The push for a new NIU constitution has been in progress for most of this semester, yet the ramifications and even the details of the proposed changes to the document have remained fuzzy at best. What is alarming is that the changes now are scheduled as an action item for the Dec. 16 University Council meeting.

One of the issues surrounding the proposed constitutional changes is lowering the amendment vote requirement from three-fourths to two-thirds. Student Association President Jim Fischer has voiced opposition to the proposal, saying the constitution should be harder to change. As of now, the student voting block has the power to stop changes. Under the new system, they would not. Constitutional Task Force Chairman Jim Giles said the faculty “feels very strongly about changing the vote to two-thirds.”

Lost in the discussion is a reason why any changes are needed in the first place. To change something as important as the NIU constitution there at least should be some clearly demonstrated need for the change. There must be some problem or difficulty that needs rectification. Or there must be some group or office that shows a distinct need for some new or expanded enabling power, such as determining course requirements or salaries.

As of now, neither issue has been addressed. Instead, the entire process has been conducted at a level that precludes participation by average members of the university community—those whom any change will affect directly.

It can be argued that everyone had their chance to get the facts and voice their opinion. However, two open hearings, no matter how large the forum, in no way can be construed as reaching out to the university.

That is why it is curious as to why the vote on the changes is scheduled for Dec. 16. Finals Week is a hectic, confusing and anxious time for faculty, staff and students. It is not the appropriate time when those involved can sit down and logically assess both the short- and long-term ramifications of changing the university’s constitution.

A better move would be to hold off the vote until more people have a chance to carefully asses what is going on and understand the consequences of the proposed changes.