BY ALEX MICH
I thank you for your response to the editor, as well as for being helpful throughout the entire process. I really am not terribly intrigued with the wireless issue, but now that I just got a laptop for the first time in my life…I think I should start paying attention to that.
My intention was to highlight what I thought was a good thing that Student Government did. Apparently, that didn’t come out that way and for that, I do apologize.
Before I begin to address the second half of your article, may I first apologize also for perhaps being quite improper with my comments. Certainly, there were some digs designed to grab the organization’s attention and, well, they certainly accomplished their objective. However, seeing that you all have been so kind throughout the process, I do feel that was rather undeserving. I do hope the individual that will accept my gift as more of an apology than anything else.
Yet, I do worry about the larger point of my article…not the GPA requirement, but the entirety of the Constitution process. I mean, it is rather difficult just to find out about the GPA requirement when some people are saying that the proposal sets it at 2.75, rather than the 2.5 that was stated in the article.
Even the poor Student Government official that I so blatantly offended (seriously mate, I do hope you like your apology gift, it’s not great but it’s the best I can do) and the unofficial information you sent to me shows it to be 2.75.
I can see why one say that it would be confusing if S.G. did release the amendments put forward to the Legal Department…let alone seeing what would happen if the Legal Department changed the amendments on their own accord.
Still, I find the silence difficult to understand. I guess currently being on the outside of S.G., I gain a different view from what I had within S.G. I still think that the student body can understand what it is that is being communicated.
I think students will understand that the Legal Department can change the proposals at any time. Furthermore, I think some students might be curious about what is going on with Student Government. I think we are intelligent enough to understand the situation (as I write this, I am listening to Lewis Black describing how the Dutch in Amsterdam thought about building a subway in their city…).
To further this point, I have to describe this story. Why?
1. This gentleman (knowing my propensity to write such outlandish M.J. opinion pieces) needs to be mentioned and did not prohibit me from repeating this story.
2. Seriously, it’s an opinion piece…people might get mentioned in these things in a negative light…unlike a news article which probably should have their facts straight…opinion pieces will have potential false statements in it and outlandish things in it. I am sorry, but just accept that.
So back to the story, this balding frat fellow (I think he is of Northern German descent but maybe it’s Danish; I am sure I will owe this guy an apology in a later opinion piece) came to me and asked for my signature so he can be on the ballot for the upcoming Student Government election.
So I asked him about the Constitution referendum that is coming out and he said that he thought the changes gave the Executive Board more power. I asked him how he found out, but he told me that he saw the changes through a co-worker in Student Government.
But, Jessica, you and I both know about an unofficial change in which the E-board would not serve as chairs of committees anymore, and other changes that empower the Senate. So, what do I tell him? I could show him all the stuff you sent me, but it’s all unofficial. They are not even the official amendments sent to Ann Arbor.
It is depressing and certainly, upon a cordial discussion, I might be able to possibly show the error of his ways…or mine as the case might be. Alas, you refuse to release them because it may cause confusion. I am already confused, and I have all the information I need.
So please, I know I am waiting for my other concerns to be addressed by the Rules and Ethics Committee, but I do kindly ask for us students to have a chance to debate over this privately before we vote on it. Even if it is not approved by Ann Arbor yet, please at least give us a ballpark of where we stand with these changes. At least, give me something to work with, or else I may end up electing some guy who is just making up stories as he goes along.
The views presented, unless otherwise noted, are of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Michigan Journal Editorial Board, the University of Michigan-Dearborn faculty or administration.