Do SGA/Faculty Senate votes matter?

Rowan University’s administration ruled against both the Student Government Association and Faculty Senate’s formal resolutions regarding the 17/34 Academic Year Tuition Plan, calling into question each organization’s abilities to voice its concerns.

The resolution explicitly called for “Rowan University [to] institute a 17/34 academic year tuition plan, in which students who take more than 17 credits one semester but no more than 18 overall during that semester and who take fewer than 34 credits for the whole academic year be allowed to pay the yearly tuition rate for full-time students.”
Students now pay a flat rate for anywhere between 12 to 17 credits, paying full credit price for the eighteenth credit. The new policy would help students to both save money and gain flexibility in scheduling, according to Junior Class President Michael Cilento.
Despite support by SGA and the Faculty Senate, the administration has stopped the proposed policy, showing that both the student and faculty organizations do not have the power to push resolutions through.

“As for the 17/34 Resolution, faculty were very disappointed of the administration’s view,” Faculty Senate President Eric Milou said. “But this is about dollars and cents in the administration’s eye.”
Rowan’s President, Dr. Donald Farish, said both the Faculty Senate and the SGA have proposed a plan that would cost the university more than it is worth.
“The solution they [Student and Faculty Senates] proposed is completely unworkable,” Farish said. “Under this system, we would essentially be encouraging people to take more classes because it doesn’t cost them anything, but it certainly costs us something.”
Despite the administration’s views, the SGA Senate raised concerns demonstrating the need for a new tuition plan. Concerns ranged from many majors requiring 18-credit semesters to the fact that not all classes are offered annually or during both semesters.
Farish said the proposed plan would put a financial strain on the university.
“We are pretending that this doesn’t amount to what would count as a free class to students,” Farish said. “This would be extremely difficult to manage from the perspective of the Bursar and Registrar’s office.
“There is no easy way to tell what people are taking each semester. The programming expense would be more than the cost to implement it.”
Despite being overruled by the administration, the SGA is confident in its power to be a voice for the student body. SGA President Elizabeth Palmer said that although the SGA is not the final word on issues such as the 17/34 Resolution, the organization can still recommend and has a voice in the administration.
“We are a lobbying entity working with the faculty and administration on the students’ behalf,” Palmer said. “Students need to realize this is the only channel to voice your concerns, the only way we can get stuff done and to talk to the administration.”
Palmer said the SGA has influence, but only two student Board of Trustee members have the power. Student trustee members serve on faculty committees and cast votes on behalf of the student body.
“They are the most important, influential students on campus,” Palmer said. “They vote on matters alongside board members.”
She described trustees as liaisons between the SGA and the board. Board of Trustee member Steven Rivera is one of the two students who serve a two-year term on the University President’s committee.
“We have always been a welcomed edition to the board by the administration and the Trustees,” Rivera said. “Another note that I must make is that only the Student Trustee serving his or her second year is allowed to vote.”
Beyond the trustees, Rowan requires all members of the SGA E-board to serve on university boards.
“I know that the President values student’s opinions very highly, and a student sits on his advisory committee,” Milou said. “On all issues, he always asks: how will the decision affect students?”
Milou relayed the faculty’s disappointment with the administration’s decision, although he shared the faculty’s understanding that it comes down to financial matters. Regarding the Faculty Senate committees, Milou said the fact that there is limited student participation involved and that attendance is not monitored by the SGA.
“The University Senate has spots available on Senate committees for students,” Milou said. “It is the SGA’s responsibility to fill them. It is rare though that the students selected participate. In fact, they almost never attend meetings.”
Senate Chair Caitlin Flanagan, the SGA member responsible for assigning students to specific committees, disagrees. Flanagan said that all members are eager to participate and only one SGA board member has scheduling conflicts. She assigns SGA members and alternates to the spots and follows up with them by reviewing minutes from each meeting.
“In the past I do not think attendance was ever ‘kept track of’ students on University Committees,” she said. “I know that when E-Board members cannot make a meeting they try to get others to go in their place, and that is what all members should do – that’s why there are alternates.”
Overall, Milou suggested that if the SGA wants more influence to provide students with a united voice, then the organization should develop new formal resolution policies and increase visibility.
“In the end, Senate and SGA are not the decision-makers,” Farish said. “It’s important to note those in charge of the decision making process in this is the Board of Trustees.”