How long does it take for the Student Association to change a lightbulb? If Monday’s meeting is any indication, after two of them debate for 45 minutes over whether it should be halogen or not, and after two others debate for an hour and a half over whether it should be 40 or 60 watts, it should take about four hours.

Four hours. 240 minutes. That’s how long it took for the SA to handle the complexities of nominating Kevin Miller, the new speaker, arguing over whether they should adjourn for the night and finally to the voting to call off votes regarding the placement of their directors.

The inefficiency that the SA has shown is appalling. It is understood that the SA needs a proper amount of time to debate the issues of concern to the student body. But look at the amount of time that they are taking to debate these issues:

— An hour for the four candidates for speaker to present their platforms.

— A significant amount of time debating a motion on whether the group should adjourn for the evening even though it still had important business to attend to.

— Another hour and a half of debate regarding whether the directors should be voted on individually or as a group.

In spite of the extended amount of time spent on relatively routine issues, an important issue emerged from the meeting — that the SA has done absolutely nothing to improve on its image of inefficiency.

How can the SA seriously expect to fulfill its position as a group of student leaders when it has virtually no control over its own meetings? Shouldn’t presentations by candidates for the speaker position be made before the meeting? And why was there any debate at all on adjourning the meeting even discussed while there was still business on the table?

What was even more disturbing was the attitude of the members of the SA after the meeting. Senate treasurer Karega Harris commented that the senate was “very productive” and that it was a “very active senate.”

If Harris and other senators actually believe that, then we are in big trouble.

It is essential that the SA quickly develops plans to cut down the length of the meetings and give focus to the proceedings without sacrificing essential debate time in the name of efficiency. And if the SA is committed to longer meetings, then its senators should not attempt to put off business for another meeting by proposing premature adjournments.

Most importantly, the SA must realize that something is amiss in these meetings if on one hand some members are saying how active the senate is, while others try to adjourn meetings

early.

Miller, the new speaker, in spite of the four- hour meeting in which little was accomplished, offered up his approval of the proceedings.

“We did a lot tonight,” he said following the meeting Monday. “It really shows the senate is ready for the year.”

Well, at least he thinks so.