A Thoughtful Post?

A few moments ago I helped pass an unfriendly amendment to fellow Senator Nathan Kirschbaum’s resolution calling for Senators to post two blog posts per semester or be censured. I suggested that rather than requiring posts they should be “encouraged.” I did this for several reasons, first, yes a part of me resented that I was forced to “blog.” A blog is not a report, it’s meant to be an informal expression, how does one regulate informal expressions? However, more than that, I was concerned that many of my fellow senators, as Senator Blum put it, were too “lazy” to actually complete the task adequately. “Lazy” is the word that had been used in session, being diplomatic I might have used “busy” or another adjective but the implication is the same. I did not, however, propose the amendment out of a sense of idealism, I do not believe that most senators, without being required, will post much of anything. Long story short, after much of the SGA’s characteristic bickering, the amendment to the resolution was passed and senators were simply “encouraged” to post. That basically translates into you, the reader, probably seeing far fewer posts than if the resolution had passed un-amended. I’m somewhat disappointed my amendment passed, not because I was wrong – if it had passed this board would fill up with “required” posts, most of relatively little substance. Rather, I’m disappointed my amendment passed because I wish I had been wrong. I wish people would have jumped up and said “two posts, simple!” – and, while some did, the majority that didn’t jump up convinced me I was right not to force them to post.

2 Comments

• 
  Andrea Wise February 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  I just wanted to explain my personal vote in support of your resolution–I don’t think that two posts is unreasonable (I’ve already voluntary posted one) I just think it’s an inappropriate extention of our Senate responsibilities. My job, as a senator, is to represent the Freshman class in general assembly meetings, to attend committee meetings and work to make the school better. My job is not to enrich a website. Some senators argued that if you don’t have two topics to talk about passionately, you shouldn’t be a senator, but that’s not the issue. There are plenty of issues that I’m passionate about, but I’d rather express those opinions to the administrators, or to the general assembly and actually try to get those things changed–instead of just bitching about them on a website. I am fully in support of the requirement for committee chairs to post what their committee’s are working on, as it’s informative, but requiring a post for the sake of a post is ludicrous. I express my opinions in outlets that promote action and I don’t think I should be penalized for that. For example, (no disrespect to the author of this post) early in this site’s history, someone made a post about the high cost of textbooks. That’s fine, they’re too high. But if I were her, instead of posting on here about how I think they’re too high, I’d go to the bookstore, talk to them, talk to Jimmy Jones, talk to professors, research online cheaper places and try to find a way to fix the problem. Does that make me an inadequate senator worthy of censure? I think not. Actions speak louder than words, so if you want a requirement, require actions, not blogs.

  And no, I don’t think I’m lazy.
• 
  David Kimball-Stanley February 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  Joe Tarzi is probably the only senator who would be disappointed in people voting for something he introduced himself. I voted for his amendment because I don’t think this space should be filled with nonsense, and I really believe that you’d get a lot of nonsense if you required every senator to post. Anyway, I think it’d help the discourse of the SGA if Joe would from now on only propose amendments or resolutions that he actually hopes get passed, and refrain from assuming that those who vote for his amendments vote with more sinister motives than his own. The alternative is, frankly, pretty ridiculous.