I previously wrote about the Student Assembly's community clause, which, in a bid to increase student participation at its meetings, would grant voting rights to students in attendance. Since then, I took the plunge and attended my first-ever S.A. meeting. It is not exactly on the list of 161 things to do before you graduate, but I can now say I did it.

While the turnout in the gallery was decent at first, most stayed only to give a presentation, leaving after they finished. At the end of the meeting, only two remained in the gallery: myself and a Sun reporter.

That alone shows why the S.A. needs the community clause. Previously, it had been suggested by S.A. Representatives Alex Latella ’10 and Jon Rau ’12 that we should instead invest more effort into student committees. However, at the meeting, I discovered that the S.A. was hesitant about increasing committee sizes in the future, and that one of the recently expanded committees had not met several times because not enough members had shown up to reach a quorum.

The status quo is broken. Expanding committees has not changed that. If the S.A. wants to stop talking about student participation and pass something that can produce tangible results, then it should vote for the community clause.

Not only did devolving the selection of the president and vice-president to the students increase the turnout, but the voters elected Rammy Salem ’10 and Ola Williams ’10, who ran on the platform of the community clause. This clause has the most momentum and the best chance to increase student participation. While there was some doubt surrounding it, I doubt they could find a better idea.

The newest version of the community clause collectively grants two votes to the entire student gallery (or one if only one person shows) on some resolutions. Thus, if the voice of the S.A. is closely divided, then a majority of the students can override them.

Yes, there are still some minor flaws. The first version of any legislation that passes will have flaws, much like the first version of any software product will have flaws. However, despite their flaws, these software products still make life easier than it was before the software, and the first version sets the foundation for latter, more polished versions. The same holds for the community clause.

If the S.A. focuses too much on details such as how this resolution would affect non-voting S.A. members like the liaison and the clerk, it may find that only the liaison and clerk are attending meetings. Some details are important, but the S.A. cannot lose focus of the big picture. Anyone can find flaws with the community clause, but do these flaws warrant rejecting it in favor of more empty student galleries?

Some counter that students will only come to further their own agendas; thus, the student vote will not truly represent the students. Others argue that the students have little actual power.

However, while I did not come to an S.A. meeting to learn about the status of committees, what I did learn about them gave me content for this column. And while I did not come to learn about the S.A. budget, nor could I vote on the budget if the community clause were in effect, I still witnessed the S.A. restore $500 of funding to the Student Assembly Finance Commission so they could buy t-shirts.

Now I did watch the entire debate, and I know the context behind this and the reasons for it. But after the meeting ended, I ran into a friend. Talking to him about the incident, he then told me about the tough budget cuts his student organization has been trying to cope with. And I doubt if they appealed, the S.A.F.C. would give them their money back on the same conditions they had their own funding restored.

I want the S.A.F.C. to explain why they need $500 for shirts in front of a gallery of packed student members. I want the S.A.F.C. to show why they cannot find another way to maintain their visibility to a gallery of students whose organizations have found creative solutions for their budget issues. I want the S.A. members who voted for this to explain themselves to students after the meeting.

After all, if I am dead wrong, I am sure the students would sympathize with the S.A.F.C. in regards to the shirts had they been at the meeting, right?

Ultimately, the goal of the S.A. is not to ensure they do not surrender too much power to the students; it is to serve the students. And that can prove difficult with empty student galleries resulting in little accountability for the Student Assembly. In response to my previous column, I received an e-mail from a former member of the Student Assembly. He told me the “S.A. can perform its duties well without students coming to every meeting and participating in them,” and that, in regards to the community clause, “when I was on the Executive Board last year, we had a good laugh at this notion.”

He also acted as if I and others wanted to turn the S.A. into an “Athenian democracy,” stripping the elected S.A. members of nearly all powers. This claim is a ridiculous straw man, as I am not trying to effectively dissolve the S.A. because I do not believe that is the best way to serve the students. At the same time, hypothetically, if it were the best way to serve the students, then why not do it?

Mike Wacker, a senior in the College of Engineering, is a former Sun Assistant Web Editor. He may be reached at mwacker@cornellsun.com. Wack Attack appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.