We thank Speaker Martin and Senator Compagno for responding to our Monday editorial, in which we criticized the SG Senate’s decision to make the $30 fee for the class gift project mandatory for seniors. Their input is appreciated.
That said, our position hasn’t changed.
Our assertion that the measure “was originally an optional addition to the fee bill,” may have been slightly misleading  — the bill didn’t have an opt-out clause in its earliest stages. One was suggested during the proceedings, but the distinction is insignificant. A simple fact remains: the Senate intentionally left students without the ability to opt out of the fee.
As stated in their letter, SG’s reason for making the fee mandatory is that “this project would not be sustainable nor would we be able to set a steady fee without full student participation.”
SG should have gone back to the drawing board for other sources of funding once it got this input or for a less ambitious proposal instead of trying to induce full participation.
The one argument that may have some traction is that, given LSU’s approximately 60 percent graduation rate, a vote of the students would include some who are not going to graduate and should thus not have any say in the decision.
But the basic truth remains — we simply don’t believe a majority of students would support this mandatory fee increase, and SG should have gone to greater lengths to figure out whether or not these suspicions are correct.
The opinions of whomever the creators of this proposal have “personally spoken with,” don’t reflect the overwhelming sentiments we’ve heard against it.
Finally, just because SG’s meetings are held in an “open forum,” doesn’t mean it has leeway to pass whatever they want during those meetings. It’s true SG meetings are open to the public, but they are almost comically under-attended. The average student simply doesn’t have the time to — and shouldn’t be expected to — regularly attend them, given class loads and jobs, and given the sheer length of an average Senate meeting. SG should have been more active in seeking the opinions of their constituents if it wanted a better understanding of where students stand on this issue.
It’s SG’s job to see the student body’s business done as the student body would have it done. And it’s our job as the campus newspaper to point it out when our representatives push for a measure the student body in general would not likely support.
Which is what our editorial Monday was expressly designed to do. We believed — and we still believe — the Senate crossed the line in creating additional fees during tough economic times without a vote of the students.
That said, we appreciate Martin and Compagno’s hard work — and every SG representative’s hard work — in representing our students. And we certainly appreciate their constructive criticism of ours.
But we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this particular issue.
Contact the Editorial Board at [email protected]