Monday's editorial condemning the Senate for passing a resolution concerning the Graduate Walk was misleading and poorly researched. Allow me to clarify the points that you did not.
First of all, when the 2010 class gift committee decided to transform the "Class Gift" project into a legacy project that would continue and build upon itself every year, the intention from the beginning was to make the fee mandatory. It was not until Student Government Concurrent Resolution No. 1 was introduced this spring that the idea of an "opt-out" clause was suggested. All of the members of the class gift committee supported this idea. We were later told by various University administrators, including our landscape architect, that this project would not be sustainable nor would we be able to set a steady fee without full student participation. We therefore had no control over the exclusion of the opt-out clause, and the Senate understood this fact.
Second, the intent was always to go to the students for a vote. However, after several meetings with members of administration, we were told that the university only has about a 60 percent graduation rate. Therefore, not even 2/3 of the students able to vote on this fee would actually be paying it, so it would be inappropriate to send the referendum to the students. We were further advised that we could construct a memo concerning this fee that would go through campus administrators and to the Chancellor for approval. However, the committee felt that this would deprive the student body of any voice in this matter. Therefore, Student Government Resolution No. 4 was introduced for the Senate – which is compiled of elected student representatives – to advocate the implementation of the fee.
Third, you claim that "these behind-the-scenes machinations paint a picture of student representatives in an ivory tower." Nothing that was done was behind the scenes; it was all conducted in an open forum, and even garnered coverage from the Reveille in the weeks preceding last week's vote. All meetings of the Senate are open to the student body, and a portion is set aside at the beginning of each meeting for members of the public to address concerns to the Senate. To say that the Senate "forced this fee on the students under the radar" is simply untrue. The committee purposely took this issue to the Senate when the matter could have gone straight to the Chancellor without anyone knowing about it.
The committee made this matter as transparent as possible, including having multiple conversations with the Reveille and the full senate to make sure everyone knew where we stood each step of the way.
Fourth, the vast majority of students that we have personally spoken with fully supported the project and the implementation of the fee once it was explained to them. However, neither of us, nor any other member of the class gift committee was contacted to get the facts before you wrote this piece.
In the future, please contact myself or another member of the Senate before you are critical of what actions we take. We are elected to make decisions on behalf of the Student Body and are entrusted to act on their behalf. Thirty-six senators believed that supporting this program is the best thing for the University, while ten disagreed.
The project that will be funded by the $30 fee (not $35 as your headline read) will be a landmark on the LSU campus and something in which we should all take pride. For little more than the price of a night out in Tigerland, we can all leave a lasting mark on this campus that will be revered many years after we are gone. We are both personally honored at the prospect of being included in the first class of graduates to be included in the Graduate Walk.
Tyler Martin
Speaker of the Senate
Senator, E.J. Ourso College of Business
LSU Student Government
Tiffany Compagno
Chair, 2010 Class Gift Committee
Senator, College of Education
LSU Student Government
Contact The Daily Reveille's opinion staff at opinion@lsureveille.com
Jeffrey Noel