SGA suspends resolution, cites uncertainty

Jacob Downey, Luke Young

Hes/Hims

Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor

10/9/23

SGA has voted to table discussion on Resolution 2324.2, [Amendment Clarification of Public Votes] so that they may “deliberate as an E-Board,” according to Vice Speaker Christyan Cimino, who has recently been elected the interim parliamentarian. This motion was followed by roughly twenty minutes of trying to figure out what tabling something actually means, the realization it was not what Ciminio had assumed, and the decision to suspend the resolution until their next meeting on Oct. 9.

Cimino, David Woltag, Nicole Reynolds, Liam Leavitt, Aidan Cooke, Nathan Sperry, Rosella Rentas, Will Hicking, and Skyler Hammes voted to suspend the vote.

Devonte Gilmore, Daniela Duque, Hannah Lowell, Quinn Haggerty, and Erin Johnston opposed the delay.

While an argument could be made that the postponement of the amendment is in the interest of preparing the best possible solution, that solution already exists; It is detailed in both Loughlin’s resolution as well as RSA 91A. If the laws governing every other public body in the state are not good enough for SGA, then perhaps the organization cannot function.

Concerns about transparency aside, SGA’s members and advisor, Jessica Dutille, have repeatedly responded to criticism with the fact that members are still learning and cannot be expected to be proficient so early in the year. What’s frustrating about this rhetoric is the truth behind it. No individual member of SGA is the cause of their current failings. The core of the issue is that SGA is an organization that only seems interested in putting out fires as they appear. Without coordination and codification of procedures, everything is left to the interpretation of the most senior, or at least most vocal, members in the room.

An organization should not have to rely on individual brilliance to continue to function. Rather, it should focus on preserving institutional stability that allows all members to thrive and come into their roles more gradually.

For example, Liam Leavitt, Class of ‘26 Vice President and E-board Secretary, is currently responsible for taking the minutes on SGA meetings while also serving as a voting member. SGA expects a single person to contribute to conversations he is also meant to document. These two roles actively conflict with each other and yet, pending a discussion with Student Body Vice-President Nicole Reynolds following Monday’s meeting, the issue never seems to have occurred to the E-Board of SGA. A potential solution would be to make the secretary a non-voting position, preserving the integrity of the minutes while providing every voting member the opportunity to pay full attention to matters at hand.

During Monday’s meeting, Plymouth Town Manager Scott Weden shared information about how Plymouth plans to deal with Sunday’s festivities. While each SGA class did make a vague announcement to their respective social media, they have yet to share the information in any official capacity. Though it has repeatedly been stated that a OneDrive for meeting minutes will be ready soon and that SGA is considering sharing their minutes via Instagram, there does not appear to be any interest at this time in actively pursuing a solution. SGA’s ability to represent the student body is severely limited by their inability to disperse info that concerns us. Rather than relying on an interested party having immediate access to a member with the time to forward the meeting minutes, were SGA to put as much effort into publicizing their dealings as they do explaining why they have yet to, a solution may be found.

SGA has not been built in a way that promotes outcomes. Their bylaws are sparse, their procedures are hearsay, and they appear too apathetic to make the changes that need to be made for their ‘club’ to be the representative body they are supposed to be. 

Voting on Resolution 2324.2 is scheduled to take place on Monday, Oct. 9.