Attendance for 3/25

Those who bothered to show up tonight:

Ridge Blanchard - Copley G-3

Nick Troiano - Village A (F-H)

Stephanie Frenel - Harbin 5-7

Mike Meaney - VCE 6-10

Tyler Stone - VB 96-89

Justin Kirschner - LXR 3-5

Tim Swenson - N, O, Prospect

K'Sean Henderson - VCW Y-Wing

Jaris Matthews - VCW X-Wing

Andrew Butler - LXR o-2

Irina Varela VCE 1-5 had to leave early. 

If you don't see your Senator, you can find and contact them here. (Since no emails are listed you'll have to look them up here). 

Again, the Senate did not meet quorum and pending legislation could not be considered. 

3/25 Meeting Live Stream

Annual Budget

You can download the proposed budget here.

At a glance (total revenue $300,000):

	Requested	Allocated
Homecoming:	$12,000	$12,000
SAC Office	$21,500	$21,500
GUSA	$22,000	$20,000
GPB	$38,000	$38,000
CSJ	$45,000	$45,000
SAC	$35,500	$35,500
PAAC	$25,000	$25,000
Club Sports	$100,000	$100,000
Media Board	$46,375	$46,375
Welcome Week	$5,000	$5,000
Reserve	$9,300	$9,300
Outdoor ed	15,000	0
Total Request	$374,675	$357,675
	Remaining:	($47,675)

Appeal by Mogil-Klein

Based on the recent decision of the new Election Commission, we would like to appeal immediately before the election tomorrow. Students have a right to vote, and when technical difficulties exist that limits the voting and causes a bias we can do nothing in a democracy BUT protest. We sent in our original protest long before we knew the official outcome of that last election, and these concerns have been shared by many senators, students, and the outgoing election commissioners. 

Below was our written complaint to the election commission, on behalf of the Mogil-Klein Ticket and all of those students who were denied a vote. For this committee, we appeal on the grounds that the election commission did not follow election bylaws and secondly a clear bias exists in favor of Lamb-Breen because of the computer errors recognized by the first election commission. The constitution decrees that no person shall be restricted participation in the student government based on a number of factors, including political affiliation. Because, for the reasons below, Lamb-Breen voters were able to vote more easily than other voters, and for the sheer fact that the technology clearly failed, we appeal the election commissions decision and urge you to act swiftly in deciding this case before the election tomorrow.

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

We, two candidates for the GUSA presidency and Vice Presidency, formally issue this complaint about the Friday election. Based off the GUSA Bylaws, we have 5 hours after the official announcement of the results by the Election Commission to issue this complaint. An earlier form was issued to the old election commission as well. This complaint was discussed among senators throughout the election, and was communicated to numerous groups before we even knew the election results.

We feel strongly that this tainted election cannot be validated, and at the end will offer solutions that seek to enfranchise more voters. We hope that in your deliberations, you take into account the fact that your job is not to look out for GUSA’s “image” but to decide on a fair election and permit all students the right to vote. Timing should not be a concern; a free and fair election will ensure that GUSA has legitimacy. We urge you to make a decision before the next round of voting, in order to ensure that the student body does not have to vote another extra time. Also, if this committee is concerned about timing, the Senate Speaker temporarily can take over in between administrations. We would rather have a legitimate leader than one chosen in a tainted election. At the last senate meeting, many senators and candidates agreed with these election issues that we are about to present to you. We appreciate you hearing our case!!

Argument:

1. It was not announced in the second voting email that this was a new round of voting, so most students assumed they had voted a few days before and this was just a second reminder. Therefore, many of our supporters did not know to vote again.

2. Many students were disenfranchised. While the last election commission only received 5 complaints, they acknowledged this was a problem.  Having talked to students door to door as I campaigned, I found that MANY were unable to vote. If students had not reset their browsers from the last vote, it had registered them as already have voted. 

3. To respond to concerns that this affected all candidates equally: We do not know what those voters would have done and therefore the election was not valid. That is why I started complaining before I even knew the election results. This election was very close, and Lamb-Breen voters did not vote in the first election, so when those people voted for the first time Friday they did not have this technical problem because it was their first time logging in. Therefore, we could have legitimately been in the second round. This would significantly effect the outcome of the election, since the students deserved a fair vote and the votes were so close for second and third place, we urge action to be taken.

4. There was no information concerning a new election; the student body was confused and for those reasons the election cannot possibly be viewed as valid.  A minor argument, but equally as valid, is that the bylaws stipulate an election must occur 14 days after campaigning. This new election, which was ruled new by the constitutional council, did not have that 14 day period.

 

For these reasons, we urge this council to allow for a fair and free election where all students have a right to vote. This was not a GUSA mistake, just a technical one. They held a whole new election last year for a similar technical error; we urge this Committee to give us the right to run and the students the right to vote. We wish for a new election, but in the interest of time we also share a recommendation that some senators discussed; based on the results it was clear that there were a few favored candidates. We would support allowing the top 3, 4 or 5 candidates back into the next round of voting. The next round of voting was ordered to eliminate candidates with low vote counts to ensure that someone reach’s a majority. We are confident that a majority could be reached if 3 or 4 candidates were running.

But we filed our complaint that the election was generally tainted and would prefer a new round of voting in the interest of all students having a right to vote. They pay for GUSA, and deserve a say in its leadership. As a GUSA senator, and on behalf of my Senate District residences, I urge this council to act swiftly in favor of allowing me a fair chance to run for office and a fair chance for students to vote for their leadership.

Thank you. This process has not been easy, and has cost more time, money, and effort than anyone intended. We just want a fair chance to run on our platform, and urge the student body to have a right to vote. We have been fair through this process, and know that this will pro-long an election. But timing should not be an issue. We appreciated when the Council allowed Lamb-Breen their fair chance to run and students a fair chance to vote, and we urge our fair chance now.

Calen and Jason Answer Your Questions

1. Please name two accomplishments from the previous two GUSA administrations (combined) that you would like to continue in your administration, and one that you would like to do away with. Explain your answer.

Georgetown Summer Fellows Program:

This initiative started by the Dowd administration has allowed students

who otherwise could not afford student housing over the summer the

opportunity to live and work in Washington. This progressive program

has proven its effectiveness and deserves to be even further developed

and funded which we plan to do if elected.

Events on and off campus

Pat also organized many events both on and off campus, which included

election-related events such as "May The Best Man Win," as well as

off-campus events that allowed students to explore the D.C. area, such

as "Opera in the Outfield". As a way to bring the campus community

closer together, we plan to create and plan more events that optimize

students’ time both at Georgetown and beyond the Hilltop.

Improvement:

Diversity related issues. While this did receive some attention during

the year, we believe it did not get enough notice and deserves to be

explored further in the coming months. While SCU and GUSA have had

their issues, we believe that it’s time to remind everybody about the

macro level goal of SCU’s research: promoting diversity at Georgetown.

Hopefully, we can work to move past the politics between SCU and GUSA to

bring about some much needed diversity awareness here on campus.

2. Have you thought about adding some of your opponents to your cabinet, since they're also individuals who obviously care a lot about serving Georgetown?

We believe that any student who is truly interested in helping better

the students lives both on campus and beyond the Hilltop would be

welcome in our administration, including those who ran against us.

Many of the other candidates have interesting and effective ideas to

help better students’ lives at Georgetown; should we occupy the

executive, we would welcome them to join us in bettering Georgetown.

3. How will you finally get us wireless?

We believe as the more experienced student government members in

dealing with the administration we know the ins and outs of effectively

lobbying for student needs such as wireless on campus. We require no

"on-the-job training" and will be able to hit the ground running as soon

as elected. Wireless is an important issue and one that both Jason and

I have worked on in the past year. We have already spoken with key

administrators of the GU ResLife and Library services and will make this

a top issue next year. After speaking with them we learned it comes

down to is funding and time, and we believe as experienced advocates for

students we will be able to relay the desperate need for more wireless

internet and hopefully expedite the process.

4. SAC recently elected to change its constitution to make its votes secret and let the SAC chair choose his or her successor, as well as every member of the organization. Clubs denied funding by SAC have no method of appeal. Clubs, newspapers and students have been petitioning strongly for reform in the way SAC operates. What steps will you take to make SAC more accountable?

As the more experienced GUSA advocates, we have already worked with SAC

to improve transparency between SAC and the student body. We have a

tentative agreement between SAC and GUSA which will allow for more

transparency and student involvement in choosing SAC commissioners who

ultimately decide the funding. This is a step in the right direction,

but both GUSA and SAC need to work to bring more accountability to SAC.

We don’t expect an instantaneous change, but a gradual move towards a

more elective process seems best for the student body. It's your money

and you deserve to choose who is allocating those funds, not the

administration.

5. What is the most innovative idea/goal in your platform, and how, specifically, do you think you can accomplish it?

The Georgetown Fund: While we would normally suggest intellectual life

and improved relations between students and professors for one of my

main issues, we will substitute a part of our platform which received

less attention in this campaigning period. The executive branch works

under a large budget, and we intend to allocate half of it, along with

other funding, to the Georgetown Fund. Under this plan, we wish to

provide $30,000 to student groups in need of capital. Student

organizations may then apply for money and a GUSA co-sponsorship to host

an event. Considering the already scarce funding available to students,

the Georgetown Fund would provide simple access to much needed money. We

believe GUSA should serve the students, and funding their activities

helps to show this support.

We understand that some students may have other questions or concerns,

and we welcome them as you make your decision. We invite you to check

out our website at www.calenandjason.com There, you will be able to

contact us directly. Thanks and make sure to vote on Wednesday for the

run-off!

Questions to the Candidates

Please name two accomplishments from the previous two GUSA administrations (combined) that you would like to continue in your administration, and one that you would like to do away with. Explain your answer.

Have you thought about adding some of your opponents to your cabinet, since they're also individuals who obviously care a lot about serving Georgetown?

How will you finally get us wireless?

SAC recently elected to change its constitution to make its votes secret and let the SAC chair choose his or her successor, as well as every member of the organization. Clubs denied funding by SAC have no method of appeal. Clubs, newspapers and students have been petitioning strongly for reform in the way SAC operates. What steps will you take to make SAC more accountable?

What is the most innovative idea/goal in your platform, and how, specifically, do you think you can accomplish it?

Special Session Live Blog

Results of the 2009 GUSA Presidential Election

Candidate Votes Percent
Sean Hayes (MSB '10) and Andrew Madorsky (MSB '10) 117 4.51%
Calen Angert (MSB '11) and Jason Kluger (MSB '11) 598 23.07%
Brock Magruder (COL '10) and Brian Litwak (MSB '10) 143 5.52%
Cory Perkins (SFS '10) and James O'Brien (MSB '10) 145 5.59%
Josh Mogil (SFS '11) and Lauren Klein (MSB '11) 405 15.63%
Peter Dagher (COL '10) and Elias Ibrahim (SFS '10) 268 10.34%
Jeff Lamb (MSB '10) and Molly Breen (MSB '11) 476 18.36%
Joe McGroarty (COL '10) and Dimitrios Koutsoukos (SFS '10) 304 11.73%
Write-In 136 5.25%
Total 2592 100.00%

We certify that these results are valid and accurate.

Will Dreher Fred Moore

Election Commissioner Election Commissioner