When I first saw The Record story describing the Student Government equivalent of the Midnight Judges scandal (well, equivalent if President Adams had tried to appoint himself to Congress), I thought it had to be a mistake. Surely no HLS student could possibly fail to discern the two obvious lessons of the recent presidential election: (1) the student body wants transparency and change in Student Government and (2) the student body is sick of members of Student Government acting immaturely, as when the presidential candidates were hurling inane insults at each other.
Contrary to all common sense, however, a note on the amendment apparently added by its drafter(s) reads, “expire Commencement 2012?,” suggesting that the amendment might only apply in this particular year for these particular people. This amendment would overrule an amendment dating back an entire month mandating that terms end on April 1.
Let’s dispense quickly of the idea that the move is a Chavezian power grab. It’s far more puerile and obvious than that. At least Hugo Chavez had the decency to propose permanent changes to the Venezuelan constitution and manipulate an ostensibly democratic referendum to enact those changes. This modification of the Student Government constitution would be a one-off bit of chicanery, a bitter and blatant attempt to put one past the pococurante electorate.
The very idea reeks of entitlement and disrespect for the electoral will of the student body. Indeed, HLS Student Government has slipped the surly bonds of reason and reached the stratospheric incompetence of an even pettier version of Chavezian dictatorship. At this rate of descent into stupidity, we’re mere days away from the Student Government KGB airbrushing Daniel Vargas from Student Government photographs and 1L Section Representatives being called upon to inform on their comrades’ dalliances with Gelfandism.
I was very glad to hear that the amendments were voted down last night following the organization of a Facebook movement by the Gelfand campaign to bring attendees to the meeting to protest the measures. Then maybe we can put this absurd chapter of HLS history behind us and the next class can start rebuilding after the destructive electoral and constitutional shenanigans that constituted the true Parody of 2012.
John Thorlin is a 3L. His column runs Thursdays.
The views in opinion editorials, columns, and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Harvard Law Record. The comments posted on this Website are solely the opinions of the posters.
I don’t understand how this is newsworthy. And to be frank, the Record is exploiting a situation that otherwise would not be nearly as dramatic.
It was clear by Dylan and others in the meeting that these amendments were so Board members could complete important ongoing projects for the student body, like Faculty lunches and Student Funding allocations, if their positions were otherwise going to be left empty. Matt made clear they wouldn’t be empty since he actually does want to appoint a Board that also resigns, so the problem was fixed by adult conversation. It’s a huge exaggeration to act like these were malicious, they don’t affect Rachna or Skyler they’re done April 1 no matter what happens with amendments. Give me a break and go back to putting Ames on your front page like it should be.
Hi, Rachna!
The proposed amendments would have given Rachna Shah the power to vote after April 1st, which she otherwise was not allowed to do. It is a lie that the amendments wouldn’t affect her. She avoided discussion on this subject by making a motion to withdraw all of the amendments after only the first one had been debated.
No one would have had power to vote except the Board. Read the amendments. I’m not Rachna, just a rational non-blood sucking observer. Talk to Dylan Stern for more information about the amendments.
Seize the minutes!
Or we can all just stop caring. It’s not like they’re voting on gay marriage.
Maybe you should take another look at the amendments. ( http://hlrecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Proposed-Amendments-Names-Redacted-by-Record.pdf ) One of the amendments to Article IX would have made Rachna an “Emerita Board member[].” As all Board members have votes, the amendment would have given her the power to vote after April 1.
“Rational” is questionable, since your claim that Rachna wasn’t attempting to extend her own voting power is contradicted by both the meeting minutes and the HL Record article.
Only Board members listed under the Board section in the Constitution can vote and even Emerita advisors aren’t listed as Board members; President and VP aren’t on the Board list either. They wouldn’t have been able to vote in any meetings, just participate, if they wanted to. That’s why 10 people prposed the amendment. Voting was impossible under the Constitution even if the amendments passed.
Regardless, 1 or 2 votes out of 20-some is meaningless.
The amendment would have made you an Emerita BOARD MEMBER, not an Emerita advisor. As the HL Record article from March 21, Article X of the Constitution would have allowed you to continue voting if the amendment had passed.
You would be better off letting this issue fade away until everyone forgets, instead of keeping the debate alive.