The Council on University Planning and Budget proved why it needs a reduction in size. The council could only meet for 35 minutes at its meeting last month because it didn’t have a majority of members in attendance.

In February, the CUPB elected not to reduce its current 38-voting-member council with an 18-10 vote. The logic behind the vote was to get representation from all areas of the university, allowing everyone to have a say in what happens.

The problem is those same people fail to show up for the meeting, making it impossible to vote on campus issues. The council needs 19 voting members to make quorum and after Allen Lanham, dean of Booth Library, left unexpectedly in the middle of the meeting, it only had 18 members, not enough to officially adjourn.

For a group that does not meet on a weekly basis, not meeting a quorum should be unacceptable. If equal representation is what the group wants, then not showing up to a scheduled meeting is not the way to do it.

And for those who can’t make a meeting for a good reason, letting someone know about your expected absence. Shows a little respect toward the rest of the council and an acceptance of responsibility when you can’t be there.

In Lanham’s case and with the rest of the council members who did attend the meeting, they should have realized how many people they had at the beginning of the meeting, knowing if someone left they would lose quorum.

The council sat and waited to originally reach quorum so the members knew what would happen if anyone left.

This is just one occurrence that shows larger councils can be ineffective. These people care so much about not being cut from the voting because they want to be represented, but a reduction in size does not have to mean a reduction in representation.

Groups that do not receive a vote would be welcome to join the discussion during the meeting, but just might not be able to vote on the issue.

Waiting for people to show up, taking too much time to approve minutes and bickering between the many members can be avoided with a smaller council.

The council could consider the Faculty Senate’s recommendation for a smaller council, especially in light of last month’s CUPB meeting. An ad hoc committee could be established to debate the consequences of forming a smaller council.