Dear GUSA Candidates, Members of and Advisors to GUSA, Members of Campus Media, and Fellow Hoyas,
Below are the GUSA Constitutional Council Rulings RE: the Appeals Brought forth by the Lamb-Breen, Dagher-Ibrahim, and Mogil-Klein GUSA Presidential-Vice Presidential Tickets on Wednesday, February 25, 2009.
The Council wishes to express our appreciation to you for your thoughtful comments and your respect for each other, this process, andd our decisions.
Hoya Saxa,
Andrew Mok (SFS' 09), Justin Weiss (COL '09), and Shane Giuliani (SFS '09)
GUSA Constitutional Councilors
_____________________________________________
On Wednesday, February 25, 2009, the GUSA Constitutional Council (henceforth, Council) decided to hear a total of three cases brought before it.
In the first two cases, the Lamb-Breen GUSA Presidential-Vice Presidential ticket and the Dagher-Ibrahim GUSA Presidential-Vice Presidential ticket appealed their Monday, February 23, 2009, disqualification by the Election Commission (henceforth, E.C.) for “a second flyering/posting policy violation” on the grounds that the E.C. “incorrectly or inadequately” applied campaign rules (referencing Bylaw 16.08(a)). The Dagher-Ibrahim ticket’s appeal also claimed that the E.C. demonstrated “bias” in its decision to disqualify candidates (referencing Bylaw 16.08(b)). Because their appeals were similar in nature, the Council decided to combine the cases into one consolidated case.
In the third and final case, the Mogil-Klein GUSA Presidential-Vice Presidential ticket appealed the E.C.’s Tuesday, February 24, 2009, decision to suspend the election. The appeal was made on the grounds that the suspension of the election was “illegal.” The ticket also petitioned the Constitutional Council to accept the Election Commission’s decision concerning the two disqualifications described above as legal.
The Council heard the Lamb-Breen/Dagher-Ibrahim case first, allowing both sides of the case time to present their arguments. The Council heard the Mogil-Klein case immediately thereafter, again allowing both sides of the case time to present their arguments. In addition, the Council heard comments on each case from other parties after both sides presented their arguments.
Ruling re: the consolidated case brought before the Council by the Lamb-Breen and Dagher-Ibrahim tickets:
The Constitutional Council rules that the E.C. is not authorized to disqualify candidates for violations of any rules not explicitly stated in the Bylaws to the GUSA Constitution, pursuant to Bylaw 16.06, which states, “No other restrictions other than those stated here [in Bylaws 16.01-16.05] shall apply to campaigning.”
Additionally, as Bylaw 17.04 states, “The Election Commission must run the Senate and Presidential elections according to the election by-laws established by the Senate. The Election Commission does not have the power to make any new rules for election or modify election regulation.”
Pursuant to Bylaws 16.06 and 17.04, the E.C.’s disqualification of the ticket based on the violation of rules not explicitly stated in the Bylaws, such as a “flyering/posting policy violation,” was outside of the E.C.’s authority.
The Council further rules that the E.C. exceeded their authority in the disqualification of the Lamb-Breen and the Dagher-Ibrahim tickets pursuant to Bylaws 16.06 and 17.04. However, the Council finds no evidence to support the ancillary claim of “bias” in the E.C.’s application of the rules.
The Monday, February 23, 2009, disqualification of the Lamb-Breen ticket by the E.C. is hereby overturned, and the Lamb-Breen ticket shall be considered qualified for election.
The Monday, February 23, 2009, disqualification of the Dagher-Ibrahim ticket by the E.C. is hereby overturned, and the Dagher-Ibrahim ticket shall be considered qualified for election.
The Council notes that the Election of Tuesday, February 24, 2009, excluded the two tickets on the grounds of disqualifications here overturned, making for an invalid election.
Ruling re: the case brought before the Council by the Mogil-Klein ticket:
The Council rules that the E.C. is not authorized under the Bylaws to suspend the election. The authority to suspend the election is not one of the powers of the E.C. as enumerated in the Bylaws (in particular, Section 16 and Section 17), and is therefore outside of the E.C.’s authority. The Council rules that the Tuesday, February 24, 2009, suspension of the election by the E.C. was not authorized by (or, in the language of the Mogil-Klein ticket’s appeal, “illegal” according to) the Bylaws, making for an invalid election.
For the reasons stated in the Ruling re: the consolidated case brought before the Council by the Lamb-Breen and Dagher-Ibrahim tickets and pursuant to Bylaws 16.06 and 17.04, the Council does not recognize the Mogil-Klein ticket’s petition to accept the Election Commission’s decisions concerning the two disqualifications described above as legal.
___________________________________________________________
The Council overturns the disqualifications of the Lamb-Breen ticket and of the Dagher-Ibrahim ticket and rules that both tickets shall be considered qualified for election.
The Council rules that the Election of Tuesday, February 24, 2009, shall be considered invalid because it excluded two qualified tickets without the proper authority to do so and was disrupted by an unauthorized suspension.
Based on the above decisions, the Council rules that the 2009 GUSA Presidential Election shall be reinitiated with all original eight tickets (including the Lamb-Breen ticket and Dagher-Ibrahim ticket) on the ballot. A new election shall ensue in accordance with campaign rules set forth by the GUSA Senate in Section 16 of the Bylaws (see again Bylaw 17.04) and in accordance with the GUSA Constitution (see Article 1, Section 7 for Senate powers regarding the constitution and certification of elections) in a timely, reasonable manner.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Matt Stoller's Amicus Brief
Councilors of the Constitutional Council:
I am writing a brief in support of the two disqualified tickets, as the original author of the elections by-laws. I will be as brief and concise as possible.
The Constitutional Council has the final authority to interpret the by-laws and the Constitution.
Article III, Sec. 1: "The interpretive power of the Student Association of Georgetown University shall be vested in one Constitutional Council..."
Article III, Sec. 3: "The interpretive power of the Constitutional Council shall extend to all cases upon appeal under the Constitution of the Student Association of Georgetown University"
The Senate has the sole ability to decide elections laws.
Article I, Sec. 7: "The Senate shall have the full power...to constitute and certify elections and returns."
The Senate elections by-laws are clear in stating only three restrictions on candidates.
By-Law 16.01: Candidates may not spend more than $300.
16.03: Candidates may not campaign prior to 14 days before the election.
16.04: Candidates may not set up voting stations.
The By-laws explicitly state that those restrictions may be the only restrictions.
16.06: "No other restrictions other than those stated here shall apply to campaigning."
'Campaign regulations' in 16.07 mean only those restrictions previously enumerated.
16.05 states that "In order to be elected, candidates must comply with all campaign regulations."
The Election Commission states that this means they may make additional regulations and disqualify candidates for violating them. This is incorrect. By stating that candidates must abide by ResLife flyering policy, they are stating, in effect, that candidates are restricted from posting flyers in certain areas. This clearly amounts to a restriction forbidden by 16.06.
Only Residence Life may sanction students for violating Residence Life policy.
Even if an invalid rule means that some candidates are disadvantaged over others, it is not the EC's role to disqualify them.
Even if the effect of the invalid rule was that the two disqualified tickets gained an unfair advantage over other tickets because the other tickets thought they were prohibited from flyering in prohibited areas, the Election Commision still may not disqualify.
If tickets feel that a valid election was illegitimate because of unfair but legal tactics used by other tickets, the correct response is to ask the Senate to decertify the election. As per Art. I, Sec. 7, the Senate has the full power to certify elections and is not required to certify. The Senate may deny certification if they feel an election was improper although legal and elect to hold a new one under new rules. That is solely the Senate's decision, however, and not the Election Commission or the Constitutional Council's.
Thank you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Best regards,
Matthew Stoller
I am writing a brief in support of the two disqualified tickets, as the original author of the elections by-laws. I will be as brief and concise as possible.
The Constitutional Council has the final authority to interpret the by-laws and the Constitution.
Article III, Sec. 1: "The interpretive power of the Student Association of Georgetown University shall be vested in one Constitutional Council..."
Article III, Sec. 3: "The interpretive power of the Constitutional Council shall extend to all cases upon appeal under the Constitution of the Student Association of Georgetown University"
The Senate has the sole ability to decide elections laws.
Article I, Sec. 7: "The Senate shall have the full power...to constitute and certify elections and returns."
The Senate elections by-laws are clear in stating only three restrictions on candidates.
By-Law 16.01: Candidates may not spend more than $300.
16.03: Candidates may not campaign prior to 14 days before the election.
16.04: Candidates may not set up voting stations.
The By-laws explicitly state that those restrictions may be the only restrictions.
16.06: "No other restrictions other than those stated here shall apply to campaigning."
'Campaign regulations' in 16.07 mean only those restrictions previously enumerated.
16.05 states that "In order to be elected, candidates must comply with all campaign regulations."
The Election Commission states that this means they may make additional regulations and disqualify candidates for violating them. This is incorrect. By stating that candidates must abide by ResLife flyering policy, they are stating, in effect, that candidates are restricted from posting flyers in certain areas. This clearly amounts to a restriction forbidden by 16.06.
Only Residence Life may sanction students for violating Residence Life policy.
Even if an invalid rule means that some candidates are disadvantaged over others, it is not the EC's role to disqualify them.
Even if the effect of the invalid rule was that the two disqualified tickets gained an unfair advantage over other tickets because the other tickets thought they were prohibited from flyering in prohibited areas, the Election Commision still may not disqualify.
If tickets feel that a valid election was illegitimate because of unfair but legal tactics used by other tickets, the correct response is to ask the Senate to decertify the election. As per Art. I, Sec. 7, the Senate has the full power to certify elections and is not required to certify. The Senate may deny certification if they feel an election was improper although legal and elect to hold a new one under new rules. That is solely the Senate's decision, however, and not the Election Commission or the Constitutional Council's.
Thank you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Best regards,
Matthew Stoller
Appeal to Constitutional Council from Lamb/Breen
For Immediate Release
Incorrect Application of the Election Rules: Appeal to the Constitutional Council
Submitted By Jeffrey Lamb, For Public View, On Behalf of the Lamb/Breen Ticket
This document is an official complaint, filed by myself on behalf on the Lamb/Breen GUSA Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate ticket, to the first appointed Constitutional Council. As you are surely aware of the situation at hand, I will only briefly outline the disqualification and ensuing situation.
On the evening of February 23, 2009, at approximately 6:00 pm, Molly and I received an email from Sophia Behnia, the election commissioner, informing us that our ticket had been disqualified for a second violation of University and Residence life flyering policy. This was indeed our second infraction of this policy, and at no point do Molly or myself claim that the commissioner is unfounded in this claim. The first violation was a flier found in ICC, not on a bulletin board, but above a pay-phone. We, along with all other candidates, received an email saying that a second violation of the flyering policy would result in the ticket being disqualified. The second violation was made known to us, when Ms. Behnia and the E.C. reported that less than ten fliers had been put under doors on Darnall Hall. The quote below is taken directly from the email notifying us of our disqualification.
“Yesterday, a student (not even a candidate) emailed us photos of your quarter-sheets stuffed under doors in Darnall Hall. This is a direct violation of the residence hall posting policies which we emailed you last week.”
Once again, we do not deny that this is in fact a violation of Residence Life policy. Based on the second violation, we were notified on the eve of the election, that our ticket was being disqualified. According to Ms. Behnia and the E.C., our decision to violate University, and specifically Residence Life policy, was means for disqualification. The quote witnessed below was taken directly from the Commissioner’s email to the Lamb/Breen ticket, received on the evening of the 23rd.
“It is imperative that the university's policies are respected especially by those students seeking the highest position in student office.”
Commissioner and Election Committee, the Lamb/Breen ticket shares a parallel view in a candidate’s duty to adhere to University and residence Hall Policy (as all Georgetown Students are obligated to do). After careful case review and discussion, which included input from a number of Senators and GUSA executives, we have determined that the Election Commission has incorrectly and inadequately applied the rules outlined in Section 16 of the Constitution By-Laws. In section 16.01-16.05 of the By-laws, approximately six violations are listed which justify grounds for the disqualification of a ticket. These violations include the use of electronic voting stations, and monetary expenditure which exceeds the budget set by the E.C., among a few less apparent violations. Section 16.06 directly states “no other restrictions than those stated here (above) shall apply to campaigning.”
Commissioner and constitutional council, at not point in our campaign did the Lamb/Breen ticket, or any affiliated campaign managers, fail to adhere to the rules outlined in sections 16.01-16.05. Section 16.06 ensures that in no way is the Election Committee allowed to create rules, or disqualify a candidate for rules other than those listed: this includes Residence Hall violations and other University policies. The emails, although sent with good intentions, were irrelevant and unenforceable by the Election Commission. Georgetown University policies are enforceable only by the Georgetown Administration. The Georgetown University Student Association is an organization comprised of students, and operates to serve the students. The isolation of all GUSA decisions and operations from the administrators prevent the Election Commission from punishing candidates for infractions outside of those outlined in the bylaws. The disqualification of both tickets on February 23rd was therefore unjustified and has had significant negative impact on the Lamb/Breen ticket, as well as the students of Georgetown University.
Based on section 16.08, article A of the bylaws, the Lamb/Breen ticket is appealing the disqualification of our candidacy, as the Election Commission “incorrectly or inadequately applied the rules.”
To The Students of Georgetown
From Jeff Lamb
The situation that has transpired over the past two days has been a fiasco to say the least. All candidates, Molly and myself included, have spent multiple hours a day for over two weeks to demonstrate to you, the students, that we are both qualified and passionate about creating a stronger Georgetown. Looking beyond the past two weeks, Molly and I have dedicated over five years to serving the University through different noteworthy avenues. It is apparent to us, and many students, that our ticket was disqualified unjustly. Beyond the mistake made by the Election Commission (which they are taking steps to reverse), we would ask you to think about what will make Georgetown a stronger environment for students? We would ask you to morally evaluate whether breaking a flyering policy is grounds for discrediting our list of qualifications and blanketing our true passion to help the students of Georgetown University.
We have taken every conversation and recommendation to heart, and the interactions we have had with many of you have led to the creation of our five platforms; platforms that we assure you will be accomplished. We have put many of the activities in our life on pause for the past two weeks in order to gain a much-needed understanding of the issues facing Georgetown. Despite the debacle that has occurred, Molly and I remain confident that GUSA, if operated correctly, is and should be a tremendous asset to improve the experience of all Georgetown students. We are confident that following a reevaluation of the disqualification by the Constitutional Council this evening, the decision will be reversed, and our ticket will be reinstated.
With that in mind, Molly and I would ask that you work with us to make Georgetown a stronger place. The events that have taken place over the past few days have forced all of us reevaluate this question. We need all of your help in appointing the students that will truly make a difference. Despite the overarching opinion of GUSA, the natural leaders we need are prevalent on campus. As of right now they simply are not valued as a resource for a broader voice in ‘student government’. Instead, student government has become its own club of elected leaders/lobbyists. There’s nothing wrong with such an approach, but it certainly is an incomplete representation of campus sentiment and talent. Molly and I ask that you work with us to bring student representation, and credibility, back to GUSA. Break this unconstructive cycle, let your voice be heard, and vote Lamb/Breen for a stronger Georgetown.
Incorrect Application of the Election Rules: Appeal to the Constitutional Council
Submitted By Jeffrey Lamb, For Public View, On Behalf of the Lamb/Breen Ticket
This document is an official complaint, filed by myself on behalf on the Lamb/Breen GUSA Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate ticket, to the first appointed Constitutional Council. As you are surely aware of the situation at hand, I will only briefly outline the disqualification and ensuing situation.
On the evening of February 23, 2009, at approximately 6:00 pm, Molly and I received an email from Sophia Behnia, the election commissioner, informing us that our ticket had been disqualified for a second violation of University and Residence life flyering policy. This was indeed our second infraction of this policy, and at no point do Molly or myself claim that the commissioner is unfounded in this claim. The first violation was a flier found in ICC, not on a bulletin board, but above a pay-phone. We, along with all other candidates, received an email saying that a second violation of the flyering policy would result in the ticket being disqualified. The second violation was made known to us, when Ms. Behnia and the E.C. reported that less than ten fliers had been put under doors on Darnall Hall. The quote below is taken directly from the email notifying us of our disqualification.
“Yesterday, a student (not even a candidate) emailed us photos of your quarter-sheets stuffed under doors in Darnall Hall. This is a direct violation of the residence hall posting policies which we emailed you last week.”
Once again, we do not deny that this is in fact a violation of Residence Life policy. Based on the second violation, we were notified on the eve of the election, that our ticket was being disqualified. According to Ms. Behnia and the E.C., our decision to violate University, and specifically Residence Life policy, was means for disqualification. The quote witnessed below was taken directly from the Commissioner’s email to the Lamb/Breen ticket, received on the evening of the 23rd.
“It is imperative that the university's policies are respected especially by those students seeking the highest position in student office.”
Commissioner and Election Committee, the Lamb/Breen ticket shares a parallel view in a candidate’s duty to adhere to University and residence Hall Policy (as all Georgetown Students are obligated to do). After careful case review and discussion, which included input from a number of Senators and GUSA executives, we have determined that the Election Commission has incorrectly and inadequately applied the rules outlined in Section 16 of the Constitution By-Laws. In section 16.01-16.05 of the By-laws, approximately six violations are listed which justify grounds for the disqualification of a ticket. These violations include the use of electronic voting stations, and monetary expenditure which exceeds the budget set by the E.C., among a few less apparent violations. Section 16.06 directly states “no other restrictions than those stated here (above) shall apply to campaigning.”
Commissioner and constitutional council, at not point in our campaign did the Lamb/Breen ticket, or any affiliated campaign managers, fail to adhere to the rules outlined in sections 16.01-16.05. Section 16.06 ensures that in no way is the Election Committee allowed to create rules, or disqualify a candidate for rules other than those listed: this includes Residence Hall violations and other University policies. The emails, although sent with good intentions, were irrelevant and unenforceable by the Election Commission. Georgetown University policies are enforceable only by the Georgetown Administration. The Georgetown University Student Association is an organization comprised of students, and operates to serve the students. The isolation of all GUSA decisions and operations from the administrators prevent the Election Commission from punishing candidates for infractions outside of those outlined in the bylaws. The disqualification of both tickets on February 23rd was therefore unjustified and has had significant negative impact on the Lamb/Breen ticket, as well as the students of Georgetown University.
Based on section 16.08, article A of the bylaws, the Lamb/Breen ticket is appealing the disqualification of our candidacy, as the Election Commission “incorrectly or inadequately applied the rules.”
To The Students of Georgetown
From Jeff Lamb
The situation that has transpired over the past two days has been a fiasco to say the least. All candidates, Molly and myself included, have spent multiple hours a day for over two weeks to demonstrate to you, the students, that we are both qualified and passionate about creating a stronger Georgetown. Looking beyond the past two weeks, Molly and I have dedicated over five years to serving the University through different noteworthy avenues. It is apparent to us, and many students, that our ticket was disqualified unjustly. Beyond the mistake made by the Election Commission (which they are taking steps to reverse), we would ask you to think about what will make Georgetown a stronger environment for students? We would ask you to morally evaluate whether breaking a flyering policy is grounds for discrediting our list of qualifications and blanketing our true passion to help the students of Georgetown University.
We have taken every conversation and recommendation to heart, and the interactions we have had with many of you have led to the creation of our five platforms; platforms that we assure you will be accomplished. We have put many of the activities in our life on pause for the past two weeks in order to gain a much-needed understanding of the issues facing Georgetown. Despite the debacle that has occurred, Molly and I remain confident that GUSA, if operated correctly, is and should be a tremendous asset to improve the experience of all Georgetown students. We are confident that following a reevaluation of the disqualification by the Constitutional Council this evening, the decision will be reversed, and our ticket will be reinstated.
With that in mind, Molly and I would ask that you work with us to make Georgetown a stronger place. The events that have taken place over the past few days have forced all of us reevaluate this question. We need all of your help in appointing the students that will truly make a difference. Despite the overarching opinion of GUSA, the natural leaders we need are prevalent on campus. As of right now they simply are not valued as a resource for a broader voice in ‘student government’. Instead, student government has become its own club of elected leaders/lobbyists. There’s nothing wrong with such an approach, but it certainly is an incomplete representation of campus sentiment and talent. Molly and I ask that you work with us to bring student representation, and credibility, back to GUSA. Break this unconstructive cycle, let your voice be heard, and vote Lamb/Breen for a stronger Georgetown.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Constitutional Council
You can reach the newly confirmed members of the Constitutional Council (Andrew Mok (SFS ‘09), Shane Giuliani (SFS ‘09), and Justin Weiss (COL ‘09) ) at gusaconstitutionalcouncil@gmail.com.
They will be accepting appeals immediately. Check back for details if they accept a case as to where and what time it will be.
They will be accepting appeals immediately. Check back for details if they accept a case as to where and what time it will be.
An Act to Institute Instant Runoff Voting
Sponsor: Nick Troiano
Status: Under consideration
AN ACT TO Institute Instant Runoff Voting
Be it hereby enacted by the Georgetown University Senate as follows:
1. The current language in the bylaws under 16.09 (“Elections…Senate.”) be struck and replaced with:
“Elections for President and Vice-President shall be conducted by instant runoff voting.”
2. The Election Commission should include the following instructions, substituting “x” for the total number of candidates:
“Please rank the candidates in the order of your most-preferred (1) to least-preferred (x). After the first round of voting, if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his or her votes redistributed to the second-choice candidate, and so on, until one candidate receives a majority. You do not have to rank all the candidates, but understand that if your candidates are all eliminated, your vote will not count to the final determination.”
Status: Under consideration
AN ACT TO Institute Instant Runoff Voting
Be it hereby enacted by the Georgetown University Senate as follows:
1. The current language in the bylaws under 16.09 (“Elections…Senate.”) be struck and replaced with:
“Elections for President and Vice-President shall be conducted by instant runoff voting.”
2. The Election Commission should include the following instructions, substituting “x” for the total number of candidates:
“Please rank the candidates in the order of your most-preferred (1) to least-preferred (x). After the first round of voting, if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his or her votes redistributed to the second-choice candidate, and so on, until one candidate receives a majority. You do not have to rank all the candidates, but understand that if your candidates are all eliminated, your vote will not count to the final determination.”
SPECIAL SESSION agenda, 2/24
I. Call To Order: 9:30 PM
a. Roll call.
b. Guest call.
c. Approval of agenda
II. Consideration of nominees for the Constitutional Council
Each nominee will have three minutes to present, followed by five minutes of questions and ten minutes of pro/con debate with 45 second speaking times
a. Andrew Mok
b. Shane Giuliani
c. Justin Weiss
III. Consideration of a Bill to Institute Instant Runoff Voting
a. Senator Nick Troiano
IV. Statement from GUSA Senate Speaker
a. Senator Reggie Greer
V. Statement from the Election Commission
a. Senator Matt Wagner
VI. Public Comment
For a period not to exceed fifteen minutes, any member of the public may speak once with a time limit of one minute
a. Members of the public only
VII. Discussion on 2009 Presidential Election
For a period not to exceed thirty minutes, Senators may speak as many times as they wish on this topic for no longer than one minute at a time
a. Senators only
IX. Adjournment
a. Roll call.
b. Guest call.
c. Approval of agenda
II. Consideration of nominees for the Constitutional Council
Each nominee will have three minutes to present, followed by five minutes of questions and ten minutes of pro/con debate with 45 second speaking times
a. Andrew Mok
b. Shane Giuliani
c. Justin Weiss
III. Consideration of a Bill to Institute Instant Runoff Voting
a. Senator Nick Troiano
IV. Statement from GUSA Senate Speaker
a. Senator Reggie Greer
V. Statement from the Election Commission
a. Senator Matt Wagner
VI. Public Comment
For a period not to exceed fifteen minutes, any member of the public may speak once with a time limit of one minute
a. Members of the public only
VII. Discussion on 2009 Presidential Election
For a period not to exceed thirty minutes, Senators may speak as many times as they wish on this topic for no longer than one minute at a time
a. Senators only
IX. Adjournment
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
SCU Members Cut Ties With GUSA
The Student Commission for Unity announced a decision to break away from the Georgetown University Student Association on Sunday night, following a Feb. 8 vote on the issue by the SCU.
While SCU was originally created as a commission of the Student Association Senate and obtained funding from GUSA, disagreement between the groups arose when the GUSA Senate altered and rejected some recommendations made by SCU’s study on Feb. 4.
Brian Kesten (COL ’10), principal investigator and commission chairman, said that independence from GUSA will provide greater stability for SCU and will allow the organization to more easily connect with the campus community and fulfill its mission.
“The Board believes that the students who invested thousands of hours conducting the research are the most qualified students to determine the direction of the organization, its research, and its recommendations,” he said in an email.
The commission was first organized last April in response to what was widely considered to be THE HOYA's minimal coverage of a rally and vigil for the Jena Six, six black students from Jena, La. who were initially charged with attempted murder after attacking a white classmate, as well as two alleged hate crimes against Georgetown students.
Over the last 10 months, it conducted a survey of 1,339 Georgetown students about their perceptions of bias on campus. The SCU released its findings, as well as a series of recommendations to the university in a ceremony on Jan. 27. SCU's charter required that the GUSA Senate approve its recommendations before they are officially presented to the university, and the senate voted to amend and eliminate certain recommendations – while approving many others.
GUSA President Pat Dowd (SFS ’09) said in a viewpoint to The Hoya that he was disappointed in SCU’s decision to cut ties with GUSA and is not sure what success that will bring the commission in the future.
“Affirming my worst suspicions, the SCU has decided to cut ties with GUSA in order to unilaterally petition administrators for a number of controversial diversity-related policy changes,” Dowd said. “This development raises serious concerns about what is being advocated on the behalf of students without their informed consent.”
According to Dowd, he gave SCU the opportunity to become an independent organization last September. Following a discussion, Dowd and Kesten reached the mutual decision that SCU should operate within GUSA, maintaining GUSA funding and advertisement.
GUSA Senate Speaker Reggie Greer (COL ’09) said that he was not surprised by the move and expressed his support for both the SCU and their decision to become independent. He added that official decisions still have to be made in order for the SCU to become an independent club, which includes changing the name of the organization. In order to become a new club, the SCU must submit an official application, according to the Georgetown University Web site.
“I hope people realize it’s never been about slighting one group of people. … I’m very proud of what [the SCU] has done,” Greer said.
According to a SCU press release, the relationship with GUSA has not been a positive one.
“The Student Commission for Unity executive board has seen a once productive relationship with the Student Association turn into an inhibiting one,” the press release stated. “As we move forward, we are confident that our move away from GUSA will in no way inhibit our ability to advocate on behalf of the student body for positive change.”
*This article incorrectly reported that Dowd had originally given SCU the opportunity to become an independent organization at the beginning of the semester. This has now been changed. We regret the error.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Some media coverage from the Voice blog
Reposted from the Voice.
GUSA Senator Nick Troiano (Village A, F-H), he of the storied SAC sit-in, cemented his place in Vox’s heart (we have one, blackened and withered as it may be…) last night with the launch of his openGUSA project, which aims to “[integrate] social media with the Georgetown University Student Association for a more effective, responsive and transparent Student Government.”
Troiano live-broadcasted last night’s GUSA meeting in all its glory on UStream (not just for Shiba Inu puppies after all!), sent out frequent tweets about the Senate’s progress and voting results and live-blogged the whole shebang along with fellow Senator Irina Varela (VCE 1-5) and the Voice’s own Lillian Kaiser. It was a veritable smorgasboard of social media.
At the end of the meeting Troiano brought up the project with the other Senators, most of whom seemed supportive, if a bit flabbergasted by the news that they were being filmed (”We’re being watched!? I didn’t comb my hair today!” someone yelped offscreen; “Instead of C-SPAN it’s G-SPAN!” another quipped).
Hopefully they’ll allow the live streaming, though. After all, GUSA meetings are (at least nominally) open to the public anyway and having a video means whoever’s live-blogging doesn’t have to be constantly updating the audience and can focus on fielding questions and providing commentary.
Lots of people talk the talk about making student government more transparent and open. Well, kids, this is what walking the walk looks like in the 21st century.
GUSA Senator Nick Troiano (Village A, F-H), he of the storied SAC sit-in, cemented his place in Vox’s heart (we have one, blackened and withered as it may be…) last night with the launch of his openGUSA project, which aims to “[integrate] social media with the Georgetown University Student Association for a more effective, responsive and transparent Student Government.”
Troiano live-broadcasted last night’s GUSA meeting in all its glory on UStream (not just for Shiba Inu puppies after all!), sent out frequent tweets about the Senate’s progress and voting results and live-blogged the whole shebang along with fellow Senator Irina Varela (VCE 1-5) and the Voice’s own Lillian Kaiser. It was a veritable smorgasboard of social media.
At the end of the meeting Troiano brought up the project with the other Senators, most of whom seemed supportive, if a bit flabbergasted by the news that they were being filmed (”We’re being watched!? I didn’t comb my hair today!” someone yelped offscreen; “Instead of C-SPAN it’s G-SPAN!” another quipped).
Hopefully they’ll allow the live streaming, though. After all, GUSA meetings are (at least nominally) open to the public anyway and having a video means whoever’s live-blogging doesn’t have to be constantly updating the audience and can focus on fielding questions and providing commentary.
Lots of people talk the talk about making student government more transparent and open. Well, kids, this is what walking the walk looks like in the 21st century.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Resolution: In Support of Classroom Technology Use
Introduced by: Senator Nick Troiano
Status: Proposed
Whereas an increasing number of Georgetown University faculty are prohibiting the use of
laptops during lectures and discussion sections of academic courses,
Whereas the use of a laptop can be a great asset to a student in note-taking and research during
class time,
Whereas inappropriate laptop use, such as browsing the Internet, poses no significant interference
with other students’ education,
Whereas there may be reasonable restrictions to laptop use, such as prohibition of Internet access,
Whereas students are ultimately responsible for their own education,
Whereas the use of technology should be valued and encouraged at an institution of higher education,
THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SENATE,
Affirms that technology is a critical part of learning in the 21st Century and should be
encouraged as a way to enhance the educational experiences of students;
Discourages Georgetown University faculty from creating unreasonable prohibitions regarding
technology use, including the complete prohibition of laptops during class lectures;
Declares its intention to work with the University to provide recommendations to the faculty
that would balance professors’ concerns with the tools students consider important in their education.
Status: Proposed
Whereas an increasing number of Georgetown University faculty are prohibiting the use of
laptops during lectures and discussion sections of academic courses,
Whereas the use of a laptop can be a great asset to a student in note-taking and research during
class time,
Whereas inappropriate laptop use, such as browsing the Internet, poses no significant interference
with other students’ education,
Whereas there may be reasonable restrictions to laptop use, such as prohibition of Internet access,
Whereas students are ultimately responsible for their own education,
Whereas the use of technology should be valued and encouraged at an institution of higher education,
THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SENATE,
Affirms that technology is a critical part of learning in the 21st Century and should be
encouraged as a way to enhance the educational experiences of students;
Discourages Georgetown University faculty from creating unreasonable prohibitions regarding
technology use, including the complete prohibition of laptops during class lectures;
Declares its intention to work with the University to provide recommendations to the faculty
that would balance professors’ concerns with the tools students consider important in their education.
AN ACT TO Allocate Funds for 25 Days of Service
Bill Number 07-08-04
Status: Proposed
Introduced by: Senator Johnny Solis III, Co-sponsored by: Senator Nick Nelson-Goedert
Be it hereby enacted by the Georgetown University Senate as follows:
The sum of $600 shall be appropriated from the operating budget of the Student Association for use in purchasing necessary food, drinks, decorations for the events’ closing ceremonies on Feb. 25 and assorted supplies for the events’ service projects, therefore
Any money not used by March 1, 2009 shall return to the operating budget of the Student Association.
Certification
Status: Proposed
Introduced by: Senator Johnny Solis III, Co-sponsored by: Senator Nick Nelson-Goedert
Be it hereby enacted by the Georgetown University Senate as follows:
The sum of $600 shall be appropriated from the operating budget of the Student Association for use in purchasing necessary food, drinks, decorations for the events’ closing ceremonies on Feb. 25 and assorted supplies for the events’ service projects, therefore
Any money not used by March 1, 2009 shall return to the operating budget of the Student Association.
Certification
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)