Student Assembly Revisited?

To the Editors of the Crimson:

I write in regard to Jean Engelmayer's article "Council Defeats Plan to Force Members to Stay at Meetings." In particular, I refer to her statement. "The lack of attendance at the budget vote and other recent meetings brought back memories of the closing meeting of the Student Assembly...when only 21 members attended."

Perhaps I am oversensitive--after all the closing days of the Student Assembly represent the antithesis of what the council views as effective student government Nevertheless, I must point out the error of such an analogy.

1. Never has the council been unable to begin one if its regularly scheduled meetings due to the lack of a quorum. I think that being unable to summon more than 21 members to the begining of a meeting is qualitatively distinct from being two members shy at 10 p.m.

2. The Council has an attendance policy which automatically expels any member after missing three meetings--the Assembly never had a similar policy.

I do not mean by these comments either to condemn or condone those members of council who leave meetings early. Still, it is a cause for concern that more council members do not view it as their duty to remain for the duration of all meetings--even long ones. I do feel, however, that the reporter's analogy exaggerates the breadth of this problem.

In conclusion, then, I must ask to whom did the early departure of council members bring back memories? Greg Lyss   Chair, HRUC