It’s time for students to write to their representatives and encourage “yes” votes on Illinois House Bill 728, which would give limited voting rights to student members of the Board of Regents.

Currently, student regents can make and second motions, sit on all committees and participate in debates, but do not have the power to vote.

Students pay the same taxes as the rest of the public and provide 28 percent of the direct financial support of the university through tuition payments. It’s senseless that they have no voting representation on a body which makes the policies that affect them every day.

Instead of taking the neutral position that the board originally suggested, the Regent’s legislative liaison recently went to Springfield and took an anti-vote stance in front of the House Higher Education Committee. It is ironic that the same man whose salary is paid for by student taxpayers is working to deny students equitable representation.

To make things worse, after the committee approved the bill and sent it to the House for consideration, the Regents changed its original stance of neutrality to one of opposition. Because the student votes could dilute the personal votes of individual Regents, the board clearly has a conflict of interest in assuming an official position against the legislation.

The legislation also calls for each Regency university to submit one student’s name to the governor, who can either approve or reject a student’s appointment to the board. A proposed amendment to the bill would require a student referendum to choose how the candidate is selected from each school. At NIU, the student regents always have been chosen by the Student Association president.

At Sangamon State University, the student regent is elected by the students. This is preferable to ISU’s method, which involves direct input from the administration. Because the student regent sits on the board to represent student interests, it should be obvious that the university administration should not be allowed to choose this representative.

Students have demonstrated better judgment than the administration at least three times in recent memory. The planning of the Recreation Center, the contracting out of the Pow Wow Room and the appointment of Clyde Wingfield all are examples of poor judgment on behalf of the administration. Students voiced opposition to each.

Thus, it can hardly be argued that students are any less competent than administrators to make business or policy decisions.