On April 10, 2014, a vote will be held to determine the future of the Rensselaer Union. Up for vote is an amendment to the Rensselaer Union Constitution, purportedly to reorganize aspects of student government in long-overdue ways. While the reorganization may be necessary, there are a number of serious problems with the document's text. These issues undermine the independence and student-run nature of the Rensselaer Union, and the document should not be allowed to pass referendum until the issues are corrected.

A group of concerned students and alumni are publishing this information in order to inform all RPI students of the problems with this amendment.

In the 1987 constitution, as amended, the Director of the Union is clearly not an officer of the Union. In this document, an explicit limit on the power of the director is stated.

In the 2013 constitution, the Director of the Union is still not explicitly listed as an officer of the Union, although the language describing the director position has been moved under the heading of "Officers".

In the proposed 2014 constitution, the Director of the Union is explicitly made an officer of the Union. The amendment's proponents claim that this has always been the case; however, reading the 1987 document shows that this claim is preposterous. The proposal contains a contradiction in terms: it states that only members of the Union may be officers of organizations under its jurisdiction, then proceeds to declare a non-member to be an officer of the Union.

In the proposed amendment, the language explicitly limiting the power of the director is removed. While the director is not explicitly granted more power by the amendment, removing this language alters the spirit of the document. Removing it removes the constitution's stated intent to limit the director's power.

The 1987 and 2013 constitutions grant the Executive Board, a body composed entirely of students, substantial power over the Union administrative staff. According to those documents:

[The Executive Board] shall approve the hiring and continuance of all administrative personnel of the Union.

The proposed amendment would substantially curtail that power, instead vesting it in the Director of the Union. Article 5, Section 8 of the proposed constitution states:

[The Executive Board] may make recommendations regarding Union administrative personnel to the Director of the Union.

By approving this small change, students would give up an important aspect of control over their Union.

The reason cited for this change is to align the constitution with Institute human resources policy, but if the Union is to remain a truly student-run entity, then it is actually the HR policy that needs to be aligned with that goal.

The amendment requires that any charges of misconduct by students against the Director of the Union must be brought to the Vice President for Student Life, due to stipulations of Institute HR policy. While compliance with HR policy is certainly important, it is imperative that the students of the Union be the final judge of a Director's competence or lack thereof. Eliminating or reducing the power of the students to remove a director leads the Union away from its status as a student-run organization.

The amendment comments state that litigation could be brought against the Union (presumably internal litigation) in the event that a director is improperly removed against HR policies. Indeed, this is precisely the responsibility of the judicial branch of government. The constitution should not seek to eliminate the possibility of such litigation; instead, it should place trust in the student members of the Union to take appropriate action, and trust in the judicial process to mete out appropriate sanctions if the removal process is ever abused.

In all Union constitutions to date, the purpose of the Union has been, first and foremost,

to unite all its members in a commitment to the ideals for which Rensselaer stands.

In the amended constitution, this language is deleted without explanation.

In the amended constitution, in order for a GM, PU, or senator to be removed by popular vote, 40 percent of that person's constituents must participate in the voting. This is up from 20 percent in the 2013 constitution.

The amendment makes it trivial for a PU to remove members of the Executive Board. In the 1987 and 2013 constitutions, in order for a board member to be removed, the removal needs to be confirmed and approved by the Student Senate. Should the proposal pass, a PU could remove a board member singlehandedly, provided the Senate failed to act to reverse the removal.

Beginning with the 2013 amendment, changes to the Rensselaer Union Constitution have been made "in-line" with the text. This is in contrast to the previous method of appending amendments to the end of the document.

Proponents of the constitution, when questioned, seemed unaware that certain changes had even been made. Is it responsible to pass a constitution that even its own writers may not understand?