Student Senate approves police advisory board amid heated debate over legislative process and senate culture

**TL;DR** The Student Senate passed a bill establishing a police advisory board, following a contentious debate that exposed divisions over legislative collaboration and procedural conduct within the body.

The Student Senate approved new legislation establishing a police advisory board for the Wichita State Police Department (WSUPD). This measure, Student Senate Bill 68-165, aims to create clearer connections between campus police, students, faculty, and staff through regular meetings twice per semester. The board's composition includes a diverse group of stakeholders, ensuring varied perspectives in its advisory role.

The approval followed a multi-week debate that evolved beyond the bill's specifics to encompass the legislative process and the internal culture of the Student Senate. Concerns arose over how proposals are introduced, discussed, and ultimately finalized within the body. This broader discussion highlighted varying expectations for senator engagement and bill authorship.

Sen. Jamie Winslow, who authored the bill in collaboration with campus police Chief Guy Schroeder, expressed significant frustration during the process. He highlighted that half of the eight questions asked during the bill's initial presentation were repetitive, specifically concerning student major requirements for board membership. Winslow also noted a minimal response from senators after he solicited input on the legislation post-first reading.

Conversely, Sen. Braeden Miller contended that the bill's author did not provide adequate opportunity for amendments, despite ongoing conversations. Miller referenced initial questions that sought adjustments and suggestions from the Student Services Committee that were not integrated. He further characterized some prior discussions as "somewhat hostile," indicating a breakdown in collaborative spirit. Other senators, however, countered that the established process allows any senator to propose amendments during the debate phase, irrespective of the author's initial stance.

Despite these procedural concerns and the extended debate on internal conduct, the legislation proceeded to a vote. The bill ultimately passed with 21 senators voting in favor. One senator cast a vote against the measure, and four senators abstained, marking the official establishment of the advisory board.

The newly formed advisory board will now commence its work to foster stronger connections between the campus police and the broader community. This legislative outcome, coupled with the open discussion on senate culture, suggests that future sessions will continue to scrutinize collaborative practices and procedural transparency within the Student Senate.