The Student Assembly has arrived at a critical juncture. Thursday’s elections will mark the end of seniors Ryan Scofield and Amanda Norris’ two-year tenure as SA president and vice president, and the students of the College face an important choice in determining who will respond to and address their concerns in the coming year. We believe that voters would be wise to select sophomores Zach Pilchen and Valerie Hopkins as the next president and vice president of the Student Assembly.

p. Over the past weekend, members of The Flat Hat’s editorial board sat down with the candidates to hear what they had to say about themselves, their candidacies and their plans if elected. While we were impressed with what both tickets had to say, we find Pilchen and Hopkins to be the better choice. Both Pilchen and Hopkins exhibit energy and enthusiasm that will be vital to an SA that has fallen out of touch with the students it represents.

p. Their platform of fresh, new ideas shows a more creative approach to town and gown issues, sexual assault prevention and education and campus alcohol policy, and we believe that their goals have the potential to rejuvenate an SA that is long overdue for change.

p. We are impressed with Pilchen’s record as both a senator and as an incredibly involved student over the past year. He was ranked at the top of The Flat Hat’s Fall Senate Report Card for 2006, which ranked the senators’ effectiveness. He has responded to individual students’ concerns about the new alcohol amnesty program, often communicating directly with Vice President for Student Affairs Sam Sadler and advocating the creation of a cabinet position on student rights. Pilchen has also been more proactive than any other senator in addressing the issue of city-student relationships, particularly the three-person housing rule.

p. Moreover, his commitment to tackling the bureaucratic complexity of the senate and administration will, we hope, lead to a more even dispersal of power and responsibility within the student government. This will provide a welcome departure from a micromanaging executive branch that consists of government majors with overly complex titles who do little or nothing to help students.

p. Hopkins is a great match for Pilchen’s energy, experience and commitment. As the only candidate not currently affiliated with the SA, Hopkins brings a new and honest perspective to the race, and she is uniquely qualified for the job. Her time as a resident assistant and a member of the College’s Judicial Council gives her a fresh and balanced insight into sexual assault, alcohol and substance policies as well as the general workings of the administration. She will complement Pilchen in addressing city relations and SA efficiency, two of the most critical issues for the next year.

p. It should be noted that Hopkins has written for The Flat Hat on five different occasions, but was never on staff, and the majority of her work was done last fall.

p. The Flat Hat was impressed with the experience of juniors Brad Potter and Brett Phillips, and much of their platform seems original and beneficial to the student body. Ultimately, however, we believe that their priorities are misplaced. We do not question their dedication, but we do wonder if they would be assertive on some of the more controversial issues. We found this question more difficult to answer after our meeting with Potter than after speaking with Pilchen. Additionally, we worry that Potter and Phillips’ experience may be a negative feature of their campaign — that perhaps they represent a continuation of the less-than-effective SA administrations of the past several years. The SA and the students of the College need change. They need Pilchen and Hopkins.

Many of us remember the good days when one could find a shiny, bright orange, albeit decrepit community bicycle waiting somewhere on campus to ride. They were free of charge and yours whenever you could find one. They were a lot of fun and very useful. Get to class quickly — no problem. Go to the market — easy.

p. Replacing this system after some two years of absence is the new communal bike system. You can now check out a bike from the University Center with great ease whenever there is someone at the info desk. If you don’t return it by 7 a.m. the next day, you will be the proud recipient of a $10 fine. Not returned by the day after? — a $50 fine, as more than a few people I know have found out.

p. Make no mistake, I fully support communal bikes, and I appreciate the efforts of those who have made them possible. However, I am opposed to policies that make riding them a risky and potentially financially devastating endeavor. So, I propose a new two-tiered community bike program.

p. First, extend the rental period of UC communal bikes to 24 hours. This will encourage greater use and ensure that we needn’t wake up before 7 a.m. Second, bring back the orange communal bikes. How? Easy. Every year at the end of spring semester, the campus police seize in the area of 100 bikes that students leave behind. In the fall there is a bike sale, where proceeds go to the police department at $25 per bike. The unsold bikes are thrown into a dumpster, many of them requiring only scant attention to be rideable again.

p. These are our bikes, not the police department’s. The sale should take place as scheduled, but the proceeds should be returned to the Student Assembly and placed in a communal bike fund. All unsold bikes should become communal bikes and be placed around campus for use at will. Proceeds from the bike sale will pay for the maintenance necessary to get them running and to paint them orange.

p. The problem with the old bike system was that people didn’t take care of the bikes. They became unridable, a simple illustration of the tragedy of the commons. Many of you would say that would just happen again. You would be right. Even with efforts to instill proper behavior and respect for bicycles, they would very likely end up with flat tires, missing handlebars and in locations such as streams and trees.

p. However, I suggest we not worry too much about that. There will be a new fleet next year. Let’s suppose the bike sale sells 80 bicycles, or even a conservative estimate of 40. At $25 per bike, that would be $1,000 — more than enough to cover initial maintenance, painting and roundup and disposal of bikes at the end of the year. As to finding and maintaining these bikes, we can simply throw the now-likely-destroyed communal bikes into a dumpster, having given them one more year of use. The beauty of this system is that there is no additional cost to the student body, and there would be bikes for everyone to ride, with a new supply forthcoming every year. At the same time, we would improve and maintain the UC bike check-out system, still allowing for an opportunity to ride a more dependable bicycle that you could lock up when the need arises.

p. __Dan Idziak, a junior at the College, is running for president of the Class of 2008.__

__Class of ’09 senator describes SA inefficiency before upcoming elections__

For the sake of clarity, this is a strongly opinionated article. Therefore, I want to clearly say that the motivation behind this exposition on the Student Assembly is for the purpose of exposition itself.

p. My name is Sean Sheppard, and I am one of four senators who represent the Class of 2009. I hold a few titles: secretary of the Student Life and the College Policy Committees and senate liaison for the Student Life Department. I miss a lot of committee meetings.

p. The ones that I go to, I rarely take minutes. According to The Flat Hat Senate Report Card, I am the fifth-ranked senator. Not to discredit their methods, but I have done relatively little on the floor to merit number five out of 16. I have co-sponsored a number of bills, but have done very, very little solo work. I guess it’s easy being number five.

Out of my entire year of servp. ice, the time I was most active was during campaigning. I witnessed first hand how much “students like stickers more than student empowerment.” We make stickers in the SA, we’re a rubber stamp with invisible ink, an ineffective recommendation process tied down with bureaucracy and completely directed by outside forces.

Our “representatives” are the main contributors to the misuse of an incredible resource that is a self-constituted, self-governed SA. The current structure of the SA advocates time-wasting and senseless organization of departments, committees and cabinets. It sounds like an exaggeration, but the group of people in the SA who actually do anything is limited to a handful out of the supposed 100 who claim it on their resumes and on their Facebook profiles.

p. The senate is in charge of $150,000 in consolidated reserves; it is the reason why we have some senate meetings that last three hours, two-thirds of which is spent debating the allocation of $680 for campus beautification, and the remaining one-third steamrolling a series of impractical bills.

p. Perhaps it is because of my half-involvement, but I feel that the entire SA is a secretive organization. Only the students directly involved and their close friends recognize what the SA is really doing. However, the relationship between the SA and the College’s administration is a strong one, but is based on total subservience; it is not conversational for the purpose of representation, but for implementation. Maybe that is why we are hiding.

p. The lack of communication between the student body and the SA has a direct correlation with one of the most fundamental bodies of student governance: the Department of Internal Affairs. Most of the bills in the senate are internal affairs bills, and the executive branch spends more time dealing with these bills than with those from any of the four other departments. Measures were taken to prevent internal affairs bills the second half of this semester, and the result has been an overwhelming lack of substantive legislation.

p. The departments of Student Life and College Policy are the two most important to the average student; these departments are supposed to be fostering a good social and academic atmosphere, working with the administration to solve problems like grade inflation, lack of social spaces, alcohol and substance abuse and so forth.

p. Before I finish, I’m going to hit the sensitive nerves that no one on our campus likes to talk about. Of the 16 undergraduate positions, we have one black and two female senators; 14 senators are government majors, none of the 16 are openly gay or bisexual. We can’t force underrepresented students to run for office.

p. The executive could appoint a less homogenous cabinet, and not make the politically correct move of appointing the only black member to the Department of Diversity Initiatives. Admittedly, the school is 80 percent white; that would require 12 white senators for accurate representation. But it is also 55 percent female. Where are the eight female senators?

p. This sort of criticism is hasty and one-sided. It is meant to fulfill an agenda of sensationalism. As elected representatives, we do have a responsibility that has not yet been defined by the actions of our predecessors. I am sorry for not representing the Class of 2009 as I was supposed to.

p. Apathy is not real to the individual; apathy is a condition of the masses, and each day that you act with reason and intention, apathy loses strength in the collective sense. Direct some of your time and energy to this community at the College, and you may find that there are some incredible resources to be had and utilized. On March 29, cast your SA vote wisely and demand something for your commitment.

p. __Sean Sheppard, a sophomore at the College, is a Student Assembly senator. He is running for reelection.__

We’ve all thrown away unfinished food and “borrowed” utensils. We know students who hoard whole loaves of bread in their backpacks. Your kitchen sink brims with the translucent cups of the University Center; at the Daily Grind, you notice that their orange and green plates resemble those of the Caf. Across campus we see it: abandoned containers of pizza, wasted milk gone sour, forks, cups, trays and cheese — it’s been said that an entire wheel of Baby Swiss was once stolen from the Caf.

p. So who’s paying for the stolen silverware and wasted food? Apparently, we are.

p. At the Caf I met up with Dining Services District Manager Phil DiBenedetto. He is a ball of contagious energy, the type of personality that makes everyone in the room light up. He is talkative, lighthearted and easy going. He doesn’t consider the theft situation an “epidemic.”

p. According to DiBenedetto, the budget for plates and utensils has grown. “We spent about $16,123 a year at the University Center and a little less at the Commons — about $15,328 for a total of over $31,451 a year to replace plates, bowls, glasses, forks, knives and spoons,” DiBenedetto said. This wasn’t entirely a product of theft, as many of the kitchen supplies simply break or are accidentally thrown away.

p. DiBenedetto doesn’t believe in strict enforcement. “I’d hope I wouldn’t have to baby sit,” he said. He explained his philosophy to me. “The honor code doesn’t just apply to academics … it applies to every aspect of your life. This is a finite College, where everyone knows everyone. When you steal from the Caf or sneak into the UC, everyone pays.” It’s not just about the money; it’s a matter of human decency. “If you’re in a tight spot and need food, they’ll let you in — you don’t have to sneak in the back or steal. Just ask.”

p. The increase in meal prices has less to do with stolen items or wasted food and more to do with economics. Because of inflation, the price of food has gone up. According to the Consumer Price Index, the cost of food has increased between 4 and 5 percent from last year. While Dining Services hasn’t jumped on the “organic foods” wagon (which would put meal prices through the roof), they have implemented healthy option choices, which yields a slight increase in preparation time as well as food costs.

p. “I think students come in and see that the food here is unlimited.” DiBenedetto smiled. “It is, but it isn’t.” He put it this way: if you were at home, you wouldn’t be wasting all that food because you’d be paying for it. What students don’t realize is that we’re paying for it here, and that we’re only hurting ourselves.
The Board of Dining Services doesn’t see a need for enforcement or regulation.

p. In my opinion, with regard to food, it’s okay to fill your plate, so long as you clear it. As for the kitchenware situation, prison rules should be applied. To each his own bowl and spoon. Food left behind or taken home should be tracked down the culprit fined heavily: you can charge Steve for helping himself to that rather generous second serving of mashed potatoes, or Stephanie for leaving behind that pizza crust.

p. The Honor Council should have a hand in the operation, cracking down on food hoarders. Prosecution should be lethal and circumspect. Stolen silverware should win you a charge of larceny. Thefts greater than $25 should pronounce you an instant felon.

p. Another idea would be to serve the students with the rarest, most ornate silverware you can find: bedecked 17th-century French flatware, or the immaculate porcelain plates used at Yalta. This way, students will be extra cautious in losing or damaging items and encouraged to saran wrap their plates so as to leave these antiques spotless.

p. And if they do have the balls to lift a spoon of Louis XIV, they’ll be in a ring of shit, responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost goods.

p. __Sherif Abdelkarim, a sophomore at the College, is a Staff Columnist. His columns appear every Tuesday.__