The most impactful job of Thelmo, for the student body, is to provide funds for campus activities and clubs. As a senator newly admitted this academic year, I believe there has been a large amount of bias and a profound lack of transparency between the Executive Board and the Senate, especially concerning approving proposals for Senate votes. I have seen how the E-Board appears to prioritize certain clubs and events over others, regardless of their actual importance to students. There is also little, or no explanation given to the rest of Thelmo when the E-Board decides not to let a request through, meaning that the Senate has difficulty raising objections to such denials. Beyond all of these issues, I have observed that the E-Board allows neither the Senate to offer suggested changes to the proposal, nor the club to make modifications to their requests. All of these obstacles lead to disappointment amongst senators and the student body who are given little to no explanation anytime the E-Board vetoes a proposal through any method. Even more importantly, such obstacles diminish the point of the Senate as a body to more broadly represent St. Lawrence students.

I and other senators believe that the E-Board currently maintains a bias towards funding athletic organizations over other campus groups. A fellow senator, who wishes to remain anonymous, observes that three out of six E-Board members are also on athletic teams, two of whom are on the squash team. Furthermore, these squash team members occupy the positions of the E-Board president and the Delegate to the Board of Trustees. The senator also expressed how they are “concerned that so many athletic groups are taking priority when other groups are struggling to get their proposals past the E-Board.” Based on recent trends in proposals offered to the Senate, these concerns are not unfounded.

Just last week, three proposals focusing on athletics went through the Senate, the second and third focusing on club sports which understandably warrants consideration. However, the first proposal presented was one for the squash team, which typically receives its funding from the athletic department, unlike club sports. While the other sports clubs sought official supplementary funding from outside sources before submitting a proposal, the squash team only checked with the athletics department before doing so. Squash’s proposal was presented to us by the Thelmo President and the J-Board Elections chair, with the rest of the E-Board also present as routine.

Our aforementioned anonymous senator, recounting that meeting, wrote: “President Brooker presented the contingency with the J-Board member… however, only Brooker left the room when the voting took place. [Vice President of Senate Affairs] Seeley was ill-prepared to run the meeting, and many members with conflicts of interest were not required to leave, or even abstain during the voting process. [With the VPSA] meetings are not run with Robert’s Rules in place, and this not only takes away the formality of meetings but also adds a great deal of confusion.”

The meeting eventually proceeded to a unanimous vote to give the squash team their money; I and other senators, though, felt we were pressured to vote yes by the number of squash players in the room when voting. Not only were the two E-board members squash players, and one J-board member, but two senators also counted themselves among the team. Another anonymous senator even said they were worried that if they voted against the proposal, the absent President Brooker would be told the dissenter’s name. Later, the club sports’ proposals were also funded.

The bias is not just present in promoting sports over other clubs, but in rejecting non-athletic clubs’ proposals for funding without explanation. Titus, a long-standing and beloved

outdoor event for the student body, had its proposal for this year vetoed by the E-Board. I reached out to both Anna Wolke ‘23, the president of the Outing Club, and Dean Brooker ‘24, the Thelmo President, for their opinions on the rejection. As of this piece, Brooker has accepted answering questions, but did not respond to my second email. Wolke did not wish to comment, but did provide a statement from Cameron Woods ‘23, the Outing Club representative to Thelmo, who said that they were not allowed to present their case and provided all necessary information for the proposal before rejection. Furthermore, they were not given any reason for the outright rejection and were told by the board not to relay this lack of explanation to the rest of the club. Previous years’ budgeting methods allowed for the Outing Club to cover Titus with their initial funding, but now, such an event must be funded by its own proposal each year, leaving Titus to the whims of the current student government. Given the increasing influence the E-Board has over campus life and culture, I wonder if they will continue to veto events regardless of their place as well-regarded St. Lawrence traditions. The seeming prioritization of athletics, and the lack of consideration given to Titus, makes it appear such a practice is already reality. These biases may altogether indicate a very impactful Thelmo term ahead for St. Lawrence students, in the worst of ways.