Spring Break
The Daily OrangeMason needs to explain change of heart on constitution
By
Posted: 12/1/05, 12:38 AM EST Section: Opinion
Student Association President Travis Mason needs to explain to the students why he has changed his mind on the plan to make University Union SA's official programming board and then offer students an alternative if he wants his statements to be taken seriously.
During Monday night's meeting, Mason told the Assembly that UU isn't ready to fill this role that would come with the new SA constitution. His arguments were dated, however, and some were misleading. Mason claimed that UU took a $30,000 loan meant to bring Jon Stewart to campus and spent it on three other speakers instead; SA Comptroller Andrew Urankar said UU never even saw that money. Mason also told the Assembly that UU gets more than 75 percent of the Student Activity Fee. To be precise, UU gets more than 75 percent of the programming portion of the Student Activity Fee.
But even if Mason had been correct in his assertions about the incompetence of UU, he would have to come up with a stronger explanation as to why he changed his mind. Why? Because he knew about the Jon Stewart loan and UU's percentage of the budget last spring, but he has still been supporting UU as the official university programming board throughout the semester. In fact, the new constitution - in which arguably the biggest change is the incorporation of UU into SA - has been one of Mason's pet projects. Nothing has changed since he first designed the constitution this summer - at least so far as Mason has told the student body.
Mason's change of heart just doesn't make sense based off of what he has said. There is no clear reason why UU is any less ready to be the official programming board than it was at the beginning of the semester. In fact, its programming has been quite successful: On Oct. 9, after only four days of advertising, UU Comedy brought Dave Attell to a sold-out Goldstein Auditorium. It sounds like students do want what UU has to offer.
Perhaps Mason has a stronger reason for withdrawing support for this aspect of the constitution he worked all summer and semester to create. If so, he ought to explain himself with applicable arguments and maybe even offer up a solution to this problem he has identified.
During Monday night's meeting, Mason told the Assembly that UU isn't ready to fill this role that would come with the new SA constitution. His arguments were dated, however, and some were misleading. Mason claimed that UU took a $30,000 loan meant to bring Jon Stewart to campus and spent it on three other speakers instead; SA Comptroller Andrew Urankar said UU never even saw that money. Mason also told the Assembly that UU gets more than 75 percent of the Student Activity Fee. To be precise, UU gets more than 75 percent of the programming portion of the Student Activity Fee.
But even if Mason had been correct in his assertions about the incompetence of UU, he would have to come up with a stronger explanation as to why he changed his mind. Why? Because he knew about the Jon Stewart loan and UU's percentage of the budget last spring, but he has still been supporting UU as the official university programming board throughout the semester. In fact, the new constitution - in which arguably the biggest change is the incorporation of UU into SA - has been one of Mason's pet projects. Nothing has changed since he first designed the constitution this summer - at least so far as Mason has told the student body.
Mason's change of heart just doesn't make sense based off of what he has said. There is no clear reason why UU is any less ready to be the official programming board than it was at the beginning of the semester. In fact, its programming has been quite successful: On Oct. 9, after only four days of advertising, UU Comedy brought Dave Attell to a sold-out Goldstein Auditorium. It sounds like students do want what UU has to offer.
Perhaps Mason has a stronger reason for withdrawing support for this aspect of the constitution he worked all summer and semester to create. If so, he ought to explain himself with applicable arguments and maybe even offer up a solution to this problem he has identified.
