The RPI Student Senate reviewed and approved a reorganization of their structure at their meeting Monday, returning to a plan similar to what was in place prior to former Grand Marshal Chris Mather’s move to a project-based system in January of 2002. The plan is described as a merging of the two systems, and is expected to give each member of the Senate greater responsibility.
“We want to be responsive to the environment we’re in, and our new structure will allow us to keep a grasp of more of what’s going on around us,” said Grand Marshal Mike Borzumate. “It will allow us to be faster and more alert with dealing with the issues facing students.”
The plan breaks the Senate and the RPI administration into four “themes” and 25 groups. Borzumate and other Senate members examined the various offices throughout the RPI administration, chose the ones that had the most direct impact on students, and then divided the list of approximately 60 into the four categories. Members of the Senate will be assigned to these groups, and each given a group of administrators and officials to deal with on a one-to-one basis. The senators will then report back to their category committee and the Senate as a whole on the issues their administrators are dealing with.
The four themes chosen are: student and community services, comprised of offices such as admissions, the Office of the First Year Experience, the registrar, and residence life; judiciary, student rights, and diversity, which includes administrators from the Dean of Students Office, greek life, and Institute diversity; academic affairs and services, which will meet with officials from the provost’s office, government relations, the five schools, and the Department of the Chief Information Officer; and administration and physical facilities, comprised of administrators from Institute finance, the alumni association, the communications offices, campus planning, and public safety.
The plan received the approval of the entire Senate during a straw-poll, but an official vote on changing the bylaws was not done. Instead, the Senate plans to test the new system for the remainder of its term, and make a recommendation to the new Senate on whether or not to continue with it. The Senate is officially still operating under the bylaws from several years ago, despite the reorganization last year.
“If you have everything funnel through one person, you only get one view. Having it filter through the Senate gets you a multitude of opinions and views,” complimented Class of 2004 Senator Pete Naccarato. “Individual onus is being given to meet with people.”
The reorganization also comes in response to rising criticism from both within the Senate and outside that it was “dropping the ball” on some important issues and failing in some of its purposes. Several senators such as Class of 2005 Senator Gavin Gyle compared the Senate’s role so far this year to “a powerful class council,” an analogy that even Borzumate conceded was accurate.
“What I see as most significant in this is that senators are no longer hearing about issues secondhand,” said Class of 2006 Senator and Vice-Chair Max Yates. “They’re meeting with administrators and hearing about problems before they’re a major concern for students.”
The new plan is generating some concern, however. Rules and Elections Chairman Matt Ezovski pointed out that, “One of the components I see in this is that it is going to require a lot more time.” Borzumate had said that he expects the senators to meet with their contacts at least once a month, and with their committees bi-weekly.
Asked about whether he was concerned about senators failing to follow through with their new responsibilities, Borzumate was still optimistic. “You have to take that risk. But even if one or two people fall, you still have a gain under the new system.”
