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. 

SAC Approves Constitutional Changes

From the Hoya: The Student Activities Commission passed an amendment to their constitution last night to formally empower the SAC chair to select his or her own successor.

The amendment, which reflects the selection system SAC has unofficially used for the last several years, passed with 12 votes in favor and one abstention late last night.

...

Matt Wagner (COL '11), a GUSA senator and finance appropriations chair said the senate approves of the new selection process.

“The finance committee and the senate as a whole both agreed to it,” he said. “We understand for logistical reasons that they need to have a different way to transfer power right now.”

...

Senator Nick Troiano (COL ’11) said he does not believe that SAC should have changed its constitution.

“Instead of changing the constitution, they should adapt their behavior to the way that the constitution says that they should work,” he said.

....

Read the full article here. 

Few thoughts:

The Hoya never mentions the provision about voting in closed session or the removal of a SAC Liaison or anything else aside from the process to appoint a new chair. Nor does it mention anything about public comment being cut off at their meeting last night and the consideration of their Constitution after as this Senator refused to leave the room. 

Secondly, how can my colleague Matt Wagner speak on behalf of the Senate? I know he was in the room last week when a substantial number of us were up in arms about this, so I don't know where (or how) he gets off saying that SAC has Senate approval in their actions. Same goes for the Speaker of the Senate (also quoted in the article). No one can speak on behalf of the Senate unless we pass a Resolution or Bill to that effect. I know it's tempting to tell the campus newspaper that everyone agrees with you - but that's simple not true. 

 

How many Hoyas does it take to allocate funding for a tablecloth?

Answer: 15. 

I sat through my first SAC meeting tonight and cannot comprehend the extent to which they micromanage the activity of clubs. No wonder why so many club presidents and treasurers are calling for reform. Tonight, they spent a substantial amount of time debating the price of a tablecloth! 

But beyond the senseless bureaucracy lies another problem: the Commission kicks everyone out before they take a vote (a vote on how to spend OUR money), despite the fact that their Constitution forbids it. So when the board asked everyone to leave, I refused. I tried to explain to the board that I would not be complicit in they way they continually disregard the will of the students (whom they serve) and so arrogantly dismiss public opinion.  

After a bitter exchange (especially from the Chair, whose authority is just as legitimate as their rules of procedure) they decided the best thing to do was not to acknowledge that they have been violating their Constitution and the student trust, but to amend their rules on the spot in order to force me out of the room. 

Way to go SAC. Amid incessant calls for reform, you give the students another slap across the face. 

Why should the votes be public, you ask? First and foremost their Constitution requires(d) it. Secondly, how are the students expected to hold these public officials accountable if we do not know their voting record? Some commissioners complained they'd feel pressured or even be harassed in public. It seems to me if you are scared of accountability, you shouldn't be in charge of $200,000 worth of students' funds. 

Lord knows I didn't make any friends tonight for doing my job (which, oddly enough, is like each SAC Commissioners: representing the students). 

Someone Just Doesn't Get It

SAC Commissioner Rich Sweeney writes in a Hoya Viewpoint that the changes made to the SAC Constitution "won't change anything." Yet the new Constitution is drastically different than the old one: it makes Commissioners less accountable and the process less transparent. 

Not so, he writes. "The 'changes' ... are changes in the text — not in SAC’s current operation." 

Oh, wait, I get it - that's how it's always been, except now its codified in a written document that you don't have to blatantly violate anymore. 

I agree with the writer that Constitutions, for these purposes, are "living documents." But they are also documents that boards like SAC must abide by if it is to retain any integrity or respect whatsoever. Clearly, SAC lacks both among the student body, and by amending its Constitution and not its behavior, it is not helping itself. 

"SAC may Buck GUSA"

From the Voice: On Monday night, Student Activities Commission Chair Sophia Behnia (COL `09) proposed several controversial amendments to the SAC constitution. If they pass, they will eliminate defunct clauses in SAC’s constitution that place it and its commissioner appointments under the authority of the Georgetown University Student Association.

...

Wagner, Senator Tyler Stone (COL `09), and Senator Tim Swenson (COL `10) were all vocal in support of leaving SAC free to pass the current amendments in the hope of future cooperation.

...

Senator Nick Troiano (COL `11) was less convinced.

“I think ultimately that we’re the deciders in this situation,” he said.  “I don’t see how they have any right to redo their constitution.”

Read the full article. 

"GUSA Alum" weighs in

One blog commenter had this, among other things, to say:

"Suffice it to say, this is a huge issue. GUSA has the constitutional upper hand (as well as the support of all the newspapers, clubs and students, from any random poll of opinion you’d like to take). It’s up to them to pressure Dr. Olson to rescind the original memo and bring them back in line with the Constitution.

If Olson refuses to budge, then I think it’s best to really get a strong measure of public opinion. GUSA is within its rights to call a referendum on the issue, and have people voice their opinion on whether they prefer SAC’s proposed way of doing things, or GUSA’s."

"Georgetown’s newest aspiring kleptocrat"

From the Voice's blog: 

The Student Activities Commission has shaken off GUSA’s checks on its power, so last week GUSA was trying to reassert one of those checks–its right to appoint SAC’s chairperson. Instead of the ad hoc system where the outgoing chair chooses their successor, the chair would be selected by some commissioners, GUSA members, and members of student groups.Everyone loved this idea, including the Voice’s Ed Board and SAC chair Sophia Behnia herself. But Monday night, in a mindblowing power grab, Behnia said JK to all that. Here’s the way Behnia says it’s actually going to be:

• The new SAC chairperson will be appointed by the outgoing one, not GUSA.
• Votes are now secret! Non-commissioners who attend SAC meetings will have to leave before votes.
• SAC no longer will tell GUSA what happens at its meetings.

Strangely, there’s nothing GUSA or regular students can do about the veil of secrecy that’s about to descend on how the student activities fee is spent. That means it’s up to the administration to stop the position of SAC chair from becoming a hereditary, incredibly powerful title, but they don’t seem interested.

GUSA Senator Tyler Stone told the Hoya that GUSA would try to do something after the changes are approved, but until then, you’ll just have to trust Sophia.

New SAC Constitution May End GUSA Oversight

From the Hoya: Student Activities Chair Sophia Behnia (COL ’09) proposed eliminating the GUSA’s involvement in SAC last night in an amended version of SAC’s constitution, potentially ending the 17-year relationship between the groups.

Read the full article.