ASUN Senate Report 75-23 on Apportionment Bill

8/14/2019 ASUN Senate Report 75-23 on Apportionment Bill

1/10

75 TH SESSION REPORT 20072008 7523} { ASUN SENATE

SENATE APPORTIONMENT CONTROL ACT OF 2007

J ANUARY 21, 2008.Reported to the Senate and ordered printed

Mr. T ODD , from the Committee on Interim Operations,submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany S. B. 75-31]

The Committee on Interim Operations, having had under consider-ation S. B. 75-31, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the Senatewith the recommendation that the bill be passed.

P URPOSE AND SUMMARY The bill provides for the biennial apportionment of the ASUN Se-

nate as mandated by the ASUN Constitution at Article II, section1(b), which reads:

A PPORTIONMENT OF SEATS .Each college and school shallhave at least one seat. Thereafter, the seats shall be appor-tioned among the colleges and schools proportionally accord-ing to their respective enrollment numbers. Theapportionment and number shall be set by law every twoyears.

The Constitution further provides that the Senate shall be composed

of not more than twenty-two Senators (Art. II, sec 1(a). The Senatewas last apportioned during the 73d Session for the 74th and 75thSessions.

The Committee, acting on data made available in the by the Officeof Institutional Analysis, finds that the apportionment of the ASUNSenate for the next two sessions should be adjusted as detailed in thisreport. The Committee also finds that the Senates membershipshould remain at the maximum of 22 members in order to maintainthe highest ratio of senators to students as constitutionally possible.


2/10

2

Apportionment is determined by the equal proportion method. Themethod assigns seats in the Senate according to a priority value. Thepriority value is determined by multiplying the population of a collegeor school by a multiplier. This is done by using the following formula.

A =P

n(n + 1 )

Where: P equals the college or schools population; andn represents the number of seats a college or school would

have if it gained a seat

The multiplier is determined according to the following formula.

M(2,3,22) =1

n(n 1)

Since there are 22 seats, multipliers are calculated for 22 seats.The resulting table of multipliers is detailed in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1. MULTIPLIERS FOR SENATE SEATSSEAT NUMBER MULTIPLIER

2 0.7071067813 0.408248294 0.2886751355 0.2236067986 0.1825741867 0.154303358 0.1336306219 0.11785113

10 0.10540925511 0.09534625912 0.08703882813 0.08006407714 0.07412493215 0.06900655616 0.06454972217 0.06063390618 0.05716619519 0.05407380720 0.05129891821 0.04879500422 0.046524211


3/10

3

TABLE 2. FALL 2007 HEADCOUNT BY COLLEGE, UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

COLLEGE/SCHOOL N% OF

TOTAL NBusiness 1911 15.17%CABNR 812 6.44%Education 831 6.60%Engineering 1326 10.52%HHS 1304 10.35% Journalism 520 4.13%Liberal Arts 4729 37.53%Medicine 77 0.61%Science 1089 8.64%

TOTAL 12336 100.00%

Using the population figures from the table above, and the appor-tionment formula, priorities for each seat above 1 is calculated, asshown in Table 3 below. Seats 23-24, which are constitutionally im-permissible, are included to show the next seats that would be allo-cated if those seats were allowed.

TABLE 3. PRIORITIES CALCULATED FOR SEATS 10-24

SEAT COLLEGECOLLEGE

SEATPRIORITY

VALUE10 CLA 2 3343.90811 CLA 3 1930.606

12 CLA 4 1365.14513 COBA 2 1351.28114 CLA 5 1057.43715 COEng 2 937.623616 HHS 2 922.067217 CLA 6 863.393318 COBA 3 780.162519 COS 2 770.039320 CLA 7 729.700521 CLA 8 631.939222 COEd 2 587.605723 CABNR (2) 574.170724 COBA (4) 551.6582


4/10

4

Based on the priority values calculated, the apportionment for thenext two sessions should be as detailed in Table 4 below.

TABLE 4. PROPOSED APPORTIONMENTCOLLEGE/SCHOOL APPORTIONMENT CHANGEBusiness 3 0CABNR 1 0Education 2 0Engineering 2 0HHS 2 -1 Journalism 1 0Liberal Arts 8 +1Medicine 1 0Science 2 0TOTAL 22

Sections 2 and 3 of the bill provide that the apportionment of theSenate will be done as laid out in this report.

Section 4 of the bill enacts the equal proportion method. It also setsout a process for the apportionment process for future senates. Theprocess states that the President is to publish the apportionmentbased on the equal proportion method set out above.

Section 5 of the bill makes conforming changes to the Code of Elec-tions regarding eligibility to vote for senators and the ability to runfor a Senate seat. This is necessary because of the methodology Insti-tutional Analysis uses to report headcount figures for each collegeand school. The University only counts students once regardless of whether the student is enrolled in more than one major area of study.For example, if a student is enrolled in major programs in the Collegeof Liberal Arts and the College of Business Administration, the stu-dent will be counted once based on which school he first enrolled. Be-cause of this limitation, it is necessary to require that students areable to run and vote only in their recorded area of study according toInstitutional Analysis and Admissions and Records.

CONSTITUTIONAL A UTHORITY STATEMENT The Committee finds that the Constitutional authority for this leg-

islation is provided in Article II, section 1 (a)-(b), which grants theSenate the authority to apportion the Senate; and in Article II, sec-tion 3(a)(1), which grants the Senate the power to enact legislation

necessary and proper for the Association.


5/10

5

C HANGES IN E XISTING L AW As a courtesy, changes in the existing law made by the bill, as re-

ported, are shown as follows (existing statute proposed to be omittedis struck through, new matter is printed in italic, existing statute inwhich no change is proposed is shown in roman):

CODE OF ELECTIONS

* * * * * * * 8. Candidates

(c) ***(4) Candidates for Senate who are members of multiple col-

leges or schools shall file under only one college of their pref e-

rence. Candidates may only file for one office. the college of schoolin which they first enrolled and are currently enrolled, as reportedby the Office of Admissions and Records.

* * * * * * * 9. Qualifications of voters

(b) Students shall vote in the college(s) or school(s) to which theybelong. Students shall vote in the college or school in which the stu-dent first enrolled into and is currently enrolled, as reported by theOffice of Admissions and records.

* * * * * * *


6/10

(6)

DISSENTING VIEWS OF SEN. SEAN MCDONALD A very important part of this story exists that has been glossed

over by the Majority, and I believe it requires some exploration. Theapportionment the Majority reports out to the Senate is inaccurateand does not reflect the actual enrollment numbers in each collegeand school, as is required by the Constitution. The Majority makes noeffort to point out that critical flaw.

The Constitution requires that the Senate be apportioned in a par-ticular manner. The pertinent clause in the Constitution is below.

A PPORTIONMENT OF SEATS .Each college and school shallhave at least one seat. Thereafter, the seats shall be appor-tioned among the colleges and schools proportionally accord-ing to their respective enrollment numbers. The

apportionment and number shall be set by law every twoyears.(Art. II, sec 1(b)). It is not in dispute that each college and school

gets one seat to begin with. That is a simple assignment to be madeand requires no other knowledge than to know what constitutes a col-lege or a school at the University. This is where things get a littletrickier.

Thereafter, the Constitution states, the seats shall be appor-tioned among the colleges and schools proportionally according totheir respective enrollment numbers (Emphasis added). The phraseenrollment numbers is the critical element that the Committeeoverlooks when assigning seats to the colleges and schools in this ap-portionment bill.

The Committee received written testimony from Mr. Arthur Che-nin, a research analysis in the Institutional Analysis Office. He statedthat the Universitys student enrollment software, Student Informa-tion System (or SIS), is incapable of tracking and reporting multipleenrollments by a single student. This creates an unacceptable defi-ciency in our apportionment method.

I read enrollment numbers in each college and school to mean thetotal number of students enrolled in a major area of student in anygiven college or school. Perhaps a practical example will help to eluci-date the problem.

Take two students, John and Jane Doe (they are not related). As-sume they are the only two students at the University. John isenrolled in the fall of 2004 as a History major. Jane Doe entered atthe same time and declared an Economics major. They are enrolled inthe Colleges of Liberal Arts and Business Administration, respective-ly. In the fall of 2006, Jane decided to declare a second major, Politi-cal Science. As of fall 2006, Jane is enrolled in two colleges, Business


7/10

7

Administration and Liberal Arts. In fall 2007, a campus census isconducted. 1

The flaw in this method should be readily apparent. The countshould show three enrollments, because Jane is enrolled concurrentlyin two colleges. Unfortunately, the University is incapable of trackingthose numbers until Janes degrees post at graduation time.

The census reveals that there are two students enrolledat the University. The census also reveals that the enrollment in eachcollege is one student: one enrollment in each the College of Liberal

Arts and the College of Business Administration.

The consequences for the Senate are pronounced. Because multipleenrollments are not counted, the Senate may be malapportioned. If students tend to have second majors in the College of Liberal Arts, forinstance, the numbers (proportionally speaking) may warrant moreseats for Liberal Arts.

I fully recognize that the Senate relies on the University to reportto use the numbers, because we are not in a position to conduct ourown campuswide census. However, we need to acknowledge the defi-ciency and work to push the institution to correct it. Many campusadministrators may not even know of this statistical deficiency. A conversation had with an administrator in the College of Liberal ArtsDeans Office revealed as much.

There is at least one alternate to apportioning the Senate. Studentcredit hours, which is a measure of the total number of classes taken,could be used to apportion the Senate instead of headcount numbers.The Constitution in this respect is vague. Enrollment numbers iswhat it states, but which enrollment numbers? Enrollment by head-count? By classes taken? Because the Constitution is vague on thissubject, I believe the Senate would be within its constitutional power

and authority to use student credit hours instead.The table below (Table D-1) shows the result of using student credithours reported for fall 2007.

__________1 In fact, a census is taken each semester at the close of late registration. This census is used todetermine the population of the University and the enrollment headcounts for each college andschool.


8/10

8

TABLE D-1. APPORTIONMENT BASED ON STUDENT CREDIT HOURS

COLLEGE/SCHOOL N% OF

TOTAL NNO. OFSEATS APPORTIONMENT

Business 18572 13.22% 2.90799 3CABNR 6230 4.43% 0.97549 1Education 5359 3.81% 0.83911 1Engineering 7921 5.64% 1.24026 1HHS 13699 9.75% 2.14498 2 Journalism 2662 1.89% 0.41681 1Liberal Arts 54367 38.69% 8.51274 8Medicine 1138 0.81% 0.17819 1

Science 30556 21.75% 4.78443 4TOTAL 12336 100.00% 22 22

The table shows that the difference between apportionment basedon inaccurate headcount numbers and student credit hours is 4 seatsto Science, instead of 2, at the expense of one seat each from Engi-neering and Education.

Student credit hours may actually be a better way to conduct ap-portionment for one very important reason: we get our student feerevenues based on the exact same number. ASUN derives its studentfee revenues based on a formula, which states that ASUN will receive$3.34 per undergraduate credit taken. That is derived by taking thenumber of credit hours taken in a given year multiplying it by thedollar figure. From a standpoint of equity, the colleges that are pay-ing the most in taxes to ASUN should get proportionally equivalentrepresentation in the Senate.

However, this method presents its own challenges. Instead of representing people, you are representing the colleges which can at-tract the most students in classes. For example, all students musttake at least one science course. Even an art student will take twoscience courses, inflating the allocation of seats to the College of Science, as is reflected in the table above. Because of the challengesthat may be presented by this method, I do not strongly advocate us-ing this methodology, with a reservation.

In the Committee I offered a bill as an alternate to the draft bySenator Anderson. My version remains as the underlying bill re-ported from the Committee, with one significant exception. My billincluded language that made a finding with respect to the inadequacyof the Universitys accounting methodology with respect to enrollmentnumbers. The Committee, in a misguided effort calling it unneces-sary, struck the section from the bill. I have included that section inmy dissenting views (below) because I believe it is something weshould state as a Senate when we enact into law an apportionment


9/10

9

method we know is deficient, but is, unfortunately, the best methodavailable given the circumstances.

SECTION 5 OF MCDONALD APPORTIONMENT BILL , STRICKEN IN REPORTED VERSION

SEC. ___. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ENROLLMENT HEADCOUNTS.(a) F INDINGS .The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate relies solely on the University, particularly the Office of Institu-tional Analysis, to report every two years the current enrollment headcount figuresfor each college and school in order to conduct the constitutionally required reap-portionment of seats in the Senate.

(2) The Constitution of the Associated Students requires that the Senate be ap-portioned proportionally according to [the] respective enrollment numbers of eachcollege and school, each to receive at least one seat.

(3) According to the University, Official headcount enrollment numbers aretaken from a point-in-time snapshot taken on the census date, which is at the endof late registration each semester. (Offices of Institutional Analysis and Admis-sion and Records).

(4) The Universitys method for conducting an enrollment headcount in eachcollege and school is limited to counting each student only once, based upon thestudents first declared major area of study. The system does not track, and there-fore the University is unable to report to the Association, the actual enrollmentnumbers in each college in such a manner as to count the enrollment of any par-ticular student one time for each declared major area of study, which would resultin a total enrollment count greater than the number of unique undergraduate stu-dents enrolled at the University.

(5) The Universitys only way of electronically and programmatically trackingand reporting multiple enrollments of a single student is after the student hasgraduated from the University when the data is manually inputted into the sys-tem.

(6) The Universitys method of reporting enrollment figures results in the Senatebeing physically incapable of complying with the literal language of the Constitu-tion in apportioning the Senate according to the actual enrollment numbers ineach college and school, taking into account students enrolled in more than one col-lege or school.

(7) This incapacity to properly apportion the Senate directly results in a malap-portioned Senate, which violates the Constitution.

(8) The only remaining option is for the Senate to conduct its own census of themembers of the Association, which is neither feasible nor desirable, due to the lackof an accurate reporting methodology and the great expense that would have to beincurred to conduct such a census.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE .Because of the seriousness of the Senate being unable toapportion representation in compliance with the Constitution of the Associated Stu-dents, it is the sense of the Senate that

(1) the University work expeditiously to develop a system that is able to accu-rately report the actual enrollment numbers accounting for a students enrollmentin more than one college or school; and

(2) the President of the Associated Students take any and all action necessary toensure that any future version of a student information database have the capabil-ity of tracking multiple enrollments of a single student.

I intend to offer this language again at the Senate table because Ifeel that it is absolutely important that we make these findings andproceed forward in good faith. With the section included in the bill, itmay stave off any judicial modification of our apportionment method.I believe that if we enact the method advocated by the Majority, we


10/10

10

will open the apportionment to an immediate challenge in the Judi-cial Council on the grounds that it malapportions the seats. Withelections rapidly approaching, any judicially mandated change to theapportionment process could have the potential to create havoc dur-ing the election. Rather than allow for that potential, a simple senseof the Senate could go a long way toward avoiding that problem.

The section does not state any binding policy and does not changethe method advocated by the Committee. It does state in unequivocalterms that the Senate acknowledges the deficiency in the countingmethod but is proceeding forward anyway in good faith and as hasalways been done in memory. With the Judicial Council mindful of this statement, they may be less willing to overturn the methodology.

For the foregoing reasons, I must respectfully dissent from theCommittees report.

SEAN MCDONALD .

Documents

ASUN Senate Report 75-23 on Apportionment Bill