Apathetic

As someone who is graduating in May, I do not know what to think of GW anymore, nothing the administration does surprises me. Changes to J Street, I live off campus and have not eaten on a GWorld card in two years; mandatory spending, just deal with it since there is nothing you are going to do about the contract; lack of study space, just find somewhere else to work; and the list goes on.

Maybe what Rice Hall is trying to do is teach all the students that despite your tuition and fees, and other GW related expenses coming close to a quarter million dollars for a four year GW career, it does not matter how much you complain because you, the student, need to be more self-sufficient and solve the problems on your own. If this means using your mandatory spending at J Street it might just mean that you need to get a lot of water bottles or other snacks to meet the minimum if you do not want to eat from the vendor they chose to install.

Many students choose to get involved in student organizations, some get really involved n the SA, the group which has been so often described as a group of students pretending to play government. In the end all they do is sit there and pass non-binding resolutions and get some articles in the Hatchet (which I do not read) and posts on this blog, are they really speaking for the students when they are kept by university leaders from exercising any real authority.

Student Organizations have trouble getting space to hold meetings and events, instead of complain about the lack of space or the cost to use what is available groups should look for alternatives outside of GW whose space you can use, or whose groups you can join. Organizations need to follow a long list of regulations in order to operate as an official student organization. Since my Freshman year, I have been involved in off campus organizations and have found the experiences I gain from those activities and what I learn from the people there to be better in many cases than the GW student organizations to which I belong.

As for me, I am just apathetic by now, there is nothing I care about that much. I graduate in May, am on my way out the door, and for all the underclassman who are bothered by the poor food selections, lack of study space, or unjust student organization funding, just wait it out, because despite the high price tag this is only four years and you will survive the latest “GW injustice” which you are forced to suffer.

Photo Credit 1
Photo Credit 2

Trial Update: Hearing Moved to Monday - LIVEBLOG! - Amicus Brief

The Kyle Boyer trial has been moved to Monday at 9:30pm in Marvin Center 401.

There will be a liveblog here on GWBlogSpot covering every nuance of the hearing and maybe even a live video stream. How exciting!

Also, if you're closely following the trial, you shouldn't miss the very interesting Amicus Brief filed by law students Michael Williams and Stephen Glatter over concern that the court is not properly applying US jurisprudence when it hears cases.

From the brief:

Amici curiae are a group of law students from The George Washington University Law School. Amici curiae are interested in this case because of their general interest in the field of law and their commitment to the fair administration of justice. In particular, amici curiae are concerned with the relatively inadequate legal reasoning advanced by many of the parties in the present case, including this Court. Therefore, amici curiae offer their limited expertise in the hopes that it will help clarify some of the important legal issues for this Court’s consideration.

Amici curiae offer two alternative interpretations of this Court’s standard of review, based upon the two traditional interpretations of the “arbitrary and capricious” and “abuse of discretion” standards in American courts. Amici curiae do not go so far as to say which standard this Court should adopt in this particular case. Nevertheless, this Court should not avoid adopting a clear standard of review—when such clear standards are readily available in U.S. jurisprudence—merely by sticking its head in the sand and declaring itself unwilling to listen to “legalese.” (Writ of Cert. at 1.)

Things are getting exciting. Stay tuned to GWBlogSpot for more news and frequent updates.

UPDATE: Another wonderfully written and well argued amicus brief from immediate past chair and immediate past vice chair of the JEC, Benjamin Balter and William Rone, in response to a not-so-well-written, not-so-well-argued amicus brief filed several days ago by former Student Court Chief Judge Ryan Sullivan. You'll notice that Balter and Rone go with straightforward logic in their response to Sullivan, and ditch the "legalese" the concerned law students ask for in their brief.

Also, see the court's response to the concerned law students' brief, if you really want to.

All trial-related documents can be read and downloaded here.

UPDATE 2: A very well written and well reasoned amicus brief just posted. Filed by former JEC investigator Jake Greenberg for Boyer.

Breaking: Kyle Boyer to Challenge JEC Decision

In an e-mail message to campaign supporters forwarded to the GWBlogspot Kyle Boyer: said:

YES I am going to challenge the decision. Too many people have volunteered their time, changed their profile pics, etc. for me to not finish this race. As soon as we can, we will file with the Student Court, and hopefully begin the process of reversing the JEC and finishing this election.

As of now elections are slated for the end of March. However, when Boyer does file suit, there is a chance he could postpone the election further.

EXCLUSIVE: Nick Polk Speaks

Exclusive statement from Nick Polk, emailed in to GWBlogspot:

"The confusion surrounding the election has definitely been unfortunate but I am excited to re-enter the race and continue working to put my goals out there."

Breaking: Kyle Boyer off the Ballot

At a special election meeting tonight, the JEC found SA presidential candidate Kyle Boyer guilty of 5 violations.

Three were for overspending, one was for not reporting the use of a car, and one was for not reporting buying facebook ads.

Kyle therefore has a total of 8 violations, and was kicked off the ballot.

During the middle of the JEC announcement in Columbian Sqaure, Kyle got up from his seat and left the area.

Kyle does have the option to file an appeal in SA court.

Great job, GWBlogspot team! w00t!

Over 200 people watched it live on GWBlogspot...

People viewed it in the US, Spain, Canada, Germany, Austria, Venezuela, and other countries around the globe (seriously!)...

Students chose the questions, not just before the event but in a liveblog DURING the event...

What was it? The historic GWBlogspot SA presidential run-off debate, streamed live tonight!

Watch the number of viewers grow...


And grow...


And grow...

It's obvious that word kept spreading and spreading throughout the hour-long debate. Over 200 people watched in all -- as many as 73 or so at any given time. Pretty friggin' awesome.

And there was vibrant chatter at the liveblog (which you can still check out). Many questions asked during the debate came from students' comments in the liveblog -- the essence of bottom-up democracy. Plus, there were some great cameo questions from the Colonialist and GW Ballroom Society.

Props to Neha (the super-duper moderator), Farhan (the stealthy director), Evan (the timekeeper), Nick and Stephen (the liveblog vetters), Lucy/Daniel/Paige (who liveblogged and promoted the debate), Andrew (poster designer), Katelyn (debate announcer and question gatherer), and Owen (logo designer).

I do believe this is the most historic moment in GWBlogspot's history (and heck, in GWU's online history) since January 28, 2008:

SA Runoff Candidate Debate

Free video streaming by Ustream

SA/PB/MCGB Voting Starts Today

This years elections are taking place from today and tomorrow.

You can vote online at My GWU or Portal (law students) from February 25th at 9:00 AM to February 26th at 9:00 PM.

The Candidates:

There are currently no candidates for ESIA-G,SPHHS-U, SPHHS-G, SMHS-G, and MCGB-G. If you have student-government aspirations, you can be elected as a write-in candidate.

Presidential and EVP candidates need to obtain more than 40 percent of the vote, otherwise there is a runoff election on March 11th and 12th.

Have thoughts on the elections? Voice them in the comment section!

Liveblogging the 2009 Hatchet Debate

Farhan and I are live blogging the 2009 Hatchet Debate. Feel free to join us in Jack Morton or via liveblog! Just press the arrow below to watch and chime in!

Can We Trust You With Our Money?

In our previous post that called for questions for SA candidates, some students were wondering why some organizations received a significant drop in funding while the SA spent large amounts of money on programming events like the Unity Ball.

Nick Fabiani wrote about what he called "flagrant abuses by the Aswani administration concerning financial matters" and identified the Unity Ball as one, while reader Elana pointed to how this year's SA "cut serious funding to a large majority of student organizations in an unprecedented manner," including an over-50% cut for her own GW Ballroom organization. Reader Omar also asked, "how can you regain our trust and confidence in such an important position?"

SA candidates: Is financially supporting events like Unity Ball, while cutting funding for student groups, a responsible use of student money? If yes, please explain to groups like GW Ballroom why slashing their budget by over 50% was good decision-making. If no, please explain to Aswani why his decision to fund the Unity Ball was bad decision-making.

Yes, SA, you may have a flood of worthless candidates

I am not a fan of SA politics (But I want you to run for an office - to learn why, keep reading).

Actually, I am not a fan of the SA in general. It produces huge egos and personalities who feel entitled to engage in public fights over issues that, 95% of the time, will not impact me and only affect those actually having the arguments that we are all forced to read and hear about.

Despite this, I am going to write about SA politics. I am not an expert on the venerable institution and I have only stumbled across this issue recently, but it has got me absolutely fuming.

Here you can find the "Decision and Orders of The Court of the George Washington University Student Association" (here is the full opinion) that affirms the passage of a bill stating that signatures are no longer required to run for a position within the SA (See, that's why I want you to run).

Here's a post on The Hatchet's website by Emily Cahn. An excerpt from the article is below (the emphasis is mine):

Signatures are no longer needed in order to run for a position within the Student Association after the Student Court voted to sustain the SA Senate’s veto override from this Tuesday night’s meeting.

...

SA President Vishal Aswani’s Vice President for Judicial and Legislative Affairs, Jordan Chapman, claimed that two-thirds of the entire senate body must vote in order to overturn a veto. However the court sided with Boyer, asserting that two-thirds of senators present and voting at the meeting was enough to garner a veto override.

Because the Court’s decision came a day before the candidate registration period ended, the Court ruled to extend the registration period until noon on Feb. 17, giving candidates an extra three and a half days to get their name on the ballot.

A longer version of that story is expected in Tuesday's Hatchet.

This means several things, some more immediate and some more lasting, if indeed judicial precedent exists in the SA (from my basic knowledge of the organization, it probably does not):

1. Fuzzy Math
Forevermore (if precedent applies), not the whole SA Senate, but a simple 2/3rds majority of a QUORUM of Senators can override a Presidential Veto. A quorum (from my basic understanding of this institution) is 13 Senators. Bear with me, readers, because now is when we get into the procedural stuff that Mr. Robert and the SA Barons like to opine about.

Quorum is 13. 2/3rds of 13 is 8.67, and since we won't be chopping up any of our upstanding SA Senators, that makes 9. If 9 people constitute 2/3rds of a quorum, that means that 9 senators (of around 30) can override a Presidential Veto. Talk about undermining the executive branch.

In short: 9/30 = 2/3.

Figure it out, GW, because now it's law.

2. Kyle Boyer: Masochist
Current SA Executive Vice President (who presides over the SA Senate) Kyle Boyer is a candidate for SA President.

Mr. Boyer was the main proponent of the "9 votes constitutes a 2/3rd majority in a 30 person governing body" legislative philosophy that prompted the lawsuit in the GW SA Court. He was the primary defendant.

Congrats on taking away one of the primary powers of the office you are pursuing, Mr. Boyer!

Ouch. Maybe should have thought of that one.

Number 3 (with a bullet): A High Probability of Crappy SA Candidates - You can be one too!
Yes, GWBlogSpot reader, you can be an SA Senate Candidate with naught but a pen stroke! Just fill out this form, drop it off at the Marvin Center Room 433/436 before noon on Tuesday, and you're in!

You don't have to campaign, you don't have to walk around and gather signatures to prove that you actually WANT the job, you can just fill out the form and further dilute the already somewhat milquetoast field of candidates for any number of SA offices.

I encourage everyone to take advantage of this unique opportunity to really mess with one very annoying institution.

Sign up to run - it's as easy as signing your receipt at Pita Pit. No, it's even better, it's free! And your name will be on a ballot! A real ballot! How cool is that?

Think of all the things you could do, even if you don't win! "George Washington University Student Association Presidential Candidate 2009" would look awfully impressive on a resume!

No effort necessary! Run for the SA, and turn it in before Tuesday at noon at the Marvin Center Room 433/436.

It's just too amusing not to.

What's The Hatchet Afraid Of?

In the last round of elections, the Hatchet refused to endorse anyone. But in the runoff, the editorial board has endorsed Vishal Aswani. What changed?

Neither Kevin Kozlowski nor Vishal Aswani has any exceedingly noteworthy achievements under his belt. But the Student Association senate has not historically been the place to do that. Evaluating them more heavily on their leadership capabilities, drive to effect change within the University bureaucracy and thoughts on how best to represent the average student's needs, this page found only one candidate to lead next year's student government. After meeting with and re-evaluating the remaining two candidates, The Hatchet endorses Vishal Aswani for the SA presidency.

Okay, the lead of this editorial is pretty funny -- acknowledging the relative unimportance of the SA is a nice touch. But one meeting with the guy, and we've gone from "a hint of insincerity" about Aswani's campaign to full-throated support? Granted, a hint of something is a pretty weak reason for not endorsing someone -- something tells me the board was probably split on this and couldn't reach a decision.

In fact, the closer I read these editorials, the more convinced I am that the Hatchet almost endorsed Aswani the first time around. This line from their original endorsement editorial is most telling. It's from the paragraph in the editorial talking about the problems with Aswani's positions -- the last sentence, normally an attempt to put a cap on what my editorial professor called "opposing view":

We also were impressed by Aswani's plan to form a database with corporate sponsors and government grants for student organizations. This showed his deft ability to research other universities' plans and develop a viable solution to the problem of inadequate funding.

Why was that in the negative paragraph? This editorial has the fingerprints of internal debate all over it. It seems like this may have started out as a pro-Aswani endorsement, before someone (or, more likely, several someones) started touting OG Oyiborhoro. Obviously, "we got into a huge argument about these two guys and couldn't make up our minds, so we're not endorsing anyone" is a bad reason to write an editorial. But it's the board's responsibility to explain their positions, and this editorial doesn't do that at all. The negative coverage of Aswani is weak, and the pro-Oyiborhoro paragraph seems crammed in -- as though in the final readthrough of this draft someone brought up the fact that "he seemed the most serious."

I have no problem with the Hatchet withholding its endorsement, or with the board changing its mind later in the cycle. But the editorial board needs to back up these actions with facts, and neither of these editorials does that. Aswani comes off in the first editorial as a little too idealistic, but that's a stupid reason not to support him. The Hatchet didn't make clear the reasons it couldn't endorse anyone, and it didn't explain what changed the minds of the people on the editorial board. This is pretty shoddy journalism.

(A note: I didn't vote in the regular election and probably won't vote in this one. All I know of these candidates is what I read in the Hatchet and how their supporters treat me when they accost me in the streets on my way to class.)

Time for a reality check?

The SA is having a run off election.  Of course. 

It's not the election that bothers me, in fact, I couldn't care less about the SA.  

But I'm starting to think that the GW community, and especially the students running in this election, need a bit of a reality check.  It's only student government. 

According to the Daily Colonial, the reason for the runoff election is that neither candidate obtained forty percent of the vote, and the bylaws for elections require that a winner receive at least forty percent. The candidates received 30.34 and 37.2 percent of the vote.  

The difference, 6.86 percent.  That means that the difference was about 300 votes.  (301.154 exactly).  Bear in mind that only about 4300 students voted in the election (out of about 11,000 undergrads).  

Really, it's only the student government.  Whoever lost the election should have lost the election, and whoever won should win.  Don't these kids have midterms or classes?

The candidates for SA President.  All I can say is get over it. Seriously. It's just student government.

Two positives and a negative: The Hatchet's SA Election Blogging

I think it was from an episode of "Family Guy" that I learned to criticize by starting out with a positive comment, then a negative, and then finish with a positive comment.

It’s in that spirit that I analyze The Hatchet’s news blog this week.

First, the positive: the Hatchet’s election night coverage on their news blog was comprehensive, informative and timely.

Now, the criticism: In the blog post detailing the timeline about the election results, Hatchet reporter and blogger Andrew Ramonas included such postings as:

11:16 p.m. Tim Miller was just seen throwing a football across the ballroom with
SA executive vice president Brand Kroeger.

11:17 p.m. EVP candidate Kyle Boyer throws the football to Kroeger, who returns the football to Chris Rotella. Rotalla then hits an innocent bystander. “Stop throwing the
football,” Miller said over the microphone. (You’ll note that he started it a few moments ago.)

11:32 p.m. Presidential candidate Tarek Al-Hariri is asking about hanging chads. We sense a court case.

11:42 p.m. “Ben Balter is a sex God” did not win, according to the chair. He’s going over the rules, and here are the results…

Admittedly, it can be difficult to maintain a solid, serious dailogue when there's nothing going on. Ramonas acknowledges this in one of his blog entries:

11:31 p.m. This live-blog might seem like watching an ice cube melt in the freezer. Obviously there’s not a lot going on, and we can only offer so much anecdotal commentary. Last year, with the read-out of every ballot, there was a lot more to go on.

Plus, as I mentioned in my blog post two weeks ago, I'm all for people not taking Student Association elections so seriously. But, in my opinion, these "funny" comments were somewhat out of place.

Finally, another positive to round it out: the blog’s coverage of the fire department’s response to smoke at the President apartment building is exactly what the blog should be for – covering goings-on around campus that aren’t crucial enough or timely enough to be in The Hatchet, but have people wondering, “What was that all about?”

I encourage everyone who reads this (and anyone who has an opinion about campus-wide media, good or bad) to write to The Hatchet, post about it on a blog, or even discuss it amongst your friends.

This election is getting ridiculous

For the past few weeks, I've been reading the Hatchet and one thought keeps going through my mind: "These GW kids really take the SA elections seriously.  Too seriously, actually.  It's only the SA".  The candidates announce their candidacy in the newspaper, and there was the race-card scandal.  And this week there was a debate. 

This article, about a collegiate consulting firm, was when I realized that the SA elections were seriously overblown here at GW. 

But seriously, it's only student government.  Maybe everyone in the SA needs to realize this.

Now, I realize that almost everyone who goes to college in the DC area wants to be involved in politics one day, and most people who run for things like the SA want to be the President one day, but what the SA candidates aren't realizing is that in the real world, it's not that big a deal. 

GW students can be a force of nature. They are a huge group and living in a city where things can get done.  Maybe they should put there time and energy into doing more good (seriously, they could only raise $500 for the National AIDS Fund?) than trying to be president and campaign manager and consultant for the SA. 

SA Campaigns Are Valuable Learning Experience In Politics

I have to (respectfully) disagree with Andrew's post on the SA campaigns. True, in reality the eventual winner will have very little power at the university, as highlighted by current SA President Nicole Capp's inability to influence the Tower Records replacement, the lessons students learn by both running and holding office are invaluable.

OG is going to learn you can't drop out of the election and then come back and win (see Ross Perot). There's already a potential Ron Paul wannabe with Vishal Aswani (check out all that Web 2.0 in the works!). And countless other students will learn about campaign managing, canvassing, or simply how to make an educated decision when voting.

Once they're in office, students still have to learn lessons on maintaining a life in the spotlight. Take, for example, former SA President Lamar Thorpe's scandal last year for allegedly sexually harassing a female student (a charge he was later acquitted of). Thorpe had to deal with a media storm, judicial action, and adapting his lifestyle to one befitting a public leader.

Given GW's proximity to the White House, it's natural and important that the school's culture place a high value on politics, particularly its own. It would be a shame if GW didn't take it's politics so seriously.

Other than the high tuition, it's one of the few things that sets GW apart.

Lower Metro Fares? Completely Unfair and Unnecessary

This week, the Hatchet reported that the GW Student Association, in cooperation with 11 other DC-area colleges and universities, would be asking Metro to give college students discounted fares on Metro. Okay really? According to the Hatchet article, 145,000 college students ride Metro, and could benefit from the discounted student rates. Great, that's 145,000 students who can now pay a discounted rate to go to the movies or the MCI Center.

"(Our 11 schools) represent over 145,000 full time and part-time collegiate students who have made a conscious decision to study in the DC metropolitan area," the letter said. "As the representatives of those who reside in and pay taxes in the District, we encourage WMATA to support a student (Metro) discount."

But is it necessary? And furthermore, who is going to cover the cost for all these college kids to ride Metro at a discounted rate?

First, let's consider to necessity of discounted Metro fare. There are only two reason why people ride Metro - to get to work, or to get to where ever they are going to have fun. If students are riding Metro to get to work or an internship, then let's give students the same benefits that the average DC worker gets - a pre-tax deduction from your paycheck that can be used to pay Metro fare. GW could give this to its hundreds of student employees. Most internships in this city are either paid or for credit; the students receiving paychecks can work with their internship's HR office to get Metro deductions, and those receiving credit can pay regular fare (just because you chose to go off campus for class credit doesn't mean I should subsidize your ride). And if you're just riding Metro to go out and have a good time, the $1.65 is nothing compared to what your probably going to pay anyway.

Speaking of subsidizing rides, who is going to pay for all these discounted Metro fares? Metro fares were just increased to $1.65 for rush hour fares, meaning that the hard-working citizens of DC now pay, on average, almost $70 a month just to go to and from work. According to Metro, these fare increases were necessary in order to fix some of Metro's biggest problems, like elevator outages and track maintenance. If 145,000 riders were to suddenly pay a discounted rate, then the rest of Metro riders will inevitably see their fares go up in order to cover the discounted cost.

Also, the SA should realize that no one is forced to ride Metro. GW is so centrally located that students can walk (or ride the bus and take advantage of the lower fares that all DC residents get). DC was voted the most walkable region.

Overall, reduced Metro fare is a great initiative for the Student Association to campaign on, but it's unfair to DC residents. Anyone who can afford to go to school at GW or American or Georgetown or Catholic and chooses to attend those universities can also afford to pay full Metro fare.