TO THE EDITOR:
Yesterday’s editorial about Student Congress was factually, provably wrong. Nearly every criticism results either from hypocrisy, laziness or a failure to ask a question.
Let’s start with the one small grain of validity. Student Congress has not posted minutes as we should. However, one question to anyone would have revealed that we were already in the process of confirming two webmasters to resolve the problem.
Now, to the opinion desk’s apparent laziness in investigation: They claimed that we violated the code by allocating funds to pay for food for the Honor Court Outreach Committee. The problem is, if they were to actually read the line of the code that says we do not allocate money for food, they would see the second half of the sentence says we can allocate such funds when dispensation is given by a two-thirds vote of full Congress. What they published was a result of them being too lazy to fact-check or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Next, members of Student Congress are encouraged to vote their conscience on all issues, including appointments. Many members appeared concerned about conflicts of interests that the solicitor general might have, as well as possible violations of the Dual Office Prohibition clause of the Student Code. Regardless, a sincere objection from a super-majority of members voting their conscience is hardly something to be lambasted in an editorial.
Finally, it is beyond reckless disregard for the truth to claim that representatives do not live in the districts they represent. Every single member of Student Congress lives in their district and is tasked with outreach to constituents. Any who do not provide proof of residency or outreach are charged with nonfeasance by the ethics committee and discharged from Congress.
Ivy Hardy
Speaker of Student Congress
Peter McClelland
