2008 Woodie Awards
SectionsSGA cabinet is not serving students
James Rigdon
Issue date: 10/23/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
There have been some shocking inactivity and hypocrisy by the higher-ups in Student Government Associ-ation this semester. One such event was last week, where, after voting to delay the only useful resolution that has come up in the past few weeks, senators had the audacity to condemn the press for saying that senate was inactive! We have been told, in session, that our votes and opinions do not matter, that the administration does not listen to us. If that is the case, why are we paying for this? My concern only deepens when I compare this confession of expenditures to the voting record concerning the Fiscal Responsibility resolution on Sept. 25 (this resolution required Cabinet to get approval from Senate for expenditures of over 1.5 percent of the budget); the voting on that particular resolution was 37-9 with three abstentions. Who were the nine who voted against it? The Cabinet members! This is nothing personal against anyone on Cabinet, as I have multiple friends there, but it does call for an investigation.
My concern deepened when I chose to investigate the recent veto of a resolution requiring a opt-out list for turnitin.com. Senate passed this resolution with a strong majority, and it was vetoed for no better reason than it being vague in its administration. I found this reasoning to be somewhat peculiar, and thus I investigated other resolutions that have been approved and not vetoed. For example, a bill written by Mr. Diaz encouraging the use of SCUF funds to finance a gaming lab was, at best, ambiguous in its administration, stating "recommends to the appropriate university officials that such a lab be studied and looked into", but never names who should be add-ressed. By the standard set through this veto, that resolution should have been removed, or, sparing such, should have been vetoed following approval. Why did it remain, but the resolution concerning an opt-out list for turnitin.com has been vetoed, and its follow-up has been delayed for weeks?
My concern deepened when I chose to investigate the recent veto of a resolution requiring a opt-out list for turnitin.com. Senate passed this resolution with a strong majority, and it was vetoed for no better reason than it being vague in its administration. I found this reasoning to be somewhat peculiar, and thus I investigated other resolutions that have been approved and not vetoed. For example, a bill written by Mr. Diaz encouraging the use of SCUF funds to finance a gaming lab was, at best, ambiguous in its administration, stating "recommends to the appropriate university officials that such a lab be studied and looked into", but never names who should be add-ressed. By the standard set through this veto, that resolution should have been removed, or, sparing such, should have been vetoed following approval. Why did it remain, but the resolution concerning an opt-out list for turnitin.com has been vetoed, and its follow-up has been delayed for weeks?
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
James Rigdon
posted 10/23/07 @ 9:22 AM CST
I requested that this letter not be edited and was even told yesterday evening that nothing had been taken out, yet I am rather irritated that the first paragraph of the letter has been removed. (Continued…)
Bryan Diaz
posted 10/23/07 @ 3:17 PM CST
I believe that they took your first paragraph out because it is false for the following reasons:
1) I did not title the letter, the Standard did
2) Where in the letter do I state that SAC should have a cabinet retreat?
3) Where do I say that the price tag of such a retreat is around $1000? I clearly state that it is between $100 and $1000
4) I do not believe that any significant others of cabinet members attended the retreat, however, I was unable to attend
5) Again, I gave a range as to what is spent at a cabinet retreat, not "exactly how much money we are allowing cabinet to spend. (Continued…)
Post a Comment