SGA Grapples with Representation of Minority, Majority Voice

Author: Nicha Rakpanichmanee

A month ago, the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate passed its first resolution of the year with an overwhelming majority of 13 to one with one abstention. Atwater Commons Senator Kevin Sullivan '04.5 cast the lone dissenting vote.

The resolution referred to "the Middlebury Student Government on behalf of the entire student body" and called for "parking access for all students."

"There was not support from my constituents," Sullivan explained of his vote, "regardless of what I thought or what the consensus of the SGA was."

According to Sullivan, Atwater residents opposed the resolution because they prefer a campus less "conducive" to car use. Also, the bill's language "was thought to have somewhat of a hostile tone toward the administration" and was thus "counterproductive."

Including Weybridge House and sponsoring weekly hikes, "Atwater has always been known as the 'green' commons on campus," noted Sullivan.

Yet is Atwater Commons really the only group of environmentally conscious students who disagree with SGA that Middlebury needs more convenient student parking? Was the 13-1 vote tally representative of the views of the Middlebury College student body?



Who Is the Majority, Anyway?



"I think the SGA represents some people's opinions," said Ben Brouwer '04, one of three leaders of Environmental Equality (EQ) and an Atwater resident. "But I feel like there's a large portion of students that would be happy not having easy access to parking on campus."

Brouwer cited "a coalition of progressive groups on campus" who opposed the SGA resolution, such as Middlebury Initiative for Sustainable Development (MISD) and the College Progressives.

Brouwer believed that Feminist Action at Middlebury (FAM) had only safety-related objections to faraway student parking.

"As long as there are lighting and safety-phones, FAM was in support of [a biking-pedestrian campus]," said Brouwer. "There are people who want to drive around campus because of their own laziness. Otherwise there aren't any pressing concerns, except for maybe a few exceptions."

Kevin King '02, speaker of the SGA senate and author of the resolution, recognized "the environmental folk" as "a pretty strong group." Yet he believed the resolution to be representative of student opinion, especially because of "very collaborative" efforts that guided the document through "at least 20 revisions."

"I understand where they're coming from," said King, "but I don't think it's a valid point of view for the whole College."

SGA President Brian Elworthy '02.5 acknowledged, "Although there is a large number of environmentally conscious students in Atwater Commons, there are certainly environmentally conscious students all over campus." Though members of the SGA Presidential Cabinet do not vote with the senate, Elworthy "supported" the resolution.

"There are 15 members in the senate," continued Elworthy. "This just goes to show that at least one of them is bound to represent a perspective that might not be voiced readily by Erica [Rosenthal, student co-chair of Community Council] or by myself."

However, one dissenting vote does not quite reflect Brouwer's attempts to dissuade the SGA from passing the parking resolution. In addition to meeting with other student organization leaders, Brouwer e-mailed Sophomore Class Senator Erin Sullivan '04.5 and Elworthy.

"Brian has acknowledged my concerns, but I don't feel like they're being taken into account," said Brouwer. "I think the SGA is very conservative, in that they do an excellent job in representing conservative student interests. They could do a better job at addressing progressive concerns by taking into consideration, for example, environmental issues."

"I tend to disagree with these [environmental] groups," said King, "but my personal interest was not what we were voting on."

"It's unrealistic for everyone to e-mail their student leaders and Brian Elworthy," Brouwer suggested. "Student leaders should speak with the activist and progressive groups. I'd love to see SGA take that sort of initiative."

However, Elworthy said he believed the SGA was taking into account environmental concerns. "This is why I'm promoting alternative transportation options," he said, "like the shuttle, which will operate around campus into town. And this is also why we're moving so quickly on our airport shuttle system."

Moreover, Elworthy said that he visited many student organizations earlier this year, "in trying to reach out to the College community."

His list of visitations included College Democrats, FAM, Middlebury Open Queer Alliance (MOQA), Alianza Latinoamericana y Caribena (ALC), International Student Organization (ISO) and various social houses. This list did not include, however, Brouwer's "progressive coalition."

"We sort of worked with the New Left in getting their constitution finished," added Elworthy. "There are 126 student organizations on campus. I'd love to visit as many as I possibly could, but their times conflict with each other and sometimes with my schedule. I targeted large student organizations. But I will make a concerted effort to get to smaller student organizations this J-term and also in the spring."

This is the essence of democracy," Elworthy continued. "You have a representative that will hopefully represent the majority of constituents. It's important for the representative to make decisions on behalf of the constituents, in the best interest of the constituents as well as the entire student body."



Activating 'The Majority'



Chairs of SGA committees, who are also on the Presidential Cabinet, are allowed only to offer opinion on SGA resolutions. That is partly why the Facilities Planning Committee "hasn't done a lot with parking," according to Andrew Savage '03.5, chair of the committee.

"We were first of all waiting to get a member or a representative on the Parking Committee," he added, "but President McCardell issued his [eight] parking principles, so Lisa Boudah [director of public safety] is now working on the parking proposal. Hopefully, we will work with her after her proposal."

Savage also said he wanted to increase the input of student opinions, particularly in the College's many Facilities Planning projects.

"The system for involving students in Facilities Planning projects isn't effective," explained Savage.

"Sometimes students are given a voice, sometimes not. The administration does reach out to get student opinions on student projects, but it isn't frequent enough," continued Savage.

He believes that students should be involved in many more stages of the projects. "Because these buildings are for students, faculty and staff, we all need to be included in the decision-making," he elucidated.

Savage recalled that Glenn Andres, chair of the library planning committee and Christian A. Johnson professor of art, the history of art and architecture, "came into our [facilities planning committee] meeting and fired questions at us, like what kind of services need to be in the 24-hour study area."

Savage also acknowledged that Executive Vice President of Facilities Planning David Ginevan and Assistant Project Manager of Facilities Planning Jennifer Bleich would be coming to the SGA meeting on November 18th to give updates on current projects and allow for questions.

"That's a start, but hopefully we'll take it a few steps further," said Savage.

"Students have obviously a vested interest in the projects that we're working on," commented Bleich. "We always welcome student comments and input. We even have a Web site, where we ask people to e-mail us with comments," she pointed out.

Bleich stressed that these efforts to meet wi
th the College community was "a continuation of the effort to involve students more in the Facilities Planning process." She said that there have been several open sessions.

Traditionally, Facilities Planning has publicized comment sessions on construction projects through the commons deans and associates.

This issue came up during a recent Facilities Planning Committee discussion. "One concern was that opinions were coming almost exclusively from within the commons, rather than across campus," Savage said.

"By proposing to the SGA in addition to setting up meetings with the commons, we hope to drum up interest," added Bleich. "The fact is there have been opportunities for input, but student turnout hasn't been very high."

It appears that the SGA and Facilities Planning have met the same end in their efforts to activate the student body – low turnout at meetings and little student involvement as a result.

Initiatives to discuss new construction projects, much less controversial than the student parking issue, have so far received little response.

The parking resolution was controversial within various student groups, yet the resolution passed rather quietly with just one opposition.

Even K. Sullivan doubted the interest of the student body. "I don't know whether that was made public, that I voted against it. Personally, I don't know that if anyone knew, they'd actually care."

However, these quiet ends — of controversial and non-controversial issues alike — become beginnings of challenges for Savage, Bleich and the like.