The Student Union Senate is an organization that, first and foremost, strives to serve the needs of the Brandeis community.

Each senator is tasked with the goal of representing his or her constituents, and among his or her primary duties, to aim to advocate for these students during Senate meetings.
However, this board believes these needs are not being served. Several senators have missed three or more weekly meetings this semester and continue to exhibit only a sporadic commitment to their office.

In fact, Article Four of the Student Union bylaws states that, "senators shall attend all meetings of the Senate and committees on which they are assigned, except in extenuating circumstances may miss up to 2 Senate meetings per semester."

As a response to this disregard, the Senate passed two amendments on Oct. 28 that prescribe a cap of three unexcused absences.

If a Senator exceeds this limit, he or she will be asked to leave the Senate. The seat will then be filled by the candidate with the second-most votes in the prior election.

If that runner-up chooses to forgo the opportunity, then a special election will be held the following semester to determine the new representative.

Yet, this board feels as if this resolution should not have been necessary. The lack of attendance is a pervasive problem in this year's Senate. These students campaign for office with the desire to serve and advocate for their constituents' needs and wishes.
The lack of consistent attendance at these meetings, they are not present to vote on key resolutions and to propose distinct initiatives that could better the welfare of the Brandeis community.

Furthermore, clubs that wish to be recognized or chartered at these meetings must stand before a different group of senators each week, and as a result, face a convoluted and redundant process. If anything, this policy serves as a referendum on the senators that are neglecting their duties.

These senators must keep in mind their obligation to the position that they are sworn into at the outset of the school year. After all, these students enter office with a constant reminder of the implications and significance of such a commitment.

If they then feel as if the commitment is too burdensome, and instead choose to forsake the duties of their office, it costs the student body.

In such a case the student body no longer has representatives to advocate for their interests in relations with administration and other key University figures. Prospective senators should be well-aware of the responsibility inherent in such a position. If this proves to be an issue, they should yield the office and election to those who can manage such an obligation.

We hope that this policy serves as a reminder to senators that their commitment should not be taken lightly, and will not need to be invoked in the future.

More significantly, though, we wish to express that senators must adhere to the duties of their office and attend meetings to fulfill their vital roles as student advocates.

Otherwise, the student body will continue to be deprived of its voice in the University decision-making process.
*