Inside the SA

Moving Forward

2009-11-11T03:07:00.002-05:00

So, the new constitution passed the senate tonight. The estimates I've heard put the special election happening in late January / early september.

Inside the SA will be a sounding board for the 'No' side, and we'll be discussing the upcoming campaign. We'll be well organized, and we'll be spreading the truth about this SA tool power-grab.

Someone has started a blog (and like I always get asked in these situations, no it's not me) called Reject Their Scam, which looks like it will be another source of anti-constitution writing.

It was unreasonable to expect the senate to vote against increasing the tool's power. We'll do our best to convince the students to do what their representatives couldn't.

Tomorrow's the Day

2009-11-09T16:58:00.002-05:00

The new constitution will be brought directly to the Senate.

I'll do my best to make the points I've been making all along. It takes a 2/3 margin to send it to the school for a vote.

If you feel the bullshit like I do, please come and make a public comment to that effect. You have no idea how useful even one person coming in and asking why we're wasting our time with a new constitution can be.

Please come, express your dissatisfaction, and help restore a bit of rationality into the SA. It all goes down tomorrow night.

It's getting dumb out there

2009-11-05T23:48:00.003-05:00

Apparently the constitution time-wasters met yet again and made a few tweaks to their big ol' idea.

The freshman caucus thing is now gone: There is no official way for freshmen to get involved in the SA now. Instead, the EVP is supposed to run something called the "Freshman Assembly". This freshman assembly has no real form, and supposedly, any freshman who wants to join can.

They also changed the rules for how people get recalled. Don't ask me why, I literally have no idea why this was important to them.

-----

It's becoming increasingly obvious that these constitutioners are grasping at straws. No one in the entire school gives a shit about what they're doing (only one non-SA person showed up to their town hall), which should give them some evidence that they should STOP DOING IT.

But, of course, they're completely oblivious. Which means they'll keep on trying to push this through.

Hatchet Nails It

2009-11-05T11:44:00.001-05:00

From their SA editorial today:

The SA Constitution Task Force is an example of such a waste of energy. Formed shortly after last year's failed attempt to rush a new constitution through legislation, the task force is demonstrative of the misdirected efforts of a body that has often failed to be student-oriented. The town hall meeting held to discuss the new constitution was attended by only one person not affiliated with the SA or student media, demonstrating a clear lack of general student interest in this initiative.
The new constitution will make few, if any, necessary changes toward making the body more effective. Taking the responsibility of running the senate away from the executive vice president after fairly successful tenures by the past few EVPs seems arbitrary, and leaves the new role of the EVP ambiguous. It is hard to see how changing the status of freshmen representatives will necessarily make them more effective in their roles. Finally, making the rules easier to amend will probably result in more of the same introverted focus that detracts from student-oriented projects.

My thoughts exactly. Kudos, Hatchet.

The Townhall is today

2009-11-04T00:05:00.001-05:00

Facebook Event Link

Marvin Center 405 @ 5:30.

If I don't recognize more than 5 people in the room, I'll be shocked.

Come protest!

EDIT: I will not be there, unfortunately. I forgot I have a staff meeting on Wednesday evenings. Y'all should go and enjoy.

Inappropriate use of the SA Website

2009-11-03T13:11:00.004-05:00

The front page of the SA website is currently graced with a post from Jamie Baker describing in glowing terms the new constitution.

It also includes links to the "Executive Summary" of the changes, which are of course described in an entirely positive light.

This is a ridiculous and egregious misuse of the SA website. The SA website should serve as a resource to students and advertise the SA's accomplishments. This new constitution is NOT official SA policy, and it has no place on the website.

If the new SA policy is to allow people to shill for their pet causes on the SA's website, I have more than a few things I'd like to throw up there.

Until then, I call on the executive branch to remove the highly inappropriate post.

***UPDATE***: The highly biased "executive summary" has been removed from the site, though they are still advertising how to get it. So if any student emails and asks for a summary of the changes, they'll be getting a highly biased version from Jamie Baker.

2 Newsbits

2009-10-30T18:40:00.005-04:00

First:

I got a press release from VPPA saying that the Marvin Center first floor will now be open until 2am 7 days a week. Whoo.

Second (much more interesting):

The stupid constitution stupidfaces released their first stupid draft of their stupid constitution.

All the greatest hits of idiocy have been rehashed in this version:

- President and VP MUST run together.

- VP is no longer the senate chair.

- VP is just a mini-president.

- The senate elects its own chair. (I messed up on this one. The new constitution actually has the speaker being elected separately.)

There are some new dumb ideas too though:

- No more freshman senators, instead, freshman are inserted into a separate "freshman caucus" so that they can me more efficiently ignored.

- They're making it EASIER to amend the bylaws, which I guarantee will result in so many fucking rule changes that NO ONE will know what the rules are.

- Don't worry though, because now the student court will have 7 MEMBERS. Instead of 5. They need the extra 2 to sift through all the bullshit that will emanate from the new constitution.

-----------------------

Honestly, I feel like a broken record on this issue. Mostly because it's a complete non-issue.

What in the constitution is preventing these people from being effective advocates? Nothing.

What is preventing them from doling out money to student groups (the most important thing the SA does)? Nothing

This constitution is 100% INTERNAL changes that mean absolutely nothing to anyone outside of the SA. It will not make the SA more efficient, more able, or more useful.

There will be a constitution town hall on November 4 in Marvin Center 405 at 5:30. I encourage you to go there and ask why they've wasted so much time on a document that does absolutely nothing for the average student, and why they want to waste the entire schools time with an election about it.

**Update**

I had previously said that this constitution included the old idea of having the senate elect its own speaker. Upon closer reading, this constitution actually has both an EVP AND a senate speaker being elected separately. Someone needs to explain to me why we need two people to do this job.

Random Thought

2009-10-28T02:01:00.002-04:00

I think we should eliminate spending restrictions in SA elections.

They do far more harm than good (see: Kyle Boyer fiasco).

Money doesn't really have much of an effect on the election anyway (see: my spending levels vs Dylan Pyne's).

I don't think GW students can be bought. Most of them are already rich enough, and the rest aren't going to be swayed by free candy in Kogan.

People should be allowed to spend as much money as they want on SA elections. Who cares? If someone is obviously trying to buy an election, that would be a turnoff for most voters.

Senate Meeting tonight

2009-10-27T19:20:00.002-04:00

The agenda is barren, however. It probably will be a pretty short meeting. I don't know of anything happening by way of legislation, either.

The only hope for entertainment will be Presidents Q&A. I don't have anything good though, anyone have any suggestions what should be asked?

A Resolution

2009-10-26T17:53:00.002-04:00

Whereas, I am lazy and have heard nothing interesting from anyone in the SA

Whereas, the flag your problem event was mostly hilarious but not altogether helpful

Whereas, I was tired of seeing an outdated post at the top of the blog,

BE IT RESOLVED

That this is a new post

That you should write comments about the SA, your problems with it, and where I should stick my ideas

That I am awesome

Vern Meeting Tonight!

2009-10-20T17:52:00.001-04:00

EVP Lifton swung and missed again on getting a room in the Marvin Center, so we'll be meeting at everyone's second-favorite campus, the Vern!

I believe it is statutorially mandated that we have at least one meeting per semester on the Vern, so it's good to get it out of the way.

I, for one, am a huge lover of the Vern. It's quaint, quiet, and you can always get the books you need from Eckles because no one ever goes up there to check them out before you.

Improving life at GW via the SA

2009-10-19T17:21:00.003-04:00

Got this email from EVP Lifton:

Anyway, tomorrow night we will be going around and discussing ideas that we would like to work on for the rest of the year. I'd like you guys to talk to other students and see what things they would like improved about GW. Please steer clear of things like advising, dining and the issues with the library. Those issues are things that we already know about and are working on. The intent of this is as a brainstorming session for projects to improve student life here on campus. Also, please bring ideas of how we can get started working on these things if you can.

I will expect everyone to participate in this discussion, so please have some ideas prepared.

Now, apart from the fact that no matter what he "expects", he really can't force anyone to bring any ideas or punish people who don't, this isn't altogether a terrible idea.

I'm drawing a blank though. So I am hereby soliciting your ideas. What would you like to see improved at GW that you think the SA could actually do?

SA/GW Build on Stupid Idea by Proposing New, Stupider Idea

2009-10-11T22:16:00.005-04:00

We all remember the SRI. I was, to put it lightly, not a fan. The SRI was a $50,000 feel-good waste of money that existed to hand out money to people who promised to do something "socially responsible" with it.

The SRI ended this year. I was so excited I could pop.

But now GW is announcing a new $20,000 program to hand out money to people who promise to do "service" with it.

Now, that article says that these grants will be "jointly funded" by SASS and the SA. This made me very angry, because it wasn't in the executives budget and the senate certainly hadn't been asked about the issue.

But several SA executive members who I've talked to say that there is not, in fact, any SA money going into this project. Which would make the GW website liars. Bastards.

But in the article, Bob Chernak is quoted as saying:

“Civic engagement and public service are core values of the University, and we are happy to partner with the SA to provide some seed money to support student projects that will go a long way in helping the underserved of Washington, D.C.”

That certainly makes it sound like the SA is giving money, no matter what exec members are telling me.

Regardless of the funding sources, this is still a profoundly useless endeavor. $20,000 for community service?

Don't we already have a large, presumably well-funded group on campus dedicated to serving the community?

Didn't we already spend tens of thousands of dollars on a huge service event earlier this year?

GW's response to those questions: Why do you hate poor people?

Psst: Billion dollar debt. Just sayin'

So now, engaging in a proud GW tradition of creating new and inefficient organizations which serve the exact same purpose as already existing orgs, GW announces this new panel, which will be made up of students just like the SRI to give out money to whoever they want, just like the SRI.

I think, at this point, it's becoming fairly obvious that GW is far more interested in LOOKING like they care about service than they actually care about service. GW's commitment to service is as real as the bells which ring out the fight song. Just as the bells serve to create the illusion of a spirited, rustic campus, so too does this grant panel create the illusion of dedication to service.

Notes from the meeting

2009-10-06T22:50:00.002-04:00

First of all, it was short. That was nice.

However, I was very disappointed that the senate didn't even discuss any amendments to the bill. Every single proposed amendment was shot down without discussion. Disgusting.

The Senate is getting 200 dollars more this year than last year. The senate budget should not increase.

The executive is getting $9,000 less. That is good, but it should be lower. They have 2,000 dollars allocated to buy a projector. Oy.

Have you ever wondered how much influence Greek Life has in the SA? I can tell you. $17,500 worth. That is how much more IFC and Pan-Hel are receiving this year over last year. Each.

The room was hot. You'd think for 350 dollars, we could buy some A/C. I digress.

I saw Ashida, Goldstein, and Pyne tailing the cute freshman senator and walking with her after the meeting. That poor girl.

That's all I have off the top of my head. I was the only one who voted 'no' on the bill. Any questions?

How much is the State Room costing?

2009-10-05T11:41:00.004-04:00

I've tried to ask EVP Lifton this a few times, but he's dastardly avoided my GChats.

From what I can gather, the room costs a fair amount to rent out, somewhere in the 700 dollar range. Unless Lifton used his uber-connections to get the room for free, this strikes me as an extremely inappropriate use of SA funds.

Last year, we had allocations in the Grand Ballroom, an entirely suitable space for the event. Why it needs a pricey room, I don't know.

Also of note: Some organization called the 'GW Nationalists' is getting 150 dollars. Wtf? We have a nationalist club?

**Update**

In the comments and in a voice mail, Connor Walsh and EVP Lifton confirm that the room is 350 dollars. They claim that this was the cheapest option available to them, because an issue arose which caused the meeting to be delayed and throw off the Marvin Center scheduling.

So, the story: The meeting was going to be held in the Marvin Center Grand Ballroom two weeks ago. However, because of the switch to the new online budgetary system advocated and implemented by President Bindelglass, there was a delay in the budget process while everyone adjusted to the new method.

This delay meant that the allocations meeting would have to be pushed back. And the room reserved for tomorrow night's room originally was deemed by senate leadership to be too small for the allocations meeting. So they went around trying to find a big enough room and ended up deciding that the cheapest option was the 350 dollar stateroom.

It's a classic SA story: Failure to plan in advance leads to situation where the only solution is spending other people's money.

I'm lazy

2009-10-01T03:40:00.000-04:00

That grad affairs bill passed.

So did both of the director bill thingys that I talked about a few posts ago. I don't want to link. You find them.

Next meeting is next tuesday, and it's allocations. It'll be a doozy. We're having it in the Elliot School building, something called the "State Room". I've never been there.

Sounds pretty tooly though.

Bill proposed to Eliminate Graduate Affairs Committee

2009-09-26T17:59:00.000-04:00

I'm meh on this. It's Jamie Baker's bill, and it seems like a decent enough idea. The Grad Affairs committee never meets anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Meeting summary

2009-09-22T22:58:00.002-04:00

Confirmed the new tiny tools. They are Amanda Something, Meredith Something, and Other Guy.

They can't vote, so I'm not too worried about them. I'm sure they'll be nice.

We also confirmed more people to open senate seats. The senate is getting super crowded. There's people out the wazoo now.

As a final note, the last man standing for my impeachment told me today he's not interested in proceeding either. Probably because it was a lost cause, but I digress.

Priority #1 for the rest of the year: Abolishing Executive Session. If you can't say it to someone's face, you shouldn't be saying it at all.

Looking less likely I'll be chucked out

2009-09-22T15:37:00.002-04:00

I wont name names, but of the 3 original people who were considering pursuing impeachment, I'm relatively sure that only 1 of them is still interested.

And in order to have me removed, he'd have to collect the signatures of 1/3 of the senate, and that's just to start the hearings.

So maybe it won't happen. Too bad, I was just starting to look forward to it.

ON ANOTHER NOTE COMPLETELY:

Senate special meeting tonight, 9pm. We'll be voting on freshman senators. Should be a good time.

They might actually impeach me this time!

2009-09-20T21:13:00.007-04:00

I've heard some rumblings that there's finally a case for my impeachment; I posted something (since deleted) which has been accused of 'breaking the confidentiality of executive session' about a senate-elect meeting last year.

But you see, there's no way I could have broken the confidentiality of executive session for one simple reason: I wasn't at that meeting. I heard about everything second hand. I had a late meeting on the date in question and didn't arrive until the tail end of that particular senate-elect meeting.

My promise still stands; I will vote in favor of impeaching myself. But I think I'll be one of the few.

To the people thinking about organizing this: This is a good time for you to consider what's more important to the students of GW; impeaching me, or advocating for them. Impeachments take time and effort, which could be far better spent working for students. If you go forward, you're proving whose side you're on, and it's not the GW student body.

UPDATE:

I dug into my email inbox and found the minutes for the meeting, which say:

Logan Dobson [proxies] to Dan Sadlowsky

Mr. Dobson [arrives] at 11:22

The minutes go on to note that:

Motion to Adjourn by Pine, second by Susi – 11:32 pm

I was at this meeting for a grand total of 10 minutes, none of which were during the executive session. How exactly am I to have breached it?

UPDATE 2:

I did some digging around. It turns out that in the OLD bylaws, 'breaking the confidentiality of executive session' is considered an impeachable offense.

However, we don't use the old bylaws any more. We use the new, shiny, Jamie Baker approved bylaws that were passed earlier in the year.

And what do the new bylaws say about 'breaking the confidentiality of executive session'?

Nothing.

I think Connor is wrong, but I'm not sure

2009-09-17T10:28:00.004-04:00

From the hatchet article about allocations:

"If you're in the Senate and you're on the e-board of the College Republicans, then you can't say 'Hey, I'd like to amend this to give $10,000 more to the CRs,'" Walsh said.

I remember that last year we TRIED to pass a bylaw like this, but it failed.

I just did a quick check of the current bylaws, and I don't see any restrictions on eboard members making budget amendments.

****UPDATE****

I found it:

BYLAW 302 Be it enacted by The George Washington University Student Association Senate the following code of ethics for its members regarding voting:

Section 1 - ABSTAINING FROM VOTING

Voting members of the Student Association Senate shall not participate in votes particular to organizations of which they are executive members.
Voting members of the Student Association Senate shall not participate in votes particular to the funding of organizations of which they are executive members.

I'm pretty sure that this bylaw was added in the new set. I'm also pretty sure it's unconstitutional.

Sounds like maybe time for the first lawsuit of the year.

****UPDATE2****

Upon closer re-reading, I stick to my original thought; Connor is wrong.

There is nothing in the bylaws that prevents a senator who is on the EBoard of an organization from offering an amendment to increase their funding.

They just can't vote on that amendment.

I still think it's unconstitutional to take away voting rights, but that's neither here nor there on this issuel.

No new directors

2009-09-11T17:44:00.006-04:00

So we all expected the bill that failed last week to be re-introduced in some kind of split form, with the needed and uncontroversial bylaw changes in one bill and the new director positions in another.

But instead, I recieved two bills in my inbox today. One of them is the uncontroversial bill I expected. But another is a bill which includes NO new directors, instead just the renaming of an old position and the addition of a multi-cultural Greek advisor.

I believe in credit where it's due, and we should give Jamie Baker and Erik Ashida (the sponsors of the two news bills) credit for recognizing that adding new directors was unpopular and unnecessary.

Logan in the News

2009-09-10T13:50:00.002-04:00

I'm a whore for attention, but this article is a pretty good summary of the meeting:

SA Sen. Logan Dobson (CCAS-U) expressed support for striking the SRI from the bylaws, but was opposed to the creation of more executive positions. He spoke about the lack of confidence many students have in the organization.

"I've yet to meet a single student who believes these problems stem from the fact that there aren't enough people in the SA," Dobson said.

Re-Arranging Deck Chairs, and Tossing on Dead Weight for Good Measure

2009-09-07T23:57:00.002-04:00

First regular meeting of the year is tomorrow, and the big ticket item is SB-F09-03, AKA "Administrative Restructuring Bill of 2009".

This Bill basically does a few things:

1) Removes an old bylaw which mandates an SA-appointed "Director of Homecoming". I don't think that this position ever existed in the old bylaws, but it appears that it does exist in the crazy new ones that were passed on Sunday. Whatever, remove it.

2) Removes another old bylaw which mandates a "Tuition Action Director". Another stupid position that shouldn't exist. I think this one DID exist in the old bylaws, though.

3) Renames an old position, the 'Representative to the Parents Advisory Council', and calls it the 'Director of External Affairs'. This new director will be the SA's outreach to alumni/parents as well as participate in fundraising. I'm mixed on this one. Having someone dedicated to doing outside fundraising would be nice, as it would allow us to potentially lower student fees. But the university already hits up our alumni and parents for so much money, there's little hope that the SA would ever be able to get any.

4) Renames the 'Director of Transfer Student Affairs' to be the 'Director of Incoming Student Affairs'. This job never should have existed in the first place, and the new title is dumb too. The SA is here to advocate for students, not people who might be students some day.

5) Adds yet another advisor on Greek Affairs, this time one from the multi-cultural bloc. As if we needed any more evidence that the SA is basically a greek organization.

6) Removes the SRI from the bylaws. This is my favorite part. Whoooo!

7) Adds a new SA position: the Director of Government Affairs. Stupid. Never mind that there are already positions which attempt to work with local governments (there is a VP for community relations or somesuch nonsense), but adding a student position to go and try to bug local and national politicians is idiotic. Whoever the poor soul is who gets this job will be utterly worthless. No one cares what GW students think about Government Affairs.

8) Adds a new SA position: the Director of Environmental Initiatives. Stupid, stupid, stupid. This university already has 2 departments (Office of Sustainability and Office of Planning and Environmental Management) which handle these issues. Adding an SA layer on top of that is ridiculous.

This bill is a mixed bag. There's some stuff to like, more to hate. As the title of this post implies, this is a shuffling around and a piling on of toolery.

I'll do my best to make amendments. The directors of government affairs and environmental initiatives shouldn't exist. There shouldn't be any greek advisors on the SA, let alone 3. We'll see what happens tomorrow. I don't anticipate winning.

Stupid SA Leaders send out Stupid Press Release About Stupid Idea

2009-09-06T16:36:00.006-04:00

Press Contact: Jason Lifton Executive Vice President, Student Association xxx@gmail.com xxx-xxx-xxxx For Immediate Release September 6, 2009

The George Washington University, Washington D.C.- Student Association (SA) at The George Washington University releases this statement regarding the plan to revise the SA Governing Documents: The SA will be working to revise its current governing documents to make the organization more efficient and more student friendly. As part of this revision, we will be welcoming student feedback from anyone who is interested.

To seek this feedback, we will be holding a town hall, inviting all students to have a say in their student government. This town hall will take place on Thursday September 10th at 7pm in Monroe 114.

We encourage all interested students to join us for a open discussion about the direction of the organization.

Additional questions can be directed to Jason Lifton, Executive Vice President or Jamie Baker, Rules Chairman at Jasonlifton@gmail.com or Jamie.Baker@gwstudentassociation.com

I can't believe I'm saying this, but we need some people to disrupt this town hall, health-care style.

Go ask them why they're wasting their time dicking around with documents when they could be doing real work.

Ask them what part of the constitution is preventing them from doing their jobs.

Ask them if they honestly think anyone cares about the constitution, and why they want to have the student body vote on something that the student body cares so little about.