Some weeks I like to think these columns write themselves. What I mean is that occasionally an event occurs or a story is reported on and everyone more or less comes to the same conclusion.

Case in point: On Oct. 6, a resolution was introduced in the Student Government Association Senate “requesting University of Alabama administrators to allow the release of documents relating to the resignation of former SGA President Grant Cochran.” On Monday, it was then reported that the resolution had been tabled by the Senate Ethics Committee, meaning it would not be brought to the floor for a vote.

By itself, this action (or inaction, as the case may be) was immensely frustrating. It seemed for a fleeting instant that there were members of the SGA who actually understood their role as representatives of the student body to the UA administration. Frustration soon turned to disappointment with a tinge of anger upon reading some of the quotes members of the ethics committee provided.

Senate Communications Director Austin Gaddis stated, “This kind of resolution, basically going directly against the administration, from a PR standpoint, is not what we want at this point.”

Senator Alex Ash stated, “I don’t think undermining the administration and also the judicial branch is a great idea.”

Senator Lauren Hardison, chair of the ethics committee said, “At this point in time and until the investigation has concluded I feel that the SGA as a whole should remain united in support of the administration and the confidentiality of the individuals involved.”

Reading these quotes, one gets the impression that the members of the SGA feel that their relationship with the administration is one of a child yearning for the approval of a distant father.

The mere existence of this resolution, though, at least seemed to prove that there were SGA senators who didn’t believe the administration to be the fourth branch of government. That is, until Tuesday’s paper printed.

You see, not only did members of the ethics committee determine that standing up for the students’ right to hold its elected officials accountable is somehow counterproductive, but the author of the resolution didn’t even expect it to make it past the committee.

Brad Tipper, the senator who penned the resolution, said he “wrote the resolution to make it known that that’s not what the SGA or the Senate is about…the resolution is about regaining confidence.”

Yet in the same story, he and another co-sponsor of the bill both stated that they didn’t expect it to go anywhere.

There is nothing confidence inspiring about a lack of belief in one’s own product.

The co-sponsor, Daniel Bruno, did disagree with Gaddis’ ridiculous remark that the resolution is somehow “bad PR,” and said that he firmly believed the student body wanted to see the SGA act on the matter. What I’m having trouble getting past is the notion that somehow by just writing the resolution the Senate is 1) taking productive action 2) building a strong relationship with the student body.

What essentially happened was the equivalent of me writing this column and then refusing to submit it; or better yet, going to a bar with my friends and talking about an awesome column idea and then never actually writing it.

The students want to see action, they really do, but they’re also not stupid. They can tell the difference between an earnest attempt and an empty gesture, and this resolution has every appearance of being the latter.

John Davis is a senior majoring in telecommunication and film. His column runs on Monday