Two proposed constitutional amendments regarding community representatives on the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate have been submitted for the TCU Judiciary's approval to be placed on the upcoming presidential election ballot for the student body to vote on.
The Diversity Task Force, convened by TCU President senior Brandon Rattiner to reevaluate the community representative position, last week finalized its proposal.
Dissenting members of the task force −− juniors Chartise Clark, Nadia Nibbs and Carolina Ramirez −− in coordination with other concerned students drafted an alternative proposal, dubbed the Community Empowerment and Equality Model (CEE).
Under the present system, student groups that have been granted a community representative position elect individual members to sit on Senate and its Culture, Ethnicity and Community Affairs (CECA) Committee.
There are now four community representatives serving the Association of Latin American Students (ALAS), the Asian Students Union (ASU), the Pan−African Alliance (PAA) and the Queer Straight Alliance (QSA).
Rattiner assembled the task force after CECA raised concerns about the community representative position, with some questioning why representatives were denied full senator voting rights −− community representatives currently do not vote on fiscal matters.
"The feeling of whether or not you truly belong to Senate or whether Senate listens to you has been communicated to me by people who are community reps this year, people that were community reps last year and people who were community reps before me," junior Nedghie Adrien, CECA chair and PAA representative, said.
The task force proposal recommends two main changes to the position but does not advocate for representatives to be granted full voting rights, the main factor differentiating it from the CEE proposal.
Task force member John Atsalis, a junior, explained that many opposed granting community representatives the right to vote on fiscal matters because doing so would violate the principle of equal representation.
"When a minority student at Tufts goes out and votes in a Senate election, he elects a senator just as I elect a senator," Atsalis said. "I am generally against having more than one vote for one person."
Atsalis noted that the task force found other means to further empower the community representatives without granting them full voting rights. "I don't think that's the only way to empower community reps," Atsalis said.
Junior Matthew Kincaid, who helped author the alternative CEE proposal, disagreed however. "It's important for community representatives to have fiscal voting powers simply because it legitimizes them as senators," he said. Task Force Proposal
The first change to the community representative position in the proposal concerns the way in which community representatives are elected.
The present system requires individual TCU−recognized groups seeking a community representative position to collect 250 signatures and appeal to the student body in a school−wide vote. Student groups whose petitions are successful then select a member to be the representative.
Under both new proposals, new groups have to collect 250 signatures, sit in on two−thirds of CECA's meetings and be approved by Senate instead of the student body. The community representatives will then be elected by their respective communities' culture centers or student organizations.
Atsalis said this would push representatives to communicate with culture center directors and student leaders in their constituency, giving the representatives more of a role in Senate.
The task force proposal also calls for the creation of a new director of community affairs (DCA) position on Senate. The DCA would be a full Senator elected by the community representatives to chair CECA, sit on the Senate Executive Board, manage community outreach and educate the Senate on diversity issues.
Atsalis noted that since the DCA is able to vote on fiscal matters, the position's creation was a compromise between those who wanted full rights for community representatives and those who did not.
"Since the DCA is chosen by the community reps, the DCA is more or less beholden to vote as the community reps would want to vote," Atsalis said.
TCU Senator Jonathan Danzig, a sophomore on the task force, highlighted the DCA's charge to connect with student communities on the Senate's behalf. "It's not a racism problem on Senate, it's essentially an outreach problem," Danzig said.
He stressed that the DCA would be oriented not toward a limited number of groups but the entire campus. "We shouldn't restrict diversity to four groups right now, or the Group of Six, because diversity is every student on campus," he said. CEE Proposal
The proponents of the alternative proposal differ from the task force on this question of the DCA's role and voting rights.
Nibbs said charging one person to vote for multiple communities did not make sense because different communities have different views on issues potentially dividing the vote.
Kincaid also said the presence of community representatives on Senate without full voting rights sends a contradictory message about the body's minority representation.
"We need community representatives because, for better or for worse, our Senate body doesn't show the diversity that's represented in our community," Kincaid said.
Denying community representatives a vote on fiscal matters, Kincaid said, implies that fiscal matters will be decided by a body that may not reflect the interests of the communities in question, an issue which prompted the CEE's creation.
Under the CEE proposal, each culture center would select a small number of candidates through a primary nominating process. Community representatives would then be elected in a campus−wide vote monitored by Tufts Elections Commission (ECOM). The elected community representatives would then have full voting powers on Senate.
Nibbs feels that leaders of student groups associated with the culture centers are capable of finding the best candidates for the community representative position, adding that the most active members within each community are well known.
According to Adrien, except for the issues of voting rights and the electoral process, the CEE's recommendations are largely the same as the task force's and also includes the creation of a DCA position. The Process
Rattiner explained that for the task force, he sought to gather students from a wide variety of backgrounds, including minority and majority groups. He invited leaders from various communities to nominate students and also considered self−nominations.
He noted that although the task force did not ultimately reach an agreement on the question of full voting rights, it enabled students from different groups to come to a consensus on a number of solutions to diversity representation.
"I invited conservatives and Republicans and just at−large white students to the task force, and they didn't really see eye−to−eye with a lot of the minority students, and by the end of it they kind of did, and I think that's telling of the process," Rattiner said. "[The task force] built a moderate platform that could be expanded upon," he said.
Rattiner said that the two proposals could complement each other. While both would notably reform the community representative position, the student body can now decide through the referendum whether full voting rights ought to be one of the reforms.
"Ultimately, I'm glad the student body has the final decision," Rattiner said. Rattiner said he plans to vote for CEE proposal. Moving Forward
The Committee on Student Life and the TCU Judiciary must now approve both proposals and then obtain 250 signatures before the amendments can be put on the ballot, according to TCU Parliamentarian Danielle Cotter, a sophomore.
Neither proposal has specified the procedures for the culture centers' selection or nomination process. These will be determined in the by−laws before the general campus−wide vote on the matter.
Under both proposals, the Africana; Latino; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT); and Asian American Centers will under both proposals hold initial community representative seats because their communities have existing representation in the current system through the four representatives on Senate.
