During an interview for last week’s article entitled "Senators Accuse Senate of Misconduct," ASPC President Brian Andrews ’01 concluded by asking author and Editor-in-Chief Nora Lawrence, "Do you want a war, Nora?" As a student of Politics, and a politician himself, Andrews should have remembered that the separation of powers precludes the President from declaring war; that’s the job of the Senate itself. Andrews’ misunderstanding of where his power and discretion ends, and where Senate’s as a whole begins, has been one that has plagued his dealings with The Student Life, and, presumably, with other organizations on campus.

In a Collage article dated February 19, Andrews said he was concerned that TSL would turn the secret meetings "into some sort of scandal, and the Senate would respond in kind…." Leaving aside Andrews’ belief that the students of Pomona College can’t tell the difference between a proper scandal and a "non-issue," Andrews also seems confused as to what Senate’s response to the article would be.

This was a story created by an e-mail leaked by a senator who wished to remain anonymous. Additionally, by the time anything was discussed at the secret meeting in the fall, there may not have been a quorum present simply because a fair number of Senators refused to take part. So it doesn’t seem that it would be Senate as a whole that would be interested in warring with TSL. Perhaps there was only one person interested in backing up that threat: Andrews himself. He’s the only one who has expressed any concern about the integrity or fairness of Lawrence’s article to TSL.

In a subsequent meeting with TSL last Monday, Andrews suggested changes to our Constitution that he claimed were the opinion of Senate. We argued that we wanted to hear from individual Senators what their feelings were, as we had no way of knowing, through Andrews’ account, what the entirety of Senate truly thought. In the interest of public debate and democratic decision making, TSL asked Andrews for a slot on the agenda of the next day’s Senate meeting. He then refused to do so for an extended period of time.

Eventually, TSL’s constitution was put on the agenda. Interestingly, discussion at the meeting centered around a completely different set of issues than those Andrews had represented to us as the concerns of the Senate at large. There are three explanations for this phenomenon. The first, and least likely, is that Andrews was simply lying to TSL in his discussions. A second, more likely possibility, is that Andrews was privileging his own points of view (which he did not raise in the meeting itself). Finally, and most likely, is that having TSL present at a discussion of TSL’s Constitution radically and importantly altered the nature of those discussions. Keeping TSL and Senate alienated from one another was not a tactic which would ever result in useful resolution.

Tuesday’s Senate meeting went very well and helped to strengthen TSL’s Constitution, which is currently under revision, at the same time that the meeting seemed to have allayed the fears of some senators.

Whether or not the secret meeting in fall, or the Senate Retreat a few weeks ago technically violated the Senate’s constitution, they certainly violated the spirit of openness and discussion upon which one would think both politicians and journalists would be able to agree. It is open discussion that is likely to yield the best results for all parties involved, and, contrary to Andrews’ claim, the least likely to produce a bitter fight.