What's the Issue?

(This post will remain at the top, please scroll down for the most recent updates). 

Join the Facebook group and be kept up to date. 

Increasingly, students and clubs on campus are becoming frustrated and outraged with the way the Student Activities Commission (SAC) is doing its job. It has been like this for a while now, but with SAC's latest affront to the student body, it is time we take an immediate and firm stand - both to the unelected SAC Commissioners who seek more power and less oversight AND to Georgetown's administration, which disregards the Constitutional oversight of the Georgetown University Student Association (GUSA) over the rouge Commission. 

This is about more than the $50 we all pay in activities fees each year. This is more than the unnecessary headache and bureaucracy clubs need to go through on a regular basis to get funding, sometimes just to get back the money they have raised themselves. This is about a runaway Student Association that We the Students have lost control over. It is time that GUSA, which has dropped the ball these past few years in its oversight responsibility, to reassert the authority given to it by the students and advocate what is right, not what is the most expedient. 

I ask you to join me and others in this effort of reform. Below I have written what I believe are the necessary foundations we should base our work off of. If we can all agree on these fundamental reforms of SAC, we can then can hammer out the details from there.

What is certain is that as it stands right now, SAC is going in the opposite direction of where it should be heading. We need to work together (GUSA, SAC, clubs, and students) to design an organization that will meet our needs in a way that is effective, efficient and democratic way. If SAC does not want to cooperate, that should not, and can not, hinder the change we need. 

Accountability

SAC Commissioners should be accountable to students and clubs, either directly or indirectly. Commissioners should be democratically elected or confirmed: either by the clubs, the GUSA Senate, the student body itself or a combination thereof. 

GUSA should retain al oversight responsibility, including nominating and confirming the SAC Chair and maintaing a Senate liaison on the board. 

Function

SAC should not micromanage the finances of campus clubs, run by responsible students on this campus. The commission should have one allocation per year, with the opportunity for new clubs and existing clubs to (re)apply for funding throughout the year.  

SAC should not place an unnecessary burden on clubs in obtaining funding, filing paperwork, or other functions.

Clubs should be fully entitled to all of the money that they fundraise or get donated. 

Transparency 

Information about SAC and its activities should be available and easily accessible to students and clubs, including meeting minutes and up-to-date financial reports. 

Debate and voting on allocations and other matters should be conducted in an open and advertised setting.

Public comment should be allowed before votes, with the length of such comment discretion of the presiding officer. 

Last GUSA Meeting - Still No Action

We closed the semester in GUSA without a single bill or resolution pertaining to SAC. It is clear this issue was #1 for us; the students spoke loudly and clearly in our town halls and on editorial pages. But to date, there has been all talk and little action, including the non-existent club summit. 

The only action that was taken was by SAC, which amended their constitution to codify their practices that do a disservice to the student body. The resolution I submitted two weeks ago, which was censored at the first meeting, presumably still sits in committee without any action, preventing the body as a whole from considering it. Yet Senators (the 1/3 or 1/2 of us that showed up) did a great job last night patting ourselves on the back for a job well done. 

I'm not quite as satisfied. I hoped that we can get on the same page by passing a bill/resolution that would send a resounding message to the student body that we are doing something and advocating for them, and a similar message to SAC that their days of rouge independence, lack of accountability, and excessive micromanaging are over. I hope GUSA can get its act together next semester and accomplish something substantive. 

The Intimidation Factor

It's no surprise that according to a recent article, campus clubs feel intimidated having to constantly go in front of SAC for funding in a process that has broken and gone without substantial reform for years. 

As the article indicates, I will be working with fellow members of GUSA to create an online and anonymous survey to determine some sort of consensus among clubs ann students about the direction they would like to see SAC go. 

This from the Georgetown Voice (photo credit also):

" In the midst of controversial discussions between the Georgetown University Student Association and the Student Activities Commission over the SAC chair selection process student clubs, which receive their funding from SAC, have so far found themselves left out of the decision-making process.

...

One current treasurer, who asked to remain anonymous when discussing SAC due to his continued need to receive funding from the commission, said the SAC commissioners’ emotional dispositions often bothered him.

“They’re very touchy, very quick to take personal offense and quick to accuse people of being disingenuous, liars and frauds, although they’ll never come out and say it directly,” the treasurer said. “And once they decide they don’t like you or don’t like your group, your treatment changes." 

...

GUSA is planning on hosting a club summit on SAC reform in January, where Senator Nick Troiano (COL `11) said he will distribute confidential surveys to groups so he can gather opinions and clubs will not have to worry about jeopardizing their funding. "

Resolution Censored

Quite the meeting last night. Essentially the resolution I brought before the senate was censored and no vote was allowed on it, breaking rules of order and the senate bylaws. In talking with the leadership post-meeting, we will try to arrange something for 2 weeks from now when we meet again.

There was no official action by the Senate on SAC, despite what happened this week. Just more talk and patting ourselves on the back for the "progress" we are making. 

I'll post something a bit more detailed later, go to run. 

Resolution - Maybe.

Quick update: A colleague and I will be introducing a resolution in the Senate tomorrow that will get the Senate on the same page in responding to SAC's recent actions. Unfortunately, I was told the resolution will not be placed on the agenda, for a host of reasons. I will introduce it by motion if this remains the case, but just want to air a concern that dissenting opinions within the Senate don't seem welcome. I am uneasy that the consideration of a resolution is at the sole discretion of the Speaker (who, regardless, remains the nicest person on Earth). I also hear Sophia has changed her mind and will show up? We shall see how this turns out tomorrow. 

SAC Chair declines my invitation

In the interest of getting her Highness on the record at a public meeting, I asked that the SAC Chair, Sophia Benhia, appear before the GUSA Senate tomorrow evening to explain and justify her board's actions. It comes as no surprise that she declined my invitation for a civil discussion, especially considering how her commission silenced opposition last night (remember, at GUSA meetings we talk and vote in public). I'm convinced that the idea of accountability makes our dear SAC leader shudder.  

She writes:

"Since SAC is not an arm of GUSA in any way, I do not feel the need to justify to the GUSA Senate the fact that the SAC constitution was updated last night.  SAC is an advisory board to Dr. Olson and not GUSA.  In addition, we are here to serve the SAC organizations and not the GUSA Senators.  You need to understand this distinction if you want to accomplish anything."

What I need to understand? I think I understand perfectly well that GUSA is democratically elected to represent students and advocate for their interests. These students pay student activity feeds each year. And these fees get dispersed by this board. And this board is supposed to be chaired by a GUSA appointed and confirmed student. And part of the funding for SAC comes directly from GUSA. There is direct oversight built into both Constitutions (of course, not the SAC one anymore). In letter and spirit, SAC is accountable to GUSA. 

Further, I'm not asking Sophia to justify her tyrannical rule over SAC to me, but to the students (who, if you have not noticed, are just about as sick of the way SAC operates as they were over the Noro Virus). She acknowledges that SAC exists to serve SAC organizations - but can she then explain why there is a near mutiny afoot? 

She then goes on to call my actions rude and say that I single handedly may have jeopardized the ongoing negotiations between GUSA and SAC (which if they were at all effective would have prevented last night from happening). She writes," The commission is not as excited to approve changes to the Chair selection process based on your actions last night." 

Am I supposed to apologize for refusing to be complicit with SAC as it violated its own constitution and turned its back on clubs and students yet again? I don't think so. Perhaps if someone remained in their seat two or three years ago, we would not be dealing with a runaway funding board with a self-righteous leader. 

I hold out hope Sophia will appear before the GUSA Senate tomorrow evening and answer the many questions that are on students' minds. 

" 'I don’t give a damn!': GUSA senator stages sit-in at SAC constitution meeting"

In a recent post, the Voice's blog fills in readers with the other half of the story that the Hoya omitted. The writer describes the scene at last night's meeting as "utter chaos." 

The blog recounts that after my "brief sit-in", the SAC Chair,  Sophia Behnia, called everyone back into the room:

"...there were 'angry voices and everyone talking over everyone.' One GUSA Senator said, 'Let’s not rush this,' to which Behnia replied, 'Your colleague forced us to do this.'

...

'You can all stay in here for this vote, I don’t give a damn!' she yelled."

With some accurate reporting, thanks to the Voice, students can get a real glimpse at the ill-tempered Chair as she not only refuses to acknowledge that under her leadership the Commission has blatantly ignored its own Constitution and has violated students' trust, but as she also displays such contempt for the people she serves who raise valid objections at SAC's public meeting.  

Sophia took a motion, a second, and was calling the vote on the Constitution when I interrupted to ask if there would be public comment allowed. That went on for a few minutes before an equally hostile and arrogant Commissioner proclaimed that no such comment needs to be heard anymore, and the quickly vote followed. 

It has been three years since the SAC Constitution has been updated. Sophia didn't get the memo that she does not operate an authoritarian regime, but rather a democratic body which derives its authority from, and ought to act in the interest of, the students. Last night's charade made that painfully obvious.