Flowchart depicting Reed’s current legislative process, as referenced in Article III of Reed’s Community Constitution.
This Wednesday, January 27th marked the third and final forum held by the Ad-Hoc Committee on Community Legislation to discuss proposed reforms to the Community Constitution. The forum reviewed several potential referendums to the current legislation, which were primarily focused on the staff’s lack of voice in the legislative process and the streamlining of the legislative process. The committee’s goal with this piece of legislation, as stated on their blog, is to establish a “potential approach to enhancing community involvement in the legislative process.” The committee consists of two staff members (Mary Sullivan and Erica Nukaya), two faculty members (Paul Hovda and Kathy Oleson), two students (Nick Fiore and Ashlin Hatch), the Vice President for Student Services (Mike Brody), and one additional non-voting staff member (Britt Hoover), who provides administrative support.
According to Article V Section 5 of the Community Constitution, the Agenda Committee should play a key role in the legislative process. However, this committee has not met nor played any role in legislation during the past 15 years. The Ad-Hoc Committee’s proposal introduced a new “Community Legislation Steering Committee,” which would act as an updated version of the defunct Agenda Committee, providing staff with more say in the legislative process and streamlining the current mechanisms of legislation. This committee would consist of three staff members, two faculty members, and two students. They would have all the rights of the Agenda Committee outlined in the current constitution, along with additional powers to propose new legislation and “steer” it towards passage. Community members are encouraged to read the entire proposed draft to see the specifics of the policy.
Currently, staff members have no route to propose community legislation. As depicted in the flowchart, staff members are required to have their legislation processed through the VP of Student Services, after which it follows the same path as faculty-proposed legislation, leaving no room for direct bargaining power by the staff during the legislative process. Staff members at the forum expressed frustration that this new legislation does not directly fix this issue.
Several staff and faculty were not convinced that this legislation would actually streamline Reed’s legislative process. For example, one quirk not addressed in the proposal is the potential for student-proposed legislation being approved by CAC, disapproved of by faculty, and then repeating the same progression until the issue is dropped or one side concedes. As seen in last year’s DHSM reform, such back-and-forths can lead to a sluggish legislative structure in which issues are not addressed as quickly as circumstances necessitate.
The discussion concluded with Mike Brody saying that he hoped these amendments would be passed by the end of the academic year. However, highlighting the lengthy arbitration processes required and the nebulous state of the current draft, Brody seemed unsure of whether this goal will see itself achieved by the end of the semester.
Figure Legend: Flowchart depicting Reed’s current legislative process, as referenced in Article III of Reed’s Community Constitution. Created by Danielle Juncal ’15.