It is more than safe to venture that BlitzMail is the communicative method of choice for Dartmouth students. Indeed, rarely can students last even an hour without checking blitz. In their never-ending quest to serve the student body better, Student Assembly sponsors a number of public blitz terminals in various high-traffic areas, such as Novack, Thayer, Collis, and the Hopkins Center. Prime location is meaningless, however, when these blitz terminals are malfunctioning or broken, as a good number of them are.

In response to the public blitz terminals’ ranging states of disrepair and continual decline, Student Assembly recently passed a resolution to fund the purchase of new blitz terminals. The proposal - sponsored jointly by Lucas Nikkel ’05 and Christopher Bertrand ’07, the Student Services Committee, and the Executive Committee - resolves that the Student Assembly “allocate no more than $10,000 towards the purchase of new eMac computers” and that “the allocation be contingent upon seeking additional funding in the form of matching dollars from the College and other campus organizations.” Additionally, the proposal requests that the President’s Assistant and Treasurer “seek funding from the buildings (e.g. Collis or the Hopkins Center) or departments that benefit from the presence of blitz terminals to help offset the necessary Student Assembly contribution.”

In summation, the proposal calls for the administration and the Student Assembly to each contribute $10,000 to purchase new eMac blitz terminals. Proponents for the bill argue that “continued maintenance of the current blitz terminals is becoming more difficult and the purchasing of replacement parts is no longer possible” and that “the last time new blitz terminals were purchased by Student Assembly was in the 2000-2001 academic year.”

On the surface, the recently accepted Proposal to Fund Purchase of New Blitz Terminals appears to be a genuine attempt at improvement. However, for such a significant and potentially beneficial proposal, SA members poorly researched and hastily accepted it.

Third-year Student Assembly member, Shardul Oza ’06, was among those in dissention of the proposal. Oza explained that Lucas Nikkel and Christopher Bertrand hadn’t “given us any quoted prices [from Dell or Apple] or looked into other ways to get computers,” such as the faculty exchange program in which faculty members donate their old computers to the College when they receive new ones.

Oza commented that what was even more troubling was that the resolution was “contingent upon the administration matching funds, and we had no idea if they were willing to do that or not,” especially because no member of the administration was contacted prior to the resolution’s proposal. He said that failing to discuss the resolution with the administration was both offensive to the administration and possibly fiscally irresponsible. “We just assumed they wouldn’t be able to provide us with the funds without our matching them,” Oza said. Had Bertrand and Nikkel first addressed the issue with the administration, it is possible that the Student Assembly would not have had to supply $10,000 towards the funding of the project. In general, Oza felt that “the resolution was really poorly researched,” adding that its approval “looks really bad on our part.”

There is merit to Oza’s complaints. The resolution itself reads that there exist “roughly 40” public blitz terminals around campus, indicating a lack of research on the part of the sponsors. There is also no mention of how many of those “roughly 40” blitz terminals are in need of repair or replacement, suggesting that the exact figure is unknown.

Furthermore, while the proposal claims that the funds allocated will go towards the purchase of new Apple eMac computers, sponsor Nikkel commented “Student Assembly is currently in negotiations with both Apple and Dell to find the best price for computers. As such, we have not yet settled on a final price - or manufacturer for that matter.” Such issues are generally decided prior to the passing of a resolution. That a majority of the Student Assembly voted for a resolution so vague and poorly fleshed out is somewhat disconcerting.

This is not to say that the resolution itself, had it been appropriately researched, is unreasonable or implausible. Bertrand commented that “the eMacs are the latest in Apple technology and could easily be repaired by computing services or any other local repair facility,” which is significant because many of the current blitzing stations are obsolete and therefore incapable of repair at this point. Bertrand also said that “we do not anticipate major repairs for at least 3 to 4 years” and that “both Apple and Dell offer excellent 3 year warranties.” However, he stressed that Student Assembly has not “officially chosen the Mac solution and [is] still exploring PC-based options,” further illustrating the problems with the passage of a poorly researched resolution.

In effect, a majority of SA members have passed a bill filled with contingencies and imprecise language. Before moving ahead with revamping the current system, SA must await a response from the College, whom they’ve attempted to bully into acquiescence. Actual costs for new computers and repairs are still undecided. With only limited funds every school year, SA members must engage in fiscal prudence. Although the current blitz terminal proposal is well intentioned, effective policy synchronizes objectives with economic realities. Hopefully, SA will keep this mind for the future.