St. John’s Senate vote silences fellow Johnnie voices

The St. John’s Senate (SJS) will hold their general elections this year on April 14, 2023. They will conduct it following the model that they have been using for several years now. This style of election allows for 16 candidates to be elected on to their respective boards with five senators on two boards and six on the third. The newly elected SJS will then convene after the results of the general election, secretly, to elect a president, vice president, and trustee representative from their own ranks. This election process calls for a simple majority to elect the executive board of the SJS and has historically been problematic and has led to much infighting, backstabbing, underhandedness and disillusioned senators who were unsatisfied with the position they received. Not only is it a problematic system, but it is also an undemocratic one.

Despite majority of the senate being second, third or fourth-year senators this year and having seen the problems that this electoral system brings, when offered the opportunity to change it, they rejected it 8-12-0. On March 20, I presented the SJS with an election amendment that would empower the voices of Johnnies and provide a more democratic electoral process. In my proposal, outlined in the March 23 edition of “The Record,” I suggested an amendment to the bylaws and constitution of the SJS that would change the electoral process to one that would have the SJS’ executive board elected by popular vote ahead of the general elections. I proposed a system similar to that of the United States presidential elections, where the executive positions of president, vice president and trustee would run on the same ticket and every Johnnie would vote for one ticket or group (similar to voting for the president of the U.S. and indirectly voting for the vice president). After consultation with professors from the political science department, the Senate advisor and 10 of the 22 senators, I felt confident enough to propose the idea to the Senate with almost certainty that it would pass. However, I was wrong.

The problem was not with the rejection of the idea (I can handle the rejection of a proposal) but it was the arguments that were put forth by many of the senators, against the proposal, that changed the way I look at the organization and solidified my disillusionment with it. Earlier that day, the senate was informed that the president, who would normally chair the meeting would not be in attendance, and the vice president would chair the meeting. According to Robert’s Rules for parliamentary procedure that the senate is supposed to follow, the chair (regardless of who it is) is not supposed to contribute to debate and does not have a vote unless there is a tie. However, during the debate around this amendment, the VP did not adhere to these rules as he on numerous occasions throughout the debate, and at the beginning of it, vocalised his objection which is completely out of order for the chair of a debate. But the disorder did not end there.

At 10:30 p.m. when the debate was at its height, the president walked in and the chair passed to him, giving the VP official rights to contribute to debate and, more importantly, a vote. There was no indication to the senate that the president would be in attendance that night. In fact, it was shared with us that he would be “unable to attend,” but miraculously, he came to the meeting and told us that the VP was keeping him up to date on the debate proceedings. Logically, this would lead me to believe that the VP, in an attempt to exercise his own vote and debate privileges, notified the president of the debate proceedings and got him to come to allow him to officially participate in the discourse. But why would they do this? Why would they circumvent the parliamentary procedure that we have followed to allow for this? It is the same reason why he and many other senators voted down the amendment. It was an attempt to hold on to their power.

The reason I have come to believe this is because of the arguments that were put forth against the proposal. I was deeply concerned about the ideas that were shared around the room by elected representatives because a significant amount of the opposition was not about logistics of the process or the feasibility of the execution; it was about if the general Johnnie population was capable of voting for people to lead its representative body and if the leaders of that representative body represented the broader student body at all. The latter stuck me as a completely preposterous and bogus argument. The idea was that the president, vice president and trustee were not the leaders of the student body or representatives of the student body. Rather, they were the leaders of the Senate and should be elected by that group.

Regardless of the semantics of our SJS constitution, the president is at the very least the de facto student body leader. He is the individual asked to speak at convocation and the orientation president’s dinner. He also is invited to present his goals for student development to the Boards of Trustees and is generally looked upon as the face of the student body. Additionally, the trustee is the sole student representative to provide input from a student perspective to the Boards of Trustees, who make all of the major decisions that affect the day to day lives of students, faculty and staff at CSB+SJU like the controversial Academic Prioritization Program.

In addition to these advocacy and representative roles, the Senate Executive Board ultimately leads the body that manages the student activity budget that is funded by the tuition dollars coming from each and every Johnnie, yet they still do not feel the need to give those individuals a voice. This is exactly “taxation without representation” that sparked revolutionary ideas in the then colonies that would become the United States and is in direct opposition to the basis of any democratic organization, large or small. The roles that these senators play is in the direct interest in the students and affects the overall student experience, but nonetheless, the Senate decided that these roles did not matter, diminished the role of the president as “the presiding officer of the Senate” and decided that Johnnies should not have a voice as to who was representing them in all of these different capacities. This was one of the biggest issues I had with the nature of discussion that was had around the room and left me not only shocked that the Senate did not believe in giving Johnnies a voice in their representatives but showed me the extreme levels of hypocrisy that was under my nose throughout my time on Senate.

The St. John’s Senate, in their opposition to this popular vote amendment and retention of the internal election system, showed that they are more interested in keeping power and control of student leadership in the hands of a small group of individuals. They proved that they do not value the voices of Johnnies nor do they think that those voting are capable of making an informed decision and that their own interests, resumes and egos are more important than having a healthy democratically elected representative body void of the ills that we have seen in previous years.

I am deeply disappointed in the sentiments and ideologies held by my fellow senators and made me rethink the past three years I have dedicated to the organization. Similarly, I encourage all Johnnies, especially those on the Senate now and senators to come, to think about where their loyalty and dedication lies: to the betterment of the student body and uplifting voices of those unheard or to their own self-interests.

The SJS motto of “Listening with empathy and leading with purpose” takes on new meaning now for the Senate as they have shown that their empathy lies within the group and the purpose of their leadership is to keep each other in the power effectively disregarding the thoughts, needs and wants of their fellow Johnnies.