You are on page 1of 10


2007–2008 } ASUN SENATE { REPORT



JANUARY 21, 2008.—Reported to the Senate and ordered printed

Mr. TODD, from the Committee on Interim Operations,

submitted the following


together with


[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 Senate
with the recommendation that the bill be passed.
The bill provides for the biennial apportionment of the ASUN Se-
nate as mandated by the ASUN Constitution at Article II, section
1(b), which reads:
APPORTIONMENT OF SEATS.—Each college and school shall
have 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 two
The Constitution further provides that the “Senate shall be composed
of not more than twenty-two Senators” (Art. II, sec 1(a). The Senate
was last apportioned during the 73d Session for the 74th and 75th
The Committee, acting on data made available in the by the Office
of Institutional Analysis, finds that the apportionment of the ASUN
Senate for the next two sessions should be adjusted as detailed in this
report. The Committee also finds that the Senate’s membership
should remain at the maximum of 22 members in order to maintain
the highest ratio of senators to students as constitutionally possible.
Apportionment is determined by the equal proportion method. The
method assigns seats in the Senate according to a priority value. The
priority value is determined by multiplying the population of a college
or school by a multiplier. This is done by using the following formula.

�n(n + 1)
P equals the college or school’s population; and
n 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) =
�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.


2 0.707106781
3 0.40824829
4 0.288675135
5 0.223606798
6 0.182574186
7 0.15430335
8 0.133630621
9 0.11785113
10 0.105409255
11 0.095346259
12 0.087038828
13 0.080064077
14 0.074124932
15 0.069006556
16 0.064549722
17 0.060633906
18 0.057166195
19 0.054073807
20 0.051298918
21 0.048795004
22 0.046524211
% OF
Business 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, as
shown 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.


10 CLA 2 3343.908
11 CLA 3 1930.606
12 CLA 4 1365.145
13 COBA 2 1351.281
14 CLA 5 1057.437
15 COEng 2 937.6236
16 HHS 2 922.0672
17 CLA 6 863.3933
18 COBA 3 780.1625
19 COS 2 770.0393
20 CLA 7 729.7005
21 CLA 8 631.9392
22 COEd 2 587.6057
23 CABNR (2) 574.1707
24 COBA (4) 551.6582
Based on the priority values calculated, the apportionment for the
next two sessions should be as detailed in Table 4 below.


Business 3 0
Education 2 0
Engineering 2 0
HHS 2 -1
Journalism 1 0
Liberal Arts 8 +1
Medicine 1 0
Science 2 0

Sections 2 and 3 of the bill provide that the apportionment of the

Senate will be done as laid out in this report.
Section 4 of the bill enacts the equal proportion method. It also sets
out a process for the apportionment process for future senates. The
process states that the President is to publish the apportionment
based 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 run
for a Senate seat. This is necessary because of the methodology Insti-
tutional Analysis uses to report headcount figures for each college
and 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 College
of 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 are
able to run and vote only in their recorded area of study according to
Institutional Analysis and Admissions and Records.
The Committee finds that the Constitutional authority for this leg-
islation is provided in Article II, section 1 (a)-(b), which grants the
Senate 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.
As a courtesy, changes in the existing law made by the bill, as re-
ported, are shown as follows (existing statute proposed to be omitted
is struck through, new matter is printed in italic, existing statute in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

* * * * * * *
§ 8. Candidates
(c) ***
(4) Candidates for Senate who are members of multiple col-
leges or schools shall file under only one college of their prefe-
rence. Candidates may only file for one office. the college of school
in which they first enrolled and are currently enrolled, as reported
by the Office of Admissions and Records.
* * * * * * *
§ 9. Qualifications of voters
(b) Students shall vote in the college(s) or school(s) to which they
belong. Students shall vote in the college or school in which the stu-
dent first enrolled into and is currently enrolled, as reported by the
Office of Admissions and records.
* * * * * * *
A very important part of this story exists that has been glossed
over by the Majority, and I believe it requires some exploration. The
apportionment the Majority reports out to the Senate is inaccurate
and does not reflect the actual enrollment numbers in each college
and school, as is required by the Constitution. The Majority makes no
effort 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.
APPORTIONMENT OF SEATS.—Each college and school shall
have 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 two
(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 made
and requires no other knowledge than to know what constitutes a col-
lege or a school at the University. This is where things get a little
“Thereafter,” the Constitution states, “the seats shall be appor-
tioned among the colleges and schools proportionally according to
their respective enrollment numbers” (Emphasis added). The phrase
“enrollment numbers” is the critical element that the Committee
overlooks 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 stated
that the University’s student enrollment software, Student Informa-
tion System (or SIS), is incapable of tracking and reporting multiple
enrollments 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 the
total number of students enrolled in a major area of student in any
given 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 is
enrolled in the fall of 2004 as a History major. Jane Doe entered at
the same time and declared an Economics major. They are enrolled in
the 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

Administration and Liberal Arts. In fall 2007, a campus census is
conducted. 1 The census reveals that there are two students enrolled
at the University. The census also reveals that the enrollment in each
college is one student: one enrollment in each the College of Liberal
Arts and the College of Business Administration.
The flaw in this method should be readily apparent. The count
should show three enrollments, because Jane is enrolled concurrently
in two colleges. Unfortunately, the University is incapable of tracking
those numbers until Jane’s degrees post at graduation time.
The consequences for the Senate are pronounced. Because multiple
enrollments are not counted, the Senate may be malapportioned. If
students tend to have second majors in the College of Liberal Arts, for
instance, the numbers (proportionally speaking) may warrant more
seats for Liberal Arts.
I fully recognize that the Senate relies on the University to report
to use the numbers, because we are not in a position to conduct our
own campuswide census. However, we need to acknowledge the defi-
ciency and work to push the institution to correct it. Many campus
administrators may not even know of this statistical deficiency. A
conversation had with an administrator in the College of Liberal Arts
Dean’s Office revealed as much.
There is at least one alternate to apportioning the Senate. Student
credit 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” is
what it states, but which enrollment numbers? Enrollment by head-
count? By classes taken? Because the Constitution is vague on this
subject, 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 credit
hours reported for fall 2007.

1 In fact, a “census” is taken each semester at the close of late registration. This census is used to
determine the population of the University and the enrollment headcounts for each college and


Business 18572 13.22% 2.90799 3
CABNR 6230 4.43% 0.97549 1
Education 5359 3.81% 0.83911 1
Engineering 7921 5.64% 1.24026 1
HHS 13699 9.75% 2.14498 2
Journalism 2662 1.89% 0.41681 1
Liberal Arts 54367 38.69% 8.51274 8
Medicine 1138 0.81% 0.17819 1
Science 30556 21.75% 4.78443 4
TOTAL 12336 100.00% 22 22

The table shows that the difference between apportionment based

on inaccurate headcount numbers and student credit hours is 4 seats
to 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 fee
revenues based on the exact same number. ASUN derives its student
fee revenues based on a formula, which states that ASUN will receive
$3.34 per undergraduate credit taken. That is derived by taking the
number of credit hours taken in a given year multiplying it by the
dollar figure. From a standpoint of equity, the colleges that are pay-
ing the most in “taxes” to ASUN should get proportionally equivalent
representation 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 must
take at least one science course. Even an art student will take two
science courses, inflating the allocation of seats to the College of
Science, as is reflected in the table above. Because of the challenges
that 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 by
Senator Anderson. My version remains as the underlying bill re-
ported from the Committee, with one significant exception. My bill
included language that made a finding with respect to the inadequacy
of the University’s accounting methodology with respect to enrollment
numbers. The Committee, in a misguided effort calling it unneces-
sary, struck the section from the bill. I have included that section in
my dissenting views (below) because I believe it is something we
should state as a Senate when we enact into law an apportionment
method we know is deficient, but is, unfortunately, the best method
available given the circumstances.
(a) FINDINGS.—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 figures
for 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 each
college and school, each to receive at least one seat.
(3) According to the University, “Official headcount enrollment numbers are
taken from a point-in-time snapshot taken on the census date, which is at the end
of late registration each semester.” (Offices of Institutional Analysis and Admis-
sion and Records).
(4) The University’s method for conducting an enrollment headcount in each
college and school is limited to counting each student only once, based upon the
student’s 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 enrollment
numbers 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 result
in a total enrollment count greater than the number of unique undergraduate stu-
dents enrolled at the University.
(5) The University’s only way of electronically and programmatically tracking
and reporting multiple enrollments of a single student is after the student has
graduated from the University when the data is manually inputted into the sys-
(6) The University’s method of reporting enrollment figures results in the Senate
being physically incapable of complying with the literal language of the Constitu-
tion in apportioning the Senate according to the actual enrollment numbers in
each 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 the
members of the Association, which is neither feasible nor desirable, due to the lack
of an accurate reporting methodology and the great expense that would have to be
incurred to conduct such a census.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—Because of the seriousness of the Senate being unable to
apportion 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 student’s enrollment
in more than one college or school; and
(2) the President of the Associated Students take any and all action necessary to
ensure 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 I

feel that it is absolutely important that we make these findings and
proceed forward in good faith. With the section included in the bill, it
may stave off any judicial modification of our apportionment method.
I believe that if we enact the method advocated by the Majority, we
will open the apportionment to an immediate challenge in the Judi-
cial Council on the grounds that it malapportions the seats. With
elections rapidly approaching, any judicially mandated change to the
apportionment process could have the potential to create havoc dur-
ing the election. Rather than allow for that potential, a simple sense
of the Senate could go a long way toward avoiding that problem.
The section does not state any binding policy and does not change
the method advocated by the Committee. It does state in unequivocal
terms that the Senate acknowledges the deficiency in the counting
method but is proceeding forward anyway in good faith and as has
always 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 the
Committee’s report.