The events surrounding the recent re-instatement of Brian Subatich as the Student Association Community Affairs adviser brings only one concrete thought to mind: The SA needs to re-evaluate the effectiveness of their constitution and make some changes.

The confusion over the constitutionality of Subatich’s limited term came about when the SA was unable to agree on Subatich’s classification—whether he is a member of the executive board or an appointed staff member.

When deciding the Subatich case for re-instatement, the SA Supreme Court decided that approving Subatich’s appointment on June 3 as an adviser was “unconstitutional” because the term was limited to Oct. 8. According to the constitution, members of the executive board are appointed to one year terms.

Subatich’s term was limited because he failed twice to receive a two-thirds vote of the 1988-89 senate. SA Senate Speaker John Fallon, who made the motion to limit Subatich’s term, said he did not know at the time the motion was not in accordance with the SA constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Pamela Bozeman included in the court’s written statement that Subatich’s term should have “run from June 1 through May 31 of the same fiscal year as required by Article VI, Section 3 of the SA constitution.”

owever, others have argued that the court’s decision is not necessarily accurate because Article VI, Section 3 of the SA constitution refers only to the executive board terms.

Fallon and Sen. Galvin Kennedy claimed in a post hearing motion, “There is nothing in the Constitution or Bylaws that states the term of office for an executive staff appointment.”

Article III, Section 1 of the SA Constitution states, “The Executive Board shall consist of three officers. The President, Vice President and the Treasurer shall be elected from the NIU Student Body.” Still under the title of The Executive Board, but not clearly defined, the section goes on to list the advisory positions who are to be appointed by the SA president with the “advice and consent” of the senate.

The aforementioned factors are what led to all of the confusion about Subatich’s case for re-instatement and clearly illustrate the loose ends in the SA constitution.

ow can they stand behind and follow a constitution they, or anyone else, can’t clearly understand?

The question is no longer whether Subatich should hold the advisory position, the court has made its decision and the position is his. The SA is now faced with a larger task. They must straighten out all of the ambiguity in their constitution to avoid such happenings in the future.

In order for the SA to be credible in the eyes of the students, local government and NIU administration, they need a serious document that they can reach an agreement on and is not so wide open for interpretation.

No matter how individuals feel about the Subatich decision, it is time to leave that behind. If the SA would like to make sure such a thing does not happen again, they must get a committee together to scrutinize the constitution and re-work its flaws. Then the SA can get started on serious student business and concerns while “striving to improve the students’ position at NIU.”