Posted by Bryce Klatsky
Dealing with SGA is not a fun prospect. Anyone who has ever had to prepare a resolution and propose it in front of Senate knows this to be the case. Recently, I found myself having to do just this and, unfortunately, found myself feeling dejected when my efforts turned out to be for naught. Ruminating in my disappointment, it occurred to me then that SGA is a conservative body on this campus.
That is not to make any assumption about its collective political sentiment but to say that by virtue of its very function ([to] establish and maintain conditions of student life) it is tied to rules that limit its freedom of interpretation. This rigidness to Skidmore College policy was what ultimately doomed my proposal, and yet I understand why it had to be so.
What truly impressed me, and the reason I thought it necessary to write this commentary, was the creative thought that flourished on the Senate floor even within those rigid guidelines. Despite what might have been a clear "no" under strictly bureaucratic consideration, my proposal was able to evoke more than a few "yeses." Some of these even came from senators participating in one of their first Senate votes. Suggestions were made that amendments be considered in the future to make some of the SGA policies more flexible.
While I am still disappointed that my proposal was rejected, I applaud the vast majority of the SGA senators for approaching it with an open mind, a concentration on their role as a constitutional filter for the Skidmore community, and the inherent frustration in having to balance the two. Say what you will about SGA, but the truth remains that its serves the Skidmore community with good intentions and embodies the perhaps corny axiom that, "Creative Thought Matters."
–Bryce Klatsky, '11