Editorial:
Student curator deserves a vote
Published March 5, 2010
A representative in the Missouri House sponsored a bill for a voting student curator on the Board of Curators once again. In this crucial year, it is important for all proponents to come together and push this through one way or another. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bryan Pratt, R-Blue Springs, states the student curator should become a voting member of the board if Missouri loses a congressional district.
When this specific idea originated, there was a large possibility Missouri would lose a congressional district and therefore, a curator, because there is one for each district. According to the latest projections from the Census Bureau, Missouri is less likely to lose the congressional district due to a 7 percent increase in the population.
The bill is unlikely to pass this session, and Missouri legislators must continue pursuing this issue. More than half of the UM system's operating budget comes from students, so it is important to keep students' interests in mind. As an integral part of the Missouri economy, the UM system and its success should be a top priority for legislators.
It is important for the legislators to stay up-to-date on the issue and understand both sides of the argument. The curators have historically opposed a voting student curator. Their stance is that students do not know the issues as well and the learning curve is too steep.
A student curator serves for two years, which is the same time duration as state representatives. Two years is not too little time to learn something. In addition, the candidates for student curators are not uninformed. They are often graduate students who come from a background of student government.
Curators have also claimed their disapproval lies in the fact it would create a biased board if a stakeholder were allowed to vote. In addition, they say other constituents, such as faculty, would want a vote. Students are actually shareholders because their money funds about half of the $1 billion budget. It would, in fact, be a better business approach to give shareholders a vote.
Unfortunately, curators have spent thousands of student dollars lobbying, and if they lobby against a student curator (as they have in the past), they are lobbying against student interest with student money.
Curators need to understand students are more than capable of understanding the issues and are likely to be more in touch with the issues because students are directly affected by the decisions of the Board of Curators.
It is important to note one member of the board being directly affected or having a reason to look at the direct impact rather than the long-term impact would not change the way the board runs. There would be a majority of less biased members with more institutional knowledge whose votes would also count. It might also be the case that a student is more knowledgeable about some topics. Not every curator is a UM alumnus but still might begin voting as soon as his or her term begins. Why is it ridiculous to think a student from a UM school should be able to do the same?
Having a student curator to represent the student body is helpful, but allowing the student a vote makes him or her more accountable. Also, because students play a large role in the funding and function of the UM system, it is important for curators to have their best interests in mind.
It has been proposed in the past to allow for a roll call vote in order to track how the student curator's vote would have played into the voting process. We think this could be valuable to reintroduce and implement for a variety of reasons.
First, it would allow patterns to be tracked. One could see how the student curator vote matches with the vote of the board or how often it represents the vote of the student body whose student governments often pass resolutions on similar issues in order to sway the Board of Curators.
In addition, it is a baby step that could lead to a full-fledged voting curator. The student curator, created in 1984, was not even allowed at all meetings until 1999. It was not until 2002 that then-Rep. Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, thought to give the student curator a vote. Any step in the right direction is a step we will accept because it clearly will not happen all at once.
Having a voting student curator is not a new thing to many schools outside the Big 12 either. Big Ten and public American Association of Universities schools were surveyed and 14 out of the 22 schools had a voting student curator. That is nearly half, but in the Big 12, only Iowa State University has a voting student curator. Why?
Student leaders, specifically the Associated Students of the University of Missouri, cannot let this issue die down. Keep pushing. Keep lobbying. Keep making our voices heard because it is important and it will not come easy.
Student curator Laura Confer also must continue setting a good example and being accountable to the students she represents. Show the curators and the legislators why students deserve a voice that counts.