Lobbying For Realism in Student Government

For about one year, the Vanderbilt undergraduate student body has been subject to the relatively limited governance of Vanderbilt Student Government. This organization was created by merging of the former Student Government Association and Interhall in an attempt to combine traditional student government with residence hall government. Now, after almost one year with Cara Bilotta at the helm of VSG, the outgoing president has some crowning achievements under her belt; nevertheless, a few of her campaign promises fell through. Now that the new VSG presidential candidates are echoing some of these same failed policy ideas, it calls into question whether VSG can really accomplish all it says it will.

Last winter, Bilotta and her running mate Perry Gragg presented a detailed platform, essentially a laundry list of policies and goals. Over the last year, Bilotta and VSG have achieved a few of these goals. Vanderbilt students have seen more Vandy Vans, the Collegiate Readership Program, and an expanded student lot for football tailgating from the lobbying work of VSG. However, their platform also contained some highly questionable promises, most of which the student body has not seen come to fruition.

According to InsideVandy.com, some of the more enticing but failed campaign promises were Bilotta’s plans to “establish a minimum of 200 free prints per semester,” to design “new dining options for first-year students that allow for flexible meal plans,” and to “develop a more technologically advanced online course registration system than OASIS, whereby students could access course syllabi before enrolling.” Lofty goals, to be sure, but it seems the large majority of the student body that elected Bilotta and Gragg found these to be solid initiatives that VSG surely had the power to push forward. Of course, printing still costs four cents per page, first-years still have to purchase a 19-meal per week plan, and OASIS is as frustrating as ever.

The issue receiving the most attention during the election last year was the then-newly announced 2007-2008 academic calendar, which shortened winter break considerably. The candidates did not ignore the outrage, as Bilotta and Gragg promised to “modify” the calendar in order to “increase the duration of winter break.” While it is mostly speculation, chances are that the ticket’s promise to make the break longer contributed greatly to their victory.

As readers may remember, shortly after her election, Bilotta and Dean of Students Mark Bandas informed students that the 2007-2008 calendar could not be changed, at that winter break would remain a week shorter. The reasoning was defensible; due to the addition of fall break a few years ago, those two days of classes had to be tacked on at the beginning or the end of the semester. Bandas told The Hustler at the time that this was done alternatively every year, with the final day of classes on December 22 falling in 2007. In addition, construction dates for new Commons dorms meant that moving students in earlier in August would not have been possible.

This left a few questions for Bilotta last February. Had she not consulted with Bandas before the election to determine if her efforts to change the calendar were even possible? If so, why did she continue to use the promise as a major campaign initiative, even after the election? What power does VSG really have to make these major changes in school policy?

The last question is what really concerns this writer. VSG can influence the administration to make changes and concessions that may benefit the student body; the Vandy Vans expansion and Collegiate Readership Program are examples of the types of initiatives for which VSG can viably lobby.

Essentially, lobbying for student concerns is one of the most important and realistic roles for VSG. The VSG Constitution, available online, outlines the purposes and objectives of the organization. Among them are the objectives to “advise and make recommendations to the administration on policy matters” and to “promote the well-being of each undergraduate student.” This a role VSG fits well, given its apparently healthy relationship with the various levels of Vanderbilt administration. As VSG presidential candidate (and occasional Torch contributor) Jared Anderson explained, lobbying is “the primary role” of the organization.

Anderson clarified the two secondary roles: “providing services to students that the administration is either unwilling or unable to provide to students” and to “provide programming and events, mainly residential in nature.” I am a little skeptical of his description of VSG as a provider of services, but certainly the group has proven itself skilled in programming. The success of last month’s Memorial Madness certainly supports this notion.

At any rate, in its role as an arbiter between student interests and the administration, VSG seems to have been only marginally successful because of their lack of power relative to the power of the administration at different levels. Joseph Williams, VSG presidential candidate, remarked that VSG is “limited from changing the direction of large scale plans initiated by the Board of Trust.” He gives the example that VSG cannot lobby for student interests regarding the College Halls Initiative, as this is, for intents and purposes, a foregone conclusion that the Board has already made.

It is positive to hear realistic approaches from both candidates, but how do their platforms hold up? Anderson and his running mate, Courtney Holliday, continue to support policies like replacing OASIS and improving student tailgate areas, two initiatives on which the current administration failed to deliver fully. Perhaps Anderson and Holliday take these ideas more seriously, but it would seem that reforming the online registration program and finding a location where students can have fun and VUPD can feel is secure during tailgates are initiatives that VSG simply does not have the power to do. Similarly, Williams and his running mate, Wyatt Smith, claim they would like to “give upperclassmen more freedom of where to live and who to live with” and “demand the administration to continue adding addition [sic] parking lots.” As Vanderbilt students have seen, housing selection is a complex and often unfair process, and parking is a constant concern, but does VSG have the ability simply to make these ideas come to life through its lobbying of the administration?

Granted, both tickets offer solid, feasible plans to improve student life on campus. Williams and Smith want to expand off-campus dining options on the Commodore Card, and Anderson and Holliday have campaigned on trying to get professors to enforce reading days. Most students would applaud these efforts, and VSG has the ability to make them happen with their unique positions as a representation of the student body and connection with the administration powers.

What is dangerous is vesting too much hope in VSG and its leaders. Students are at the mercy of the university when it comes to winter break or holding tailgates in parking lots. Meal plan and programming issues are more fitting to VSG’s role as an organized bloc of student-interest advocates. We won’t get an underground parking garage or a less stress-inducing housing process from VSG, no matter how genuinely its leaders want it.