because leadership experience alone does not mean that you are qualified to be the President of just any organization. For example, although my experience as CAS Student Council President would seemingly meet any qualifications to lead, say, the College Democrats or the IRHC, in all honesty, what do I know about the inner-workings of either club.” At NYU and other organizations there exist advisers and institutional knowledge, when our country passes the presidency to a new administration every staff member is expected to provide a transition report. From my own personal experience with NYU campus organizations there are often advisers who provide guidance on navigating the ins-and-out of bureaucracy. It still falls on the leadership qualities and previous experiences of those people to provide guidance and the spirit to bring an organization forward.

Full disclosure here, I am a Senior, and I have not participated in CAS Student Council, but I am currently an RA and President of RA Council, and I find it mildly upsetting that despite the amount of work, and the skills and abilities needed to be an RA or President of IRHC, or any on campus organization, I, or my colleagues, would be found deficient in our abilities if we chose to run for one of the two positions potentially affected by the amendment

Last November, the people of the United States elected with an overwhelming mandate, a candidate who had vastly less experience than his counterpart. And so I ask you, are we to believe that it takes a greater amount of experience to run CAS Student Council than it does the free world?

To make another point U.S. constitution expressly states that no person under the age of 35 may be eligible for the office of the president. However, the average age of US President’s when the take office is 55 years of age. Where are all the 35-36 year old presidents? I am willing to wager if we removed the 35 year old restriction we would not see a 35 year old or 18 year old president in the next term. The point being is that voters are, and should be, the arbiters that judges whether or not a person’s leadership experience is relevant and applicable to an office.

I do not think that the council should be so quick to discount an outsider’s perspective and leadership style for the office of president or treasurer because an organization can hedge against stagnation and inefficient systems thinking that can arise when insiders are placed in leadership positions. Fortune 500 companies routinely seek CEOs from other companies or industries, why is a practice that works for some of the most successful enterprises in the world not good enough for our council? They are still vetted and reviewed by an electoral body (the Board of Directors) before they are give the job.

All this leads me to question, do you think that the students of CAS, your constituents, are deficient or unable to judge who has the leadership qualities and skills needed to lead the CAS Student Council?

There is an X factor, an innate je ne sais quoi, present in a real leader. Experience can be useful, of course, but is by no means the end all to be all, and cannot act as sole arbiter of a person’s fitness to lead.

So as one student leader to another, a member of CAS, and the NYU community, and someone who cares about this institution I am asking that we not limit our selection for leaders. Besides the fears that this could lead to potentially fatal cronyism and nepotism, I more fear that we may cut ourselves off from future great leaders with the right ideas.

Leaders are elected to lead, not to decide who leads when they’re gone, that power rests solely with the voters. And for this reason, I have come out so strongly against the referendum, and I am encouraging people to vote no on this amendment.

@ Madelaine: In no way did I fail to fact check nor did I make assumptions about the amendment. If you go to the CAS Student Council website, you can read their constitution regarding the implementation of amendments. Based on that reading, and Megan’s own admission (”technically the requirements do stand”), I stand by my story. The Election Committee has yet to override the Constitution (assuming they even have the authority to do so) and postpone the temporary enactment of the amendment.

Your argument in favor of the amendment is dangerous. You claim that “we have not shown” to ability to judge the leaders we elect and that we shouldn’t let people just “walk in off the street and gain immediate power.” But this amendment doesn’t stop corruption or poor leadership – it could, in fact, facilitate it. With only a very small pool of candidates that can run for President and Treasurer, it actually makes it easier for unscrupulous people to run the Council, and we could, as John Thatcher points out, wind up with cronyism and nepotism deciding who gets elected.

Again, consider this kind of logic being applied to federal elections – “we can’t trust America to judge candidates’ ability. Look they elected George Bush! Let’s set restrictions on who can run.” Unthinkable. Just as it is on this much smaller scale.

@Madaline The leader and official liaison of the Council, Megan Cruz was called and asked to comment before this amendment was passed. Please do your research before you make accusations

http://nyulocal.com/on-campus/2009/03/31/proposed-constitutional-amendment-at-cas-critiqued-confusing/

@Madelaine Burkert

“You might argue that we elect the student leaders, and that we as a student body are fully equipped to judge the character and experience of the candidates. However, we have not shown that to be true. Think hard about how you decide whom to vote for in SC elections. Do you pick your friends? Whichever candidates handed out candy at Kimmel? Whichever candidates present themselves well in an online bio that reveals little more about them than their rhetorical ability? How often do you make an informed decision about the ability of the individuals in question to represent you? In this case, the amendment might be a good safeguard against student body apathy.”

Dictators often use a similar thread of logic by claiming to be protecting people “from themselves”.

I also wonder if you have ever taken a voter theory class?

My main counterpoint would be; if it is so easy to get elected why don’t we see more people running for office? If the barriers to winning are so low wouldn’t we see more people rushing to run for president. If this was the case then you would see the system self correct, a field filled with a large number of players will function the most efficiently since the candidates that are able to sway the most votes away from people “just voting for their friends” will win. Isn’t that candidate then the logical democratic choice?

As to your point, apathy could be thought of as cyclical, 8-12 years ago there was a fair amount of apathy and the electorate got sufficiently energized this previous session to the point where we had one of the highest voter turn outs in ages. By making it harder for candidates to break into a field, you are only encouraging that apathy.

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to put in two cents. The amendment was proposed so that hopefuls will have relevant and beneficial experience by the time they become treasurer or president. Too many people seem to think that this is an attempt at keeping those positions available only for a small circle and restricting outsiders. Clearly this is not the case (and might I point out that the previous headline: “CAS Student Council Votes to Block Nearly All of CAS From Running For Office” is absolutely laughable. Whoever thought that one up should be ashamed of themselves.) and let me explain why.

The council asks for 2/3 semesters of participation before one can run for treasurer/president respectively. I would argue that this requirement should be dropped to one semester each, due to the relatively short time we spend at NYU, but that’s beside the point. By “participation” they mean joining the General Assembly at least. To do this, all you must do is go to the meetings which are free and open for all to attend. So essentially, those in opposition to this amendment are fighting for the right to become the treasurer or president of a complex organization that they know nothing about and have shown no interest in. Think about it, if you want to run for the position, you should at least be serious enough about it to go to the meetings and meet the group you seek to run.

Using this logic, you can see that the Obama example does not really hold up. If you equate the meeting-participation requirement to the being-an-American-citizen requirement, clearly Obama has put in his “three semesters.” So let’s all stop getting needlessly outraged over situations we do not yet understand. I would agree with anyone who said it is a confusing situation, but disagree with anyone who formulate their arguments out of said confusion. Realize first that CASSC is following the rules of their constitution, this amendment will be voted on by the student body, and that if you cared enough to run, you should go to the meetings. This isn’t about restriction, it’s about making sure whoever gets elected has shown maturity, responsibility and interest. Aren’t common sense and logic great? And if you are still going to try to tell me that we should be able to elect any flake or failure we want, you probably voted for G.W. Bush.

I would urge all to employ logical reasoning and vote yes for this amendment, since all it will do is almost guarantee that the future elected treasurer and president will know what they are doing (rather than someone clueless, apathetic, or worse dishonest and criminal). Oh by the way, I am not on CASSC, I am a proud Steinhardter.

@everyone: maybe i’m missing this in someone’s long, boring diatribe on democracy and yada yada, but there is a solution to both the concerns of student council and the general student body– why not make the requirement one semester? It’s reasonable to expect the leader of a government to have some familiarity with that government, but three semesters is insane, and does prevent a lot of qualified candidates from running. One semester allows an interested person to become familiar with the people and the processes of student council, but makes sure that it doesn’t become a good ole boy system.

@ Jordan:

I agree with this as I mentioned in my previous post. Unfortunately, they cannot change the wording of the proposed amendment from three to one since it was already approved by the general assembly. If it does not get voted in by the student body however, the council may change it to a different number of semesters and try to pass it again. I hope this accurately answers your question, your post was too boring to finish

-Anthony

[...] is more interesting is that the CAS Constitutional Amendments, the ones NYU Local featured for restricting who can run for President and Treasurer in the future, passed. Without the vote totals, we [...]