In a hasty move, the Union Senate drastically changed the club chartering process -- making it significantly more difficult for a club to become chartered. The unpopular new bylaw should be reconsidered not only because it was passed too quickly and without the knowledge of the students it affects, but because the legislation itself is deeply flawed. Only Castle Quad Senator Pamela Hoffman '03 had the wisdom to oppose the measure. We applaud her vocal dissent. The new procedure requires a club to collect 200 student signatures -- 20 of whom must pledge to actively participate in the club. This change marks a drastic increase from the 10 student signatures previously required. The new provision violates the spirit of individuality that makes this university's student life stand out. Brandeis has long been proud of the diversity of clubs and the ease with which unique clubs have been chartered.

This new bylaw was passed by the Senate at their last meeting of the semester, allowing for virtually no student input on the issue. Despite the importance of the bylaw, even the Executive-board had "very little" involvement in the process, according to Vice President Alex Lo '03. Only after passing the bylaw and receiving many complaints did the Senate decide to hold a forum, to discuss these new changes with the students they represent. And, in a politically-savvy move, President Ben Brandzel '03 condemned the bylaw in his Dec. 6 State of the Union speech. But this action was too little, too late.

The signature requirement may make it nearly impossible for some clubs to be chartered simply because they appeal only to a few individuals. Last semester, few if any of over 25-newly chartered clubs would have met the membership requirement. So, while the Senate may claim that requiring 200 signatures is just an "awareness-raising" clause, it will instead become a filter to prohibit the chartering of smaller, esoteric organizations. Student outcry prompted the Senate to defend itself in an all-campus e-mail that failed to adequately justify their action; a poll on myBrandeis.edu indicates that 78.2% percent of the 216 students polled opposed the bylaw. Given the backlash, we would like to see the Senate produce even 200 students who would support their bylaw.

The new bylaw does allow for the executive senator to permit clubs to be presented to the Senate if extenuating circumstances exist for a club not meeting the signature provision. This gives arbitrary and potentially discriminatory power to one person, and in the future may prevent unpopular groups from being chartered. Pro-life, anti-gun control or anti-Zionist organizations may go against the values of most students, but because everyone contributes to the SAF, these groups still deserves to vie for these funds.

While it is true that the Allocation Board (A-Board) gets requests for over three times the amount of money that it can allocate, the A-Board and Club Liaison Nathaniel Westheimer '05 were not consulted about the bylaw and for the most part have voiced disapproval. The bylaw does not check the number of clubs already in existence, and probably unforeseen by the Senate, will result in a greater number of recognized clubs vying for the money the Senate allocates to recognized groups. This new competition will make the already too-long Senate meetings even more encumbered by mundane details. The Duplicity of Purpose clause prevents the chartering of clubs with too similar purposes. It would be more valuable for the Senate to reevaluate existing clubs and continue to enforce the clause for potential new groups.

In addition, the Ways and Means committee, responsible for the bylaw, was unknown to most students and its two meetings went on without any public notice. According to the Senate's e-mail "a staggering number of hours" went into debate and development of the bylaw, yet the measure was only put on the agenda on Nov. 24 and reappeared only once more, the day it was passed, Dec. 1. Given the importance of the measure and in light of the widely-publicized Kraft referendum, it is incumbent on the Senate to actively engage the student body through forums and e-mail priori to the vote.

This bylaw is ineffective and we encourage the senate to repeal it and if they will not, students should take measures to repeal it themselves by proposing a constitutional amendment to go before the student body.