The Tufts Community Union (TCU) Judiciary rejected earlier this month a complaint filed by sophomore Chris Snyder concerning three amendments approved by the student body this spring.
Still, the fate of the amendments hangs in the balance pending a review by the Committee on Student Life (CSL) of the amendments' language and another appeal by Snyder.
Two of the amendments would change the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate's constitution to allow the body to internalize the community representative process, and the third would add a fifth position to the Elections Commission's (ECOM) board.
Snyder's appeal was his most recent challenge to the way ECOM handled the April referendum on the amendments. He feels that the board did not sufficiently advertise the vote and failed to prominently display the option to abstain. In the spring, he filed unsuccessful appeals with ECOM, the TCUJ and the CSL.
TCU President Duncan Pickard said that the appeals process, while long, has created a useful dialogue.
"I think that [there is] always a balance to strike between being deliberate and just wasting time, but I think in this case, the extra time really gave the J the chance to deliberate," he said.
In its decision this month, the TCUJ rejected Snyder's argument that ECOM was required to do a better job communicating with the student body about the amendments in advance of the April election. The 5-0-0 ruling held that since ECOM did not have any policies in place about referenda, it could not possibly have violated any.
"It's difficult to say that they violated their bylaws when they don't have guidelines," said TCUJ Chair Veda Shastri, a senior. "You can't really violate bylaws when they don't have anything to violate."
But the TCUJ also mandated changes to ECOM's referendum-submission process, requiring that in the future, proposals get more thoroughly vetted before getting to a student vote.
Snyder appealed the TCUJ's decision to the CSL yesterday morning. He told the Daily that the TCUJ used a double standard by interpreting the constitutionality of ECOM's bylaws narrowly, while at the same time ordering ECOM to change its policies.
Snyder said that the TCUJ should have universally interpreted the ECOM constitution broadly and should put the amendments to a vote again to reflect his complaints. He also said in his appeal to the CSL that the TCUJ ruling failed to address his concerns over referenda advertising.
In its attempt "to get around" his current complaint, Snyder said in an interview, the TCUJ has set poor precedent for future cases.
"The Judiciary's ruling pretty much says this needs to be changed, so why is it only a problem next election and not this election?" he asked. "That's my question."
Shastri said that "it would have been overreaching on the part of the Judiciary" to order a new vote on the amendments.
The decision comes as the Committee on Student Life (CSL) has yet to decide whether the language of the three amendments falls in line with university policy, a step required for the changes to the constitution to take effect. The amendments, which were presented together on the ballot, obtained a majority of votes in April.
Two of the three amendments deal with community representatives, and "there were questions as to whether [they] would conflict with the anti-discrimination policy or other policies" of the university, CSL Faculty Co-Chair Steven Hirsch, an associate professor of classics, told the Daily.
Community representatives are liaisons between the Senate and student groups. The Queer Straight Alliance and the Asian-American Alliance are among the organizations that have them. The first amendment would move the vote from which groups receive representatives from the student body to the Senate, and the second would similarly internalize the renewal of the groups' seats.
According to Hirsch, the CSL will likely have to change the phrasing of these two amendments, which would necessitate another student vote on the new wording, possibly in the spring.
"There's almost certainly going to be some tinkering to tighten up the language," he said.
Meanwhile, he said that the language of the third amendment, which would add the additional ECOM position, would probably not raise any concerns.
The CSL decided in May to table all three amendments until a public hearing could be held on their content this semester, potentially as an open part of a CSL meeting to be held on Nov. 14. The CSL generally decides whether an amendment's language is sufficient before it is placed on a ballot, which did not happen in this case.
Pickard would like to see a quick decision from the CSL. "It's time for them to act," he said.
Snyder, who is also a copy editor for the Daily, originally submitted a complaint against ECOM on the day of the election. The TCUJ opposed Snyder's challenge on April 25, calling ECOM's negligence a "harmless error" but ordering the commission to alter its practices in the future to address Snyder's concerns.
Snyder appealed that decision to the CSL on May 1, but soon withdrew his appeal after realizing that the TCUJ's term could have been interpreted as ending with the election on April 24 — thus, in his view, invalidating the TCUJ's original decision. He resubmitted his initial complaint with the 2008-2009 Judiciary on Sept. 2.
Meanwhile, the CSL has yet to judge the language of a fourth proposed constitutional amendment that would bring the TCU constitution's non-discrimination regulations up-to-speed with the university's policy by adding the phrase "gender identity/expression" to two TCU constitutional clauses that prohibit discrimination by recognized student organizations. Hirsch indicated that there would most likely be no hurdles to approving this amendment's language. This amendment, unlike the other three, has not yet been subject to a student vote.
