A series of amendments to Student Government’s Constitution have been proposed that, if passed, could extend some current members’ terms; mandate disclosure of bylaws, meeting minutes and attendance logs; and limit access to meetings, according to e-mails leaked to The Record.
An anonymous source leaked the proposed amendments, accessible via hyperlink, to The Record. The amendments appeared to have been sent to Student Government members a little before 9 p.m. Tuesday night.
Although Matt Gelfand, Law ’12, was elected Student Government President, on March 7, his term, under the current Constitution, Article III, Section 1, does not start until April 1. The proposed amendment to Article IX, Section 1(6) would permit the current President and Vice President to “participate in Student Government Meetings as Emerita Board members” from April 1 to Commencement. If passed, this amendment could allow the current President and Vice President to, under Article X, Section 2(3), vote for or against bylaws and constitutional amendments even after Gelfand started his term as President. A note on that amendment apparently by its drafter reads, “expire Commencement 2012?” and “I don’t care as much about the last one, but am concerned about what will happen to unfinished projects and questions that arise that would suggest continued membership in some capacity would be helpful”.
If the proposed amendment to Article II(B) is passed, current Directors would serve until Commencement, not April 1, as the current Constitution’s Article IV, Section 2 provides. A note, presumably by its drafter, reads, “so [a current Director] can oversee [Student Funding Board] proceedings, etc.” If passed, the amendment would revert Directors’ terms to their original pre-February 15 durations, with terms ending at Commencement. On February 15 of this year, however, a unanimous Student Government voted to amend the Constitution so that terms would end on April 1.
“It is unconscionable to me that the same Student Government that amended its own Constitution to provide for an earlier transition may now undo that change after a non-incumbent won the election.” Gelfand said, “I urge the members of Student Government, if for no other reason than to maintain the legitimacy of the organization, to vote against this amendment. I urge members of the student body to attend [Wednesday’s] meeting to voice their opinions on this proposed amendment, which could seriously impair my ability to obtain the change that they voted for.”
The proposed amendment to Article IX, Section 2 provides that attendance records, meeting minutes, and amendments to the Constitution or Bylaws will be published on the website promptly.
A proposed amendment to Article IX, Section 1 would close meetings to “members of the public unless decided in advance by the President,” but keep meetings “open to all members of the Harvard Law School community.” It also provides, “visitors may not participate in the meetings in any form or act to distract Student Government members in any way.”
The General Body Meeting in which the proposed amendments are scheduled to be discussed is scheduled for Wednesday at 7:30 p.m.
The Record attempted to contact members of Student Government whose names appeared on the proposed amendments at approximately 10:30 p.m. Tuesday night, but none commented on the record on the substance of the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments are accessible here. Names of students were redacted by The Record.
Correction (3 p.m. March 21): A previous version of this article inaccurately stated that Student Government is scheduled to vote on the amendments Wednesday night. The proposals are scheduled to be discussed.
What a surprise, after losing the election, another attempt to influence policy by the current Student Government. Not enough to call the emergency meeting to release minutes in an attempt to take the wind out of Matt’s sails. Not enough that Vargas and Shah have not only embarrassed themselves, but student government and the Harvard community with their petty bickering.
Regardless of which board member decided that keeping these people in power is a good idea–if the Student Government passes such an amendment, it may be time to voice our concerns to the Deans. It is ridiculous that Student Government is allowed to do whatever they wish, so long as it continues to benefit them. I’m hoping that when Matt rewrites the constitution, he also puts in a temporary measure stating that NO ONE who ran before can run again. It would be a tragedy to see Shah or Vargas get elected after Matt leaves.
Maybe the best thing to do in case Shah, Vargas, or whoever it is gets this amendment passed would be to stay in office, and assure us that neither of them are able to get back into Student Government.
This stunt is beyond unacceptable. Student Government is not a personal playground for power-hungry students. These amendments undermine the reputation of Harvard Law School which is already sinking according to the recent rankings. What image does this give employers, clients, judges, and voters?
And why is the Record redacting the names of student’s, is there a written policy on that?
Okay, Matt/Jordan need to stop being babies and forwarding everything to the Record/ATL then commenting on it. That just needs to stop, for Harvard Law’s sake. And the election was a plurality according to my LLM friend, not a majority, so I don’t see where his ego is coming from on what the student body voted for. Over half the student body voted against him, so he should chill it with the ‘change that they voted for’ stuff and marching in with an army of students. The drama needs to stop.
With that said, I voted for Matt, because I want the Constitution fixed, and then a reelection. I didn’t vote for Jordan Roberts to become President, and I don’t think most people who voted for Matt did either. We voted for a re-election.
Going to the Dean would be a dumb overreaction worthy of one of the tickets that lost. It’s not the administration’s job to police Student Government procedures or get involved in elections.
This is a personal rather than political question. The incumbents personally want to stay in power and are trying to rig the rules to stay involved in student government.
(That, of course, is why Matt won. It’s a Zaphod Beeblebrox situation: “those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.” Matt won because he could credibly say he wasn’t doing it for personal gain).
@DR, I don’t know about that, I don’t think there’s any personal gain with a freaking Student Government election. Anyone who’s not a 1L already has a job. Everyone who ran technically had something to gain from it – that’s why they ran – and it was the same across the board. Any of them would’ve had the same title as the other.
I’m personally sick of the Record covering this. There’s a huge lack of sense of community at HLS when people keep bickering like this. Just let Student Government figure itself out and stop telling us about it.