At the last SLU Student Government Association senate session of the semester, held on Wednesday, April 22, the group voted on various new constitutional amendments, many of which failed to pass. The senate abandoned initiatives focused on creating scholarships as compensation for the executive board while failing to remove the vice president of international affairs position, due to a negative response from the student body.

Despite the fact that most bills failed to pass, many SLU students are upset that they were even considered in the first place.

The compensation package bill, SB 128-26, suggested the student activity fund as the source for SGA executive board scholarship payments. The SAF is typically used to pay for university organization events and every student pays into it as part of their tuition.

These changes come in lieu of budget shortages for many student organizations. SGA sent out a statement on April 21 proposing an increase to the student activity fee, detailing that “the core issue is not a lack of effort or intention, but a lack of available funds.”

The news of proposals to change the SAF fee and potentially fund SGA compensation has elevated concerns across different parts of the student body.

First-year SLU law student Nadia Schwieger said the series of potential changes raised her suspicions.

“It’s a big change for our idea of what the activity fee should generally be used for … for me, that was a red flag,” Schwieger said.

Schwieger said she heard about the changes from her senator, but did not see any form of widespread correspondence with the SLU student body before the email was released.

“I think that communication is key, especially when I’ve been told they’re trying to push for more transparency, but here there’s been none at all,” Schwieger said. “Having SGA on a resume is a benefit of itself … we want kids who are passionate about [public service], regardless of if they’re getting paid or not.”

Sophomore English major Lottie Wheeler cited poor communication as a large source of frustration she felt and had observed from her peers.

“I’m president of a club, and I’ve tried to remain aware of what SGA is doing, but I didn’t know about [the proposals] until today,” Wheeler said. “This will have an impact on a lot of people, but they won’t know until it’s too late.”

Several current and former senators said they felt that leadership had ignored the opinions of the people they are meant to represent.

“It feels like they’re giving themselves a pat on the back…the vote isn’t being sent outside, its just within our ranks,” an anonymous senator said.

Former senator and senior political science major Damian Sapp said SGA’s actions showed a pattern of related issues.

“Even when I was on SGA, we had a perception problem of being elitist, and it doesn’t seem to have changed with these proposals,” Sapp said.

Multiple students voiced their opinions about the potential changes online and to the SGA directly. Yik Yak, an anonymous localized social media platform with a large and active SLU community, has seen a surge in frustration against the compensation aspect.

One anonymous user posted: “Our budgets were decimated, and they want to increase the student activity fee but they can afford a spare $17k for people who chose to be on e-board…”

Some other SGA members have shared their frustration as well. First-year SLU law student and senator for the School of Law, Cydney Adams, said that compensation is not seen as part of the job description for SGA.

“It seems very selfish for a group that is supposed to be serving the student body,” Adams said. “[The proposal] brings up the issue of general integrity of what public service is meant to be.”

Other senators described the proposals as “poorly-timed.” Before the meeting, when considering SB 127-26, one anonymous senator said that the political context of international issues in the United States could not be ignored.

“I definitely do think we need more representation for international students on campus,” the senator said. “Especially because of the fears they’re facing today in the US  … it looks like the university is taking away from them.”

These controversial amendments were initially introduced at the end of a senate meeting on March 18 by a group of SGA executive members, including the current SGA President Grace Lopiccolo, Vice President of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Nathan Sewell and Vice President of Finance Richa Kulkarni. These potential changes were set to go into effect for the 2027-28 school year.

The group voted on four amendments in total, those being SB 127-26, which focused on removing the vice president of international affairs’ role, and SB 129-26, introducing a new director position. Lopiccolo, senior bioethics and health studies major, and the group said the change in titles would better reflect the actual amount of work done by each SGA leader.

The vote was split regarding the removal of the vice president of international affairs position. Those in support cited issues like the current political climate and the importance of representation on campus, while senators defending the bill highlighted that the senators for international affairs would still remain, and students of international status could still represent their constituents in other positions in SGA.

SB 127-26 did not pass after a vote of 12-22. However, the role was changed to a director position in a later amendment regarding the restructuring of the executive board, with a vote of 33-0-2.

SB 128-26 did not pass after a vote of 0-34, in part due to President Lopiccolo’s urging the senators to vote against the amendment. She did, however, also urge that the issue be raised again in future SGA initiatives, which would be made up of different students and faculty.

The final amendment, SB 129-26, which focused on shifting the layout of duties for each vice president and new director, as well as adding new fraternity and sorority life senators, was passed with a vote of 21-8 after a large number of changes. Former senator and senior political science major Anthony Chaboude said the shift is limiting for fraternity and sorority members.

“As someone who is in a fraternity, it’s a bad look to be adding specific senators for groups that people pay dues to be a part of, which limits the people that can be in this role,” Chaboude said.

Although some of these bills did not pass, their introduction to the senate has been viewed negatively by many students. Most have cited SGA’s proposal to raise the SAF and to use the fund to compensate their E-Board as their primary issue.

Adams said she saw these proposals as harmful to SGA’s connection to the student body.

“We’re concerned about the impact this will have on the relationship with the general student body … we try to be as transparent as we can, but there’s only so much one or two senators can do,” Adams said.

With the senate now adjourned for the semester, no changes can be made until the new senate and SGA executive board are seated in the fall and the future for many of these proposals will remain unclear.