The student-initiated referendum on the USG 2008 spring elections ballot addressed several key issues: student approval of the administration, the effects of key initiatives on student life and the role of student input. While the questions are a bit vague, ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
@overtheusg: don't confuse "USG" with "some USG members" - if the USG as a whole wanted to strike it down, they probably could have but they didn't USG president Josh Weinstein ’09 said that putting the referendum on the ballot will not harm the USG’s relationship with the administration because the USG did not create the petition. He added, “it may be positive” because it is form of student input.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
It addressed several key issues, you say? then why did the USG spend so much time trying to undermine and discredit it? If the USG is supposed to serve the students, maybe it should support them instead of condemn them to cozy up to the administration. Results were definitely skewed by the USG's constant assertions to students that the referendum was useless, even as the USG proved its own uselessness three times over.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
1358 students think these referendum questions should appear on the ballot next spring. Does this satisfy the referendum petition requirement in the USG Constitution? The USG should resolve this issue NOW so that next spring's election isn't such a fiasco. (the past 10 days were a shameful embarrassment for the USG: lost section of Constitution, changed voting practices, delays in certifying election results...seriously, this is worse than many dictatorial "governments" in the world today). By the way, I hope those USG Senators who felt the referendum was "frivolous" realize that 75% of voters support having it on the ballot next year. Read Kent Kuran's Letter to the Editor on April 29 to understand what the frivolity clause in the Constitution really means, and hopefully you'll get more in touch with your constituents.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
USG president Josh Weinstein ’09 said that “in spite of the opportunities to voice concern” such as those Dunne listed as well as Tigerforums, Point’s Suggestion Box and various committees, “many students are disenchanted, grow apathetic and opt not to provide feedback.” He added, “It’s an unsurprising consequence that I hope the USG can ameliorate over the coming years.”
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Students don't attend the meetings precisely because they are convinced that doing so is a waste of time, and thats the one thing we don't have enough of. From what I gather, a ton of people attended the ACC meetings when the administration went out of their way to make clear that, this time, they actually did care what we had to say. If that was the general perception, then more people would participate. But we're currently stuck in a cycle where students don't participate because they know the administration won't change and the administration won't change because they misjudge the lack of participation as lack of genuine interest.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!