Proposed constitutional changes — or power grab?

By Thresher Editorial Board     1/28/25 10:59pm

Four months ago, the Student Association formed a special committee to review its constitution. Two days ago, members of the committee presented their findings, suggesting four major changes to functionally, they say, streamline the SA’s efficiency — granting them “ultimate authority” over Blanket Tax Organizations like student media and Rice Program Council, and eliminating BTO perspectives from the committee that disburses some $300,000 every year.

We read each proposed amendment, so you don’t have to. We’ll say what this looks like: a power grab.

We wonder what “ultimate authority” entails — at the Jan. 27 Senate, the committee (CRC, we guess — because nothing streamlines efficiency like another acronym) representatives said this means that the Senate would get final approval over the budgets for any and all BTOs.

---

---

But there is something more insidious here, too. At Senate, the CRC representatives discussed budgets, but didn’t clarify what “ultimate authority” over BTOs could look like. Will SA members have final say over the music played at ktru’s radio shows? Over the brand of condoms distributed at the Rice Women’s Resource Center? Over Beer Bike races, which demand endless months of extensive planning? Will we be impeached for writing this editorial?

We don’t know. That worries us. BTO leaders are elected by the student body to lead their respective groups — to keep the radio broadcasting, the newspaper printing, the health resources available, the traditions alive. Frankly, we don’t trust the SA to wield “ultimate authority” over these jobs. 

Another constitutional change would remove the two BTO leaders from the committee that oversees the spending of Blanket Tax’s some $300,000. The Thresher has traditionally been represented on that committee.

At Senate, the CRC representatives called BTO presence a “conflict of interest.” Leaders are not permitted to vote on the budget of their own organizations, and any increased budget requests are thoroughly scrutinized, but we’re not surprised that the amendment didn’t seem to reflect this knowledge. According to minutes from every Blanket Tax Committee meeting since September, one of the CRC representatives — also the current parliamentarian, a non-voting member — has only attended once. 

The new Blanket Tax Committee would only reflect the Student Association’s interests, without input from any other organization. We believe the federal government has a term for what this structure lacks: checks and balances.

We recognize the proposed addition of non-BTO students might mitigate this one-sidedness — though these members would be appointed by the SA president, we should add — but it’s not enough. The SA and non-BTO members don’t know, for example, how much it costs to print a weekly newspaper or to secure the necessary food, drink, tents and supplies for Beer Bike.

The Thresher reports on the actions of the Senate and the Editorial Board endorses candidates in elections. If no one from the Thresher, or from any BTO, serves on the committee, who stops SA members from hypothetically slashing newspaper funds if we published a critical story? What if the committee is overseen by a treasurer  — or president — we didn’t endorse in the election?

There’s more, too, that concerns us. Our first draft of this editorial was 900 words. We believe requiring SA voting members to sponsor any new legislation would discourage students from presenting new policies, and we don’t see the purpose in revoking the executive committee’s voting rights.

But we’ll circle back to the start, and pose a question to our readers. If the SA had “ultimate authority” over the Thresher, would you trust us?

We wouldn’t.

Editor’s Note: Thresher editorials are collectively written by the members of the Thresher’s editorial board. Current members include Riya Misra, Spring Chenjp, Maria Morkas, Sarah Knowlton, Sammy Baek, Shruti Patankar, Juliana Lightsey, Arman Saxena and Kathleen Ortiz.

---