In response to Mr. Studenski’s article “GSB Senators are lacking backbone” in the opinion section of Wed., Dec. 9’s Daily:

Once again, the can of “specialty-seats-in-the-senate” worms has been opened.

Mr. Studenski mentions a bill that is intended to amend the bylaws of GSB to establish a registration process for those students who want to forfeit their right to vote for their college or their residence area in favor of voting as a member of a specialty population.

It seems to me that it has to be pointed out to him, and maybe others, that this registration process does not in itself create specialty seats, and the absence of such registration does not mean there would be no senators representing the special populations at ISU.

Minority representation is guaranteed by the constitution of GSB.

The constitution also requires the senate to establish a registration process for voters for specialty seats.

Without such a registration process, there could not be any voters, but the vacant seats would be filled by appointment either through the respective councils or by the president of GSB.

If this happens, I have to admit that this procedure would provide a much stronger argument for opponents of specialty representation than they have today.

The major point at this time is, however, that the absence of a registration process is outright unconstitutional.

Opponents of specialty seats should rather support a bill that introduces a registration process that leads to low voter registration turnouts if they want to form a strong argument against specialty seats and yet remain constitutional.

President Burkhardt’s call for a special session (which, by the way, he withdrew later) was, as far as I can tell, not motivated by a wish to keep or abolish specialty seats but by a wish to keep the bylaws in accordance with the constitution.

Another topic raised by Mr. Studenski is that “those who oppose [specialty seats] want regular senate seats to be open to students regardless of race, age, disability or the country a student is coming from,” i.e. regardless of whether or not a student belongs to a special population or not.

As I tried to point out in my response the last time he wrote about the issue about two months ago, there are no restrictions on who can run for regular senate seats.

The difference is that even if I, as an international student, run for a regular senate seat, I will have to represent the constituents of the seat I am running for.

If I run for international senator, I will have to represent the special needs and interests of international students as a minority on this campus.

And as for not having a backbone, I hereby clearly state that I am in favor of minority representation, and you may quote me on that.

Finally, Mr. Studenski contends that “specialty seats are the most controversial element of the GSB constitution.”

I have to say that this is to a large part thanks to people like him who keep bringing it up with distorted facts and in an aggressive, confrontational manner.

Just to play the devil’s advocate for a moment, what if I and some of my friends started writing letters to the Daily every three weeks stating that residence areas should be divided by ZIP code rather than the way the constitution prescribes it?

I think this would become “the most controversial element of the GSB constitution” rather quickly.

---

Marc Ruehlaender

International Senator

GSB