One month ago, the Voice endorsed Georgetown University Student Associations’s proposal for Student Activities Fee Endowment reform. It was clear that the current club funding structure, which diverts half of the $100 Student Activities Fee to an endowment in hopes of eliminating the need for students to pay the annual fee, was no longer a viable plan. The endowment was not nearing maturity, as expected, and reforming the system was obviously the best course of action. However, the final reforms that GUSA put to vote did not afford students the opportunity to fully express their will.
GUSA’s proposal to devote all $100 of the Student Activities Fee to campus clubs and activities was commendable, but bundling it with proposals that increase the fee by $50 over two years and peg it to the standard rate of inflation was an unscrupulous and unnecessary move. By their own admission, GUSA did so to ensure that the less popular portions of their legislation would pass. As Senator Colton Malkerson (COL ’13) said, “If you divide the referendum question in two … people will vote yes on the first part and no on the second part.”
In offering only an up-or-down vote on all proposed legislation at once, GUSA forced students to make an unfair choice between improving campus life and spending their money sparingly. Ending payments to the SAFE alone would have doubled the money available to clubs, and students should have had the opportunity to approve that measure without voting to increase the fee at the same time. Furthermore, GUSA never demonstrated that the needs Georgetown’s clubs necessitated a fee increase.
There are now legitimate questions as to whether GUSA, which appropriates the money from the fee, will allocate the influx of new funds according to students’ best interest. The organization of the referendum has not inspired confidence in GUSA senators’ ability to best represent the students who elected them.
GUSA’s campaign to promote the legislation was discouraging, too. Signs urging students to vote in favor of the reforms papered Georgetown’s campus, but GUSA did not advertise valid opposition to the reforms. It maintained a monopoly on this week’s vote, from the phrasing of the referendum to its advertisement. At first, GUSA even weighed allocating $200 to itself to promote the reform. Though they ultimately decided against the allocation, the fact that senators considered using Student Activities Fee money to run a one-sided campaign in favor of increasing students’ payments is troubling.
The Voice continues to support using the full $100 student fee for club funding. But GUSA’s conduct in organizing and promoting the referendum was dishonest. When the results come in and GUSA lays claim to a sweeping mandate, it would do well to remember that the results of its doctored process do not represent the true voice of students.
It’s tough to know where to begin with this one, guys:
– “GUSA’s proposal to devote all $100 of the Student Activities Fee to campus clubs and activities was commendable, but bundling it with proposals that increase the fee by $50 over two years and peg it to the standard rate of inflation was an unscrupulous and unnecessary move.”
Suggesting that tying the fee to inflation is unnecessary and unscrupulous is pretty absurd. It makes the fee sustainable in the way nothing else could. Additionally (and for something like the thousandth time) the increase by $50 over two years was the result of direct consultation with advisory board and club members over the course of three town halls. Those who bothered to show up asked for this increase, so GUSA provided it in the proposal. I can imagine had GUSA not included the increase, there would be intense handwringing over GUSA ignoring the requests of clubs and advisory board members.
– “Furthermore, GUSA never demonstrated that the needs Georgetown’s clubs necessitated a fee increase.”
Copypasta from somewhere else regarding the same concern:
There are a number of indicators that suggest that people active in student life are quite unhappy with current funding levels. Last year the GUSA Senate held a Club Summit to solicit feedback from clubs on the funding process. As someone who was present at the summit, I can tell you quite honestly that the most frequently voiced complaint from club members and leaders was that significantly more funding was needed. Leaders of smaller clubs spoke of spending from their own pockets to supplement the limited amount they received from their advisory board.
Second, allocation requests at this year’s spring funding board increased by large margins in nearly every advisory board’s budget. These increased requests came even with the knowledge of unchanged funding levels, and the Finance and Appropriations committee was forced to allocate at a level tens of thousands of dollars below the requested level.
Finally, the Georgetown Voice has written extensively about funding issues in the past. Just because GUSA didn’t commission a double-blind peer-reviewed study, doesn’t mean the issue isn’t there in plain sight. I would suggest that the editorial board is choosing to ignore it.
– “There are now legitimate questions as to whether GUSA, which appropriates the money from the fee, will allocate the influx of new funds according to students’ best interest. The organization of the referendum has not inspired confidence in GUSA senators’ ability to best represent the students who elected them.”
Again, these are empty and vague insinuations. You are mischaracterizing the funding process, first of all. The editorial board knows well that GUSA’s main role in the funding process is disbursing the collected fee in large chunks to the advisory boards. These advisory boards are the ones who will “allocate the influx of new funds according to students’ best interest” and they have a track record of doing the best they can under austere budgets.
Second, what part of the organization of the referendum has not inspired confidence in GUSA senators’ ability to best represent the students who elected them? Was it the part where they identified a long-running and previously intractable campus issue? Was it the part where they spent a year collecting information from clubs and advisory boards on the nature of the problem? Was it the part where they held three town halls and a series of open meetings collecting information from the student body on what should be in the referendum? Was it where they set a 2,000 vote target so that the referendum wouldn’t pass if turnout was miserable? Perhaps it was when they released a full white paper report on the proposed referendum, allowed a period of review, and then passed it through the Senate with near unanimous support? I’m really interested in hearing more about this, because your reasoning is more than wanting based on what is written here.
– “Signs urging students to vote in favor of the reforms papered Georgetown’s campus, but GUSA did not advertise valid opposition to the reforms.”
Why on earth would GUSA, having duly debated and supported the referendum, have any imperative to also wage a Vote No campaign? I’m baffled. In fact, I would suggest that the fact that an organized “Vote No” campaign has not emerged in any sector of campus would be pretty solid evidence that it’s The Voice Editorial Board is perhaps in the minority on this one. We’ll have to wait for the results.
– “At first, GUSA even weighed allocating $200 to itself to promote the reform. Though they ultimately decided against the allocation, the fact that senators considered using Student Activities Fee money to run a one-sided campaign in favor of increasing students’ payments is troubling.”
What is really troubling is that you’re now holding things against GUSA which it didn’t do. It would have been completely within GUSA’s right to use its funds to promote a policy proposal it had passed. Would it have looked bad? Absolutely. But it was completely within their power to do so. But Senators foreswore this option and instead paid for the Yes campaign out of their own pockets. To highlight this as “troubling” is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
– “But GUSA’s conduct in organizing and promoting the referendum was dishonest.”
You’ve utterly failed to prove this. Again the Voice Editorial Board is a day late and a dollar short. Hopefully if SAFE Reform passes the student body can leave them to their bankruptcy.
And by foreswore I mean forewent. So much for that jeremiad.
Amen.
I usually agree with The Voice, but ATalbot just dominated you guys. It’s one thing to disagree with the policy, but to sling dirt at GUSA for running a campaign for something they supported? Low blow, guys.
You know, whenever I get in an argument with my girlfriend, she says “you always think you’re right when we’re arguing!” NO SHIT! If GUSA held town halls and passed this thing, then obviously they thought it was a good idea, and obviously they were going to campaign for it. Hell, if they hadn’t campaigned for it, no one would even know about it and they Voice would have to find something else to write about.
Bottom line, your logic is about as sound as that of my girlfriend.
Some people will never consider GUSA to be legitimate, no matter what it does. It seems that argument is always the first thing used to justify disagreement with GUSA, especially with the body disagreeing has little or no factual basis upon which to build their case.
“Again the Voice Editorial Board is a day late and a dollar short. Hopefully if SAFE Reform passes the student body can leave them to their bankruptcy.”
A GUSA senator threatening to cut funding from a student media organization that disagrees with him??? How mature and responsible! I’m so glad you guys are in charge of all our funding now!
@@ATalbot
Haha, I knew someone was going to suggest that. I was trying to say something high-minded about intellectual bankruptcy, but clearly failed.
For what it’s worth, I’m not a GUSA Senator, and GUSA has no ability to cut funding to any individual club or entity, not that they would want to. Especially not to the Voice, which routinely does really good reporting. It’s editorial board has pretty consistently missed the mark on these issues, though.
*Its. Ok I’m done.
“When the results come in and GUSA lays claim to a sweeping mandate, it would do well to remember that the results of its doctored process do not represent the true voice of students.”
Typical Voice, covering their asses so they can have it both ways. If the vote fails, they can point to GUSA’s ‘unscrupulous’ campaign; if it wins, they can deny that the 2,100+ people who turned out and approved the referendum represent the ‘true voice’ of students because of GUSA’s ‘unscrupulous’ campaign. But I suppose the Voice, with its demographically-representative 7 member editorial Board composed of 2 females and all white except for one South Asian, can speak authoritatively of what the true student voice is.
The Voice criticizes GUSA for its members spending their own money on pro-SAFE signs, because they briefly /considered/ using GUSA’s money. It also criticizes them for, it seems, not paying for anti-SAFE signs. It’s not incumbent upon those who support the reform to go and campaign against it. Shouldn’t those who oppose the reform go print off their own campaign literature and signs and hand them out? Or write letters to the editor and op-eds, which is in fact what happened (in the Hoya, of course; not here).
The fact is, if people oppose the fee increase but support the 100% allocation for clubs, vote no. If the measure failed for that reason, I’m sure GUSA would go back to the drawing board and get another referendum with just the club allocation. But as the vote total will show, I’m sure, people really aren’t that concerned about increasing the total they pay at Georgetown by less than one tenth of one percent over two years.
hehe… AT is so strong and dominant…
I hope he is as passionate about being SAFE in the bedroom as he is about GUSA…
The Voice jumped the shark.
For those who are curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
(i had to look it up)
Excellent analysis though, Mr. President.
You had to look up what jumping the shark meant? I think you just jumped the shark. Me too.
On the cereal tip:
I don’t think it was THAT shady for GUSA to include two reforms in one referendum, it happens in Washington all the time, like the recent Senate bill that included both health aid for 9/11 workers and repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (Guess what? The Republicans hate both gays and firemen! Subtext: I love gay firemen).
But point is, (how many times and I going to pretend to return to the issue at hand. ONE! MORE! TIME!)…
Okay really, since the amount of money going to Student Activities through GUSA is already going to at least double when this referendum goes through, PLUS whatever money has been accruing in the Activities endowment, was it really necessary to further increase the Fee by $50? They should have just said: 100% of the fee now goes directly to activities, and the current $100 fee is now tied to inflation. Donezo. It wasn’t shady to include both, just wildly unnecessary.
I think I just saved the world. Only like 3 months too late. Also, I’m sure they thought of this.