SGA Passes Sections of the 'Commons Exclusivity Resolution'

Author: Peter Simon

The Student Government Association (SGA) Senate passed a three-part bill on Sunday, Dec. 2 that declared its opposition to the limiting of student choices by the further implementation of the commons system. The bill, which was written by Junior Senator Matthew Kiefer, refers specifically to the influence of the commons system on intramural sports, as well as its potential influence on dining halls and social houses.

The preface of the bill states that "the SGA supports broadening student choice, not limiting it." The three parts of the bill, which were voted on separately, passed with an overwhelming majority.

The first part of the bill relates to intramural sports. According to the bill, the SGA "does not support restricting intramural sports teams to commons or social house affiliation." The bill responds to rules that were implemented this fall, forcing each intramural team to have at least 60 percent of its members from the same commons or social house.

According to Kiefer, many of the students he had spoken with were dissatisfied with the new intramural system, which can restrict groups of friends who are not all in the same commons from forming an intramural team together. The bill passed with 13 votes in favor, no votes against and four abstentions.

Associate Provost Tim Spears defended the new intramural system, which was implemented at the suggestion of the Board of Trustees. "As far as I know we're going full-speed ahead with commons- and social house-based intramurals," said Spears. "Our goal is to get as many people involved as possible, and participation has increased this year." Spears also noted that commons-based intramurals can introduce students who would not otherwise spend time together.

According to Bob Smith, who directs the intramural program, participation is up this year, but has been rising steadily in recent years. While he said he hoped that the commons had had a positive effect on participation, he listed "our increase in offerings, plus the addition of the space in Nelson arena" as the main reasons for the continued increase in participation. Kiefer remarked that "the level of participation in intramurals doesn't necessarily relate to the quality of the experience."

Although the first part of the bill was the only portion referring directly to policy that has already been implemented, the bill did not specifically call for a change or removal of the new policy. Kiefer said that while he believes the SGA will eventually take action against the limiting of choices in the intramural system, a bill that would do so would take "a lot of work and a lot of cooperation with administrators."

The second and third parts of the bill do not relate to policies that have been implemented, but instead present the SGA's opinion on potential further encroachments on student choice by the commons system.

The second part of the bill states that the SGA "does not support any future rules that would limit the dining facilities students would be able to frequent, specifically in limiting commons residents to certain dining facilities." The bill passed with 13 votes in favor, one vote against and three abstentions.

Spears denied that the administration has at any time considered future limitations in dining hall choice. However, the College is planning to build a dining hall for each commons. Kiefer explained that he wanted to state clearly that students are against any limitations, once the new dining halls are built, on their ability to choose where they would like to eat a given meal.

"Hopefully, students will want to eat at the dining hall of their commons," said Spears. "But limiting choice of where to dine is not a plan of ours."

The third bill relates to the future of social houses. The bill states that the SGA supports the continuing existence of social houses after the full implementation of the commons system, and "supports allowing any eligible student from any commons to pledge any social house without discrimination based on commons affiliation of the house or the student." The bill passed with 12 votes in favor, one vote against and four abstentions.

According to Spears, there have been discussions in the administration about possibly making each social house part of a commons, which was the recommendation of the faculty. However, discussions have yielded "no plans to link social houses to the commons," he said.

Kiefer said at Sunday's meeting that the bill does not prevent social houses from establishing relationships with certain commons. The bill only supports the continued existence of the social house system and continuing to allow any student to pledge any social house.

Another part of the bill, stating that the SGA was against commons-based room draw, was scratched early in the meeting at the suggestion of mid-year graduate class Senator Becky Ruby. Kiefer concurred with the decision, stating "It's something I believe in strongly, but it had the potential to detract from the other three points."

Kiefer explained that coming out against the seemingly permanent commons-based room draw would have been too controversial. "There's more of a chance of the other three points making a difference on their own," he said.

Discussion of the bill went on for over an hour. "It was definitely one of our best meetings of the year," said SGA Speaker Kevin King '02. "We were able to deal with an important issue and produce an official statement of opinion, on something nearly all of us agreed on."

Both Kiefer and King were pleased that the meeting was attended by Dean of Cook Commons David Edleson.

While Senate opinion on the three points that were voted on was largely unified, there were a variety of opinions on how best to present the bill. Many senators said that the bill was not an indictment of the commons system or the administration.

"Our intention is not to go against the administration. We want to make the opinion of students official as the administration continues to implement the commons," said Kiefer.