The Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Senate is seeking to change its Elections Code and Apportionment Act for the 2005 USG elections because of the addition of Eastview Terrace.
East Halls Sens. Kim Roth and Matt Ritsko brought the resolution, which will define how Eastview Terrace will be represented, before USG Senate at Tuesday's meeting.
Seven to 12 members of the Internal Affairs Committee (IA) as well as interested Senate members will look at 2004's Election Code and make revisions within six weeks and return possible changes to the Senate.
"We have to figure out how to add [Eastview] into apportionment. Do we take one [seat] away from town and give it to Eastview?" Roth said. She added that allowing IA to review it would provide multiple opinions.
Administrative Vice President of the Association of Residence Halls Students (ARHS) Abbey Rhode said they proposed Eastview be represented in the Senate by a seat with speaking rights, not voting rights, this year.
"Hopefully in the new Elections Code there will be a permanent seat come next election," Rhode said.
A meeting was held last night to establish a government to represent Eastview Terrace and Nittany Apartments.
Rhode said ARHS would like to create a separate residence association called the Eastview Nittany Residence Association that would still be under the umbrella organization of ARHS.
USG President Galen Foulke sa id he would like to see representation in the Eastview and Nittany residence areas improve.
"Depending on the number of people living there, I think there should be at least one [seat added] and maybe two," Foulke said.
Off-Campus Student Union (OCSU) President Kristen Kofmehl said she did not think a seat should be taken from the town precinct unless it was warranted.
"I guess if students who would have normally moved to the town area moved to Eastview, it would be an appropriate decision," Kofmehl said. "There's no reason why Senate shouldn't add an extra seat."
Ritsko said the Elections Code covers topics such as the number of senators in a specific area, seat appropriations, presidential campaign funding caps, ballot design, where posters can be hung and voter rights, all of which could be revised.
Roth said the amount of money candidates could spend on elections was a sensitive issue last year, spurring internal USG lawsuits, and could be a point of contention this year too.
"The lawsuits were mainly between the court and the election commissioners regarding the presidential caps on spending," Ritsko said.
Last year, Ritsko said the Senate wanted the cap to be $1,000. The court argued that because the funds come from the candidate the cap should be at $500 so that people of all economic backgrounds would be able to run. The two bodies agreed on $550.
"Last year [the Elections Code revision] started so late and with the issue between the commissioners and the court and the $550, the Elections Code wasn't official until the second day of campaigning," Roth said.
Last year, the process began on Dec. 2, Ritsko said. He added that they wanted to start the process early this year to make changes before the elections.
"It [the Elections Code] tends to be one of those things that gets put on the backburner," Ritsko said. "Starting now allows for more thorough consideration."
