Following a vote full of complications, including three date changes, Tufts students passed two competing referenda concerning hotly debated reforms to the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate's community representative position, necessitating a revote in the fall.
Community representatives are members of TCU student organizations who act as a voice on Senate for their respective constituencies. The Asian Students Union, Queer Straight Alliance, Pan-African Alliance and Association of Latin American Students currently have representatives on the Senate.
The student body on April 28 — along with electing a new TCU president — voted to pass two contradicting referenda that cannot be implemented simultaneously.
Tufts Election Commission's (ECOM) bylaws only allow students to vote yes, no or abstain, which made it impossible for the referenda to be voted on head-to-head.
Although one of the referenda received more "yes" votes than the other, they will be put to a new vote in the fall.
"Because 40 percent of the people who voted, voted for both referenda, we decided to have a revote in the fall," rising senior Beth Doyle, interim chair of the TCU Judiciary, said. "If 40 percent voted for both, how can we tell which one they wanted?"
Doyle said the Judiciary issued a unanimous decision ordering a revote and requesting that ECOM alter its bylaws to allow for head-to-head votes.
"We are going to work to edit ECOM's bylaws over the summer and during the fall," Doyle said. "They will then put the referenda up for an either/or vote."
Outgoing Culture, Ethnicity and Community Affairs (CECA) Committee Chair Nedghie Adrien, a rising senior, blamed the complications on ECOM's ineffective bylaws and poor communication with students.
"This happened largely because of lack of explanation of the referenda to the student body and because ECOM was overwhelmed with the task," Adrien said. "ECOM didn't do the best job handling the situation and explaining everything to students clearly."
ECOM bylaws mandate that referenda be submitted at least a week before the official vote, according to Doyle. The referenda were submitted a day short of the seven-day minimum, forcing their supporters to expend effort to get the referenda included on the presidential ballot.
"A lot of the education and outreach got put on the back burner because we spent a lot of our energy fighting to get the referenda on the ballot," outgoing TCU President Brandon Rattiner, a graduating senior, said. "Most students didn't really know much about the specifics of the referenda, which was disappointing."
The two referenda both aim to expand the role of community representatives on the Senate and tie them for the most part to the culture centers.
"Both referenda changed the roles of community representatives to center representatives and increased their power," Rattiner said. "The biggest difference between them is the way in which community reps are elected and subsequently the way in which they vote on Senate."
Rattiner this spring assembled the Diversity Task Force to study the issue after it became clear that reform of the system was needed. The resulting proposal became Referendum 4. Dissenting members of the task force, however, joined with other involved students to author an alternative proposal, Referendum 3.
Referendum 3, titled the Community Empowerment and Equality Model (CEE), would grant community representatives — elected by the general student body — full voting rights on the Senate.
The referendum would allow culture centers to vet and nominate candidates for election by the wider student body.
Referendum 4 differs primarily from the CEE proposal in that it does not grant community representatives the right to vote on fiscal matters. Additionally, it calls for community representatives to be selected solely by members of culture centers instead of the whole student body.
The issue of full versus partial voting rights has been the most contested issue in the debate on community representative reform. Some oppose granting a fiscal vote to community representatives because that would effectively grant some students two votes on Senate, according to Rattiner.
Both referenda would also create a Director of Community Affairs (DCA) position. The DCA would have full voting rights and be responsible for addressing minority issues and bringing together diversity groups on campus.
"The DCA position is a new executive position on Senate, with the job of overseeing diversity and social justice issues," Rattiner said. "He or she will meet with clubs and culture groups and directors to make sure that everyone is on the same page."
Rattiner said that under Referendum 3, the DCA would be elected from among the senators, while under Referendum 4, the DCA would be an appointed non-senator.
Under the current system, student groups that have been granted the right to representation elect a member to the Senate and its CECA Committee. The representatives do not have full voting rights and do not vote on fiscal matters.
Adrien said the flaws of the community representative system have long been discussed in the Senate, with some feeling that representatives lack power and clearly defined roles. She added that specific individuals' dedication to the reform process ensured that real progress was made this year.
Rattiner agreed with Adrien, saying that a dramatic overhaul was needed.
"During the three years I was on Senate, it became evident that it just wasn't working as a system," Rattiner said. "There wasn't a lot of trust between the Senate and the minority groups, and the people who served just weren't, or couldn't, be effective."
The reform process was mainly carried out through the formation of the Diversity Task Force — a third of which was made up of senators with the rest being other students — to reevaluate the system and open up discussion on how to best address its inherent problems, according to Adrien.
"We tried to create more defined roles for community representatives in terms of projects to work on and roles in relation to the rest of the community," Adrien said. "We wanted to define their role as liaisons between their minority communities and Senate, and we really wanted to see if it was possible to change the system so community representatives could have fiscal votes."
Adrien stressed the significant role of community representatives on the Senate, explaining that expanding their role is necessary to give historically marginalized communities a voice the on the Senate.
"Community representatives not only bring an aspect of social justice to Senate, but they voice the concerns of the minority communities," Adrien said.
Rattiner noted the importance of building a strong relationship between the Senate and minority communities.
"Ultimately, it's about trust," Rattiner said. "We realized there were institutionalized roadblocks that prevented Senate from really knowing what is going on in minority communities. It's important to have their voice brought to the table more proactively."
Rattiner believes that the discussion on the community representative system is indicative of the broader struggle for diversity and minority representation at Tufts.
"It represents a larger issue of diversity on campus," Rattiner said. "It is an issue that is larger than any of us, but we are doing the best we can to affect it within our means."
Adrien is disappointed that the vote's final outcome has been delayed but is excited to see how students vote in the fall.
"ECOM did not clearly define the rules, so we are stuck in limbo until the revote," she said.
--
This article originally mistakenly said that the student body TCU vote took place on April 27, not April 28. This mistake was corrected on May 23, 2010.
