Tactics used to advocate stipends are disingenuous

TO THE EDITOR:

This is a response to Abby Youngken's letter to the editor on Tuesday about the ongoing debate in Student Congress regarding stipends for Congress' leaders.

I worked with Youngken in the 85th Congress and respect her as a former colleague.

However, I am disappointed with the constant attempts to turn this into a debate about whether we should or should not have stipends.

As I've said several times, this is not about the merits of stipends for Congress' leaders - it is about how they were approved.

This is a matter of procedural law. It is the question of whether the procedure Congress used to adopt stipends was proper.

It wasn't.

The original 1994 referendum that amended the Constitution proposed the following statement to students: "Currently, members of Student Congress do not receive stipends. The passage of this referendum would continue this practice."

The proposed amendment itself read as follows: "No Student Congress member shall be entitled to a salary."

As you can see, the terms "salary" and "stipend" were used interchangeably - and clearly, both forms of compensation are hence banned.

Given this evidence and firsthand knowledge from the actual person who wrote the original 1994 referendum, I'm not sure how much clearer it can be that stipends and salaries are impermissible.

Congress has violated the Constitution, and this continued foot-dragging on the matter is appalling.

Kris Wampler
District 3
Student Cong