100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

December 05, 1954 - Image 1

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1954-12-05

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


0

SL
SUPPLEMENT

Y

41W Aer
t

Batt

VOTE
DEC. 8, 9

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1954

Crucial

Election

a y

0c-M

SL

Future

SGC Plan Proposal
aDiscussed Pro, Con
Proponents Cite Regental Approval;
Opponents Claim Body Too Small
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is intended to bring into focus some
of the basic issues both pro and con raised by the proposed Student Gov-
ernment Council to be presented for student opinion in the all-campus
elections Wednesday and Thursday.)
By GENE HARTWIG
Daily Managing Editor
Since the term "Student Government Council" first came to the
fore on the campus political scene there has been considerable pro
and con discussion of the merits and demerits of the plan.
Among defenders of the SGC proposal a favorite argument has
been that the plan if approved by the Regents will give official re-
cognition and status to student government at the University.
Up to this time student government other than Student Affairs
Committee has had no specific grant of authority from the Regents
for any officially defined area of jurisdiction.

Thirty-Four Run
For 25 Positions
Question of Government Structure
To Get Campus Referendum Vote
By MURRY FRYMER
Two important questions will be put to the campus in the Student
Legislature elections Tuesday and Wednesday.
One, should the form of student government be changed from SL
to the much-debated Student Government Council?
Two, who should fill the seats of the Legislature while it con-
tinues to represent the student body?
Thirty-four candidates are in the running for 25 SL seats. Twenty-
three of the posts are for a full year, or as long as SL remains in ex
istence. Two of the seats are for one semester.
Prominent SGC Roles
Taking a prominent role in this election will be the SGC referen-
dum in which the campus is being asked its preference of organiza-
tions for student government.
If the students vote for the change, the entire question will fall
into the laps of the Board of Regents at their December 17th (or pos-
sibly a later) meeting. For this reason many of the proponents of the
SGC plan are hoping that the vote is not only favorable, but decisive,
allowing the Regents no doubt )

J-llop Group:
Appoint nent
4 Or Election?
By HARRY STRAUSS
Whether J-Hop committee mem-
bers should be elected or appoint-
ed will be decided by student vot-
ers in the coming election.
The referendum asks first if
,the voter prefers the present sys-
tem of choosing J-Hop members,
that is, by election, or if he pre-
fers having these committee mem-
bers appointed by a special im-
partial committee.
The second part of the ballot
concerns the make-up of the im-
partial appointing group. Stud-'
ents are asked if they approve or
disapprove of the following make-
up:
Group Make-Up
The immediate past chairman
the J-Hop Committee;
One other J-Hop Committee
member appointed by the past
'0-Hop Committee;
One member of SL chosen by
%the SL Cabinet, subject to the
approval of the legislature;
One member of the League In-
terviewing and NominatinguCom-
mittee chosen by that group;
One member of the Union's
Senior Executive Committee chos-
en by that group.
Complaints Last Spring
This J-Hop referendum was
drawn up following some com-
plaints after last Sprign's elec-
tion that few students were inter-
'sted in listening to those run-
ning for posts on a "dance com-
mittee."
It was felt that more people
who are interested would be will-
ing to try dut for these positions
if they would not have to cam-
paign for the posts. .
Similar views were given by
those who thought that putting
on a dance takes skill that some
have but who find campaigning
an unnecessary expense.
On the other hand, the added
publicity given to the J-Hop
through the campaign was believ-
'ed to offset some of the campaign-
ing disadvantages.

Recognition Warrents Support
SGC proponents argue that this
factor of officialrecognition alone
warrants support of the plan by
the campus.
The arguments of the opposition
point out that giving official sanc-
tion to student government will
make little difference in practice
when it comes to crucial issues
on which administration and stud-
ents basically disagree.
Objecting to the alleged unre-
presentative character of SGC op-
ponents argue that by reducing
the number of elective positions
from 40 to 141 while retaining the
practice of the single transferable
ballot, the elected members would
in effect correspond to a norm
of campus opinion with extremes
automatically excluded.
This tendency toward a strictly
majority rule would be further
emphasized by the fact that only
five or six of the 11 could be
elected each semester SGC oppon-
ents argue.
Question of Size
On the other hand partisans of
the new plan maintain that the
smaller size of the council allows
for more efficient functioning and
helps insure the election of better
qualified personnel.
It is their feeling that under'
SL, the more capable student will
often decline to serve on student
government as he knows he will
have to use much of his time
carrying out service projects and
other line functions.
SGC is expected to be a policy
making body with the job of im-
plementing and administering its
decisions carried out by agencies
responsible to SGC or by other
activities-.
Other objections to SGC's size
have also been raised. Some say
that with only 11 members avail-
able to do the footwork of collect-
ing opinion and background in-
formation, the Council will be
overburdened with work.
On the other hand supporters
of the plan argue that it is better
to start with the smaller group
and when experience indicates a
needed expansion such will have
to come about or the whole SGC
structure will collapse.
Possibility of Friction
Another basicissue raised by
the plan centers around the great-
er possibility of, student govern-
nent-administration friction with
an intermediary faculty-student
group such as SAC taken out of
he picture.
See SGC, Page 4

-Daily-John Hirtzel
THE JOB OF STUDENT GOVERNMENT-From mimeographing motions to debating campus issues, from discussing student view-
points to arguing for certain SL action, from learning the facts to disclosing issues, and from sealing envelopes to spreading student gov-
ernment publicity-it's all the job of student government as it performs the task of giving voice to student opinion on campus.
Election of campus representatives, and the important issue of what government make-up the student body prefers will be de-
cided at the Student Legislature elections Wednesday and Thursday.

I

HOW IT FUNCTIONS:
Student Legislature Plan
Student Legislature, as opposed to Student Government Council,
is based upon the following plan:
STRUCTURE
All SL members are elected from the campus-at-large. The body
currently numbers 40 members. Next semester 43 members will
sit on SL, for the number varies according to campus population,
one member representing each 400 students.
Anyone, including first-semester freshmen, may seek election
to SL or may serve on its Executive Wing, aiding committees and
the cabinet in an administrative and research capacity.
OFFICERS
Cabinet oliicers are a president, vice-president, two members-at-
large, treasurer, National Student Association coordinator and execu-
tice secretary.
A part-time administrative secretary is hired by SL and paid
from Legislative funds. Other appointed officers include committee
chairmen, a comptroller, Student Book Exchange chairman, Cinema
Guild Board chairman and chairmen of numerous ad hoc commit-
tees.
Among official University committees on which SL members
or representatives sit are Lecture Committee, Calendaring Com-
mittee, Student Affairs Committee, Loan Committee and Union Board.
FINANCES
Finances of SL come mainly from one annual Homecoming
Dance, which nets about $3000, and are supplemented by Cinema
Guild movie funds of $1500 to $1600 per year, a grant of $1200 for
office supplies by the Office of Student Affairs and other miscel-
laneous fees.
SL submitted a request to the Regents last year that a tax of
25 cents per student per semester be levied upon students, but the

HOW IT WOULD FUNCTION:
Proposed SGC Plan
Student Government Council can be compared to the present
Student Legislature as follows:
STRUCTURE
Representatives on SGC would include 18 members, 11 of whom
would be elected at large from the campus, the remaining seven to
sit ex officio as the heads of the major campus organizations (Union,
League, Interfraternity Council, Inter-House Council, Panhellic, As-
sembly, and The Daily).
Membership on the seven-man Board in Review would include
the dean of men, the dean of women, three faculty members and two
students, one of whom would be president of the council.
OFFICERS

about student opinion.
If the students vote against the
change, the student government
will continue in the hands of SL,
and the SGC idea probably drop-
ped.
Campaigning Mild
The campaigning for the SL seats
has been comparatively mild this
semester. Candidates have been
appearing at residence open hous-
es, and putting up the customary
posters.
The candidates, having under-
gonera thorough SL orientation
program to learn the successes
and problems of the organization,,
are concerning their campaigns
primarily with views on the SGC.
For the first time in an SL elec-
tion, a campus political party will
be presenting a list of candidates.
The Common Sense Party has cho-
sen 12 students to run on its plat-
form,
J-Hop Referendum
Another issue in the election is a
J-Hop referendum asking student
preference on whether to keep the
J-Hop Committee an elective body,
picked every spring, orpto change
it to an appointed group.
Estimates of the total vote aver-
age to an expected 5,000 ballots,
the weather playing an important
role.
At the April 1 election there
were 6,091 votes cast in balloting
for SL and various other boards
being filled at the same time.
Thirty candidates ran for 22 SL
positions closely approximating the
number of candidates per seat this
semester.
Seven SL Incumbents
Seven present SL members are
running for re-election, however
President Steve Jelin whose term
ends this month is not included.
Jelinhwas forced out because of ill
health.
The retiring president comment-
ed concerning the election that the
"importance of the referendum on
the form of student government
has been emphasized to a degree
that often overlooks the equally
important election of candidates to
the present student government,
the SL."
Jelin continued, "Whatever the
referendum result, those elected
representatives will serve on be-
half of the student body for some
time. They should select wisely."

On J-Hop,
SGC Listed
Students voting in the SL elee.
tion Wednesday and Thursday wil
be asked to vote on the followin;
referenda:
SGC Referendum
(Any student in the Universit3
may vote)
WHICH WOULD YOU PRF,
FER?
(Check one)
Q The proposed Student Gov-
ernment Council
d The Present structure of
Student Go*rnment
J-Hop Referendum
A. J-Hop Committee is pre-
sently elected in the spring All-
sently elected in the spring All-
Campus Elections by those stud-
ents who will be juniors the fol-
lowing year.
CHECK ONE OF THE FOL-
LOWING:
Q 1. I prefer the present sys-
tem of choosing J-Hop Com-
mittee members. (Election)
5 2. I prefer having the J-Hop
Committee appointed by a
special impartial committee.
B. If J-Hop Committee were to
be appointed, would you approve
generally, the make-up of the fol-
lowing committee to serve as a
nominating and appointing com-
mittee?
a. Immediate past chairman of
J-Hop Committee.
b. One other J-Hop Committee
member to be appointed by the
past J-Hop Committee.
c. One member of SL to. be
chosen by the cabinet subject to
the approval of the Legislature.
d. One member of the League
Interviewing and Nominating
Committee to be chosen by said
committee.
e. One member of the Union
Executive Council to be chosen
by said council.
VOTE YES Q OR NO [7

Referenda

Student Legislature
.44.4,< ~ STtENT 8 0Y
C T I V 1 :4444
4~~~7 34+,444,444 144~4444,4 ENT
' WI___ ~C
r44 V' R
44444 444 444444 44'+*414'444444444444,44+44444444444 444+44 *444 .4H44+444444444+.-4,44 -44 .4,. 44444-4,
....:. ~yf}:?%::?"iii::::< :
. :.." . .. : C IFY.:">::i:::;+~iTiM
.iii::%.::.: --..::: 4 ......... .:.:: . +:.. . ::: -.* :':4 ..S . :: .5.34 : .S .. . .:-:. 44444441 : .:: 444+4444.. .. . 44::4:.:..4 :.4444M :. . {t:'

Regents have not yet taken ac-
tion upon the proposal.
Expenses which consume SL's
financesannually pay about $1,-
000 to the Administrative Secre-
tary, $900 for NSA dues, $1000 of-
fice supplies, $700 elections costs,
and $1000 public relations expens-
es.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction anO authority of
SL are not precisely outlined. Al-
though SL can discuss and deal
with any subject its members de-
sire, it has no final authority
granted it by the University.
Means of attaining SL's goals have,
thus been largely confined to re-
quests for action or consideration,
unless the members themselves
can accomplish the desired pro-
ject without University admin-
istration assistance or permission.
AUTIOiTYV

Officers of the Council would include a president, vice-president,
treasurer and a professional administrative secretary without vote
appointed by the student affairs vice-president to record proceed-
ings.
A committee structure would have to be worked out after the
Council had been elected to carry on the job of implementing SGC
decisions.
Service projects would probably be handled by delegating activi-
ties to other campus groups or to an administrative wing.
FINANCES
The Addendum of the SGC proposal calls for financing the govern-
ment with an assessment per student per semester, levied on all stud-
ents and payable at registration. This would most likely be the 25
per cent tax approved in principle by the campus in a referendum
last spring.
Unlike Student Legislature SGC would undertake no money rais-
ing projects to provide for its maintainence.
JURISDICTION
Student Government Council would have power to: recognize new
campus organizations, approve
student-sponsored activities, make
eligibility rules for non-athletic Student
activities above the minimum
grade point average, coordinate
and delegate student activities,
originate student projects and ex-
press student opinion,
It would serve as an appointing
body for selection of Joint Judi-
ciary Council members and repre-
sentaitves to other joint student-
faculty committees, administer
finances designed for its use and
from time to time authorize
campus forums for purposes of -
discussing campus issues.
SGC would have final jurisdic-
tion over these areas suhiect to

Government Council

13O7'Mi. i4wv}h.}r, 7b:.r"Fvg1.?^!?Q F ~e GeN.."" 2 :'.tl" . ;i , . 4 Y :p,
.::. ; :. ..,. .. : :: ....:::.... . .,: .::;" ".=rso ,,-,,. ' '"q4<... ;, .. "w C, '.3,+";.+':,' *44*44444*44444.p~v":,o O?4'?a ;, 4
n;
4 S.:::"4...,.
44.< ~~4*44 .444. 4444444+444 444 0 '444N44444<4~4Y''< 4<4<4<444 .44t4444t44*440*44**444V1. :

:f': . :; ? : :: . .. .. ..: > ::: :::"> :: i; i::>it { .. .. i ....' * :i 'r.*
ma y , ...

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan