GUSA Presidential Election Invalidated
Diqualified Tickets Reinstated
UPDATED: February 26, 2009, 2:13 p.m.
Early Thursday morning, the GUSA Constitutional Council invalidated Tuesday's Student Association Presidential Election, stating that a new election will be held including all eight of the original presidential tickets, including the two that the GUSA Election Commission disqualified earlier this week.
Senate Speaker Reggie Greer (COL ’09) and Vice Speaker Nick Troiano (COL '11) wrote in an e-mail early Thursday morning that the senate is recommending the election be held this Friday.
Following this decision on Thursday, Frederick Moore (COL ’09) and Will Dreher (SFS ’09) resigned from their posts as Election Commission members, stating in an e-mail that they could no longer fill their positions because of ineffective communication with the GUSA and the Senate’s leadership – especially Troiano and Matt Wagner (SFS ’11) - interest in “maintaining GUSA’s image” no matter what. But, Moore and Dreher added that most GUSA members, especially Brian Wood (COL ’09), Greer and the GUSA executives were well-intentioned in this process.
“Due to a lack of communication, which we take equal responsibility for, we were put in the position of having to administer an election while simultaneously sorting out what was just for those candidates who were disqualified,” Moore and Dreher said in the e-mail. “We came to what we believe to be the fairest solution, but it was a far more protracted process than it had to be. We hope that GUSA can now have a fair election, one in which all candidates have equal access to the voters.”
The Election Commission suspended the election as of 6:45 p.m. Tuesday night until the controversy surrounding the disqualification of two presidential candidates was resolved.
Late Monday night, GUSA Election Commissioner Sophia Behnia (COL ’09) and Election Commission members Moore and Dreher decided to disqualify GUSA presidential candidates Jeff Lamb (MSB ’10) and Molly Breen (MSB ’11) as well as Peter Dagher (MSB ’10) and Elias Ibrahim (MSB ’10) from running in Tuesday's election.
The GUSA Senate then met Tuesday night to discuss students' and candidates' concerns about the disqualification. The senate also voted to fill vacancies on the GUSA Constitutional Council, which is responsible for addressing all issues relating to the election. After being nominated by GUSA President Pat Dowd (SFS '09), Andrew Mok (SFS '09), Shane Giuliani (SFS '09) and Justin Weiss (COL '09) were elected to the council.
Moore said that the Election Commission did what it thought was right, since the bylaws were never expressly explained to them.
"The senate is arguing that the bylaws were clear - that's not true. They never told us the intent behind the bylaws. ... We were forced to come up with answers on our own. So we essentially didn't know what we could or couldn't do," Moore said. "And [for Troiano] and other senators to suggest that it's just [the Election Commission's] fault is ridiculous. It's GUSA Senators doing what they always do - pointing the finger. I just want to do my job. So whatever they tell me to do now - I'll gladly do."
The senate met again Wednesday night and voted on a bill that would install the use of instant runoff voting for all future elections. Introduced by Troiano, the bill was passed and will take effect in the fall 2009 semester.
IRV has caused problems in the past for GUSA elections. In last year’s election, using IRV, there was a problem caused by the ballots not being randomized and unclear instructions for voters. Last year’s election was then repeated using the plurality system, in which the voter only chooses one ticket. Though D.W. Cartier (COL ’09) and Andrew Rugg (COL ’09) won the first IRV election, Dowd and James Kelly (COL ’09) won the second plurality election.
According to e-mails sent to the disqualified candidates, the commissioners stated that the two pairs were disqualified due to a second violation of poster placement. Lamb and Breen posters were found in the Intercultural Center as well as Darnall Hall, which violates residence hall posting policies. Dagher and Ibrahim posters were found improperly placed in O’Donovan Hall, Village B and New South Hall.
Dowd said that these specific policies do not fall under GUSA, but under the oversight of the Office of Residence Life.
“If you [violated the poster policy in a resident hall], you wouldn’t get one hour of community service,” Dowd said. “But people who put in dozens of hours to better serve Georgetown are having their campaigns thrown out.”
Former GUSA Senator Matt Stoller (COL ’08), who was one of the principle authors of the current election rules, said that because these poster policies were enacted by the Office of Housing and the Office of Residence Life, the Election Commission is technically not allowed to disqualify candidates for violating this policy.
“Only those rules specifically laid out in the election rules are [reasons for disqualification]. The [Election Commission] may not enforce housing regulations as disqualifiers. The current rules allow for seven … campaign posters and have no restrictions on where they may be posted. This is further compounded by the bylaw I explicitly put to combat situations like this that stated that no other restrictions may apply. None. Period,” Stoller said. “Housing posting policy violations may be enforced by Housing. They may choose to sanction the students, just like any other student or group that posts them in restricted areas. But the Election Commission may not disqualify them for this fact.”
The GUSA governing bylaws enumerate six rules for presidential elections. “No other restrictions other than those stated here should apply to campaigning,” the bylaws state.
After a conference call Monday night, members of the senate leadership agreed that the Election Commission is not allowed to disqualify the candidates for the improperly placed posters.
“[Behnia] misread the bylaws to say that anyone who violates any rules shall be disqualified subject to a majority vote of the election commission, while the bylaws clearly state this is only the case for the rules enumerated in the bylaws,” said GUSA Senator and Finance and Appropriations Committee Chair Matt Wagner (SFS ’11). “She arbitrarily set election rules without any authority to do so and disqualified two otherwise viable tickets for violating those arbitrary rules.”
“What happens next is relatively simple,” Wagner said. “Either the ballot gets corrected to include the two campaigns that were wrongly disqualified, or somebody wins, and feels like they had their victory taken away from them when we inherently cannot certify the election no matter who wins. I really don’t want that to happen.”
“We understand that this is frustrating and we want you to know that we did not take this decision lightly; as such, our decision is final,” the election commissioners stated in their e-mail. “It is imperative that the university’s policies are respected, especially by those students seeking the highest position in student office.”
Despite the controversy, the Election Commission has not wavered.
"The Election Commission wishes to note that we stand by our initial decision to disqualify these candidates," the e-mail states. "It is that decision — and the decision not to simply overlook violations of university policy — that has allowed us to continue this debate today in the interest of openness and fairness. As a student organization, students running for GUSA office certainly must abide by university policies and other laws."
Dagher said that he was shocked about this last-minute decision.
“We heard basically six hours before the elections are supposed to start,” Dagher said. “They sent us an e-mail telling us that we’re going to get disqualified.”
He said the decision was unfounded, especially because he does not believe the election commissioners informed the candidates at a preliminary meeting where or where not they could place posters.
Lamb agreed that the election commissioners did not stress the importance of poster placement or how easily candidates could be disqualified.
“The bottom line is that this is not a fair representation of what can make Georgetown stronger,” Lamb said.
Both pairs decided to file formal complaints and plan on continuing their campaign efforts by urging their supporters to enter write-in votes for them.
“We filed a formal complaint tonight before 12 a.m., which was when they were supposed to officially release voting instructions to the Georgetown student body,” Lamb said.
At 4:20 a.m. Tuesday morning, voting instructions were sent by e-mail to the Georgetown community — the Dagher-Ibrahim and Lamb-Breen tickets are not included on the ballot, but a write-in option is available.
The other candidates were also not informed about these disqualifications as of 12:48 a.m., according to Joe McGroarty (COL ’10), another GUSA presidential candidate.
“As a candidate, I have not been alerted of any disqualification, or even when the Web site for the vote will be ‘officially’ released,” McGroarty said in an e-mail. “This is my understanding as a participant in the election; I cannot even begin to wonder what is spreading through word of mouth on campus right now.”
Dagher said he believes all of the candidates have put too much work into this campaign to give up without a fight.
“We’ve done too much work to completely disappear. We still want … our supporters out there [to know] we did a lot of work and hopefully [they’ll] stick with us,” Dagher said. “We can use that as defense to show that we really got some people interested and excited.”
Dowd said that he was not sure whether there would be a reversal.
“The only thing I can say for sure is there are going to be some very angry people because both of their tickets had a lot of supporters,” Dowd said. “Without a doubt, they’re going to be very upset. I would also bet that a lot of other students, when they hear what transpired, will also find it upsetting as well.”
McGroarty said that he was upset by this decision and felt there was good reason to overturn it.
“These disqualifications, if final, greatly hurt the election process by taking away good candidates from the field and further undermining the legitimacy of the student association,” McGroarty said. “Don’t get me wrong. We all want to win, but not if the students lose.”
Lamb said that the only option now is to remain positive.
“Technicalities, especially revolving around GUSA elections, [are] getting in the way of Georgetown becoming a better place,” he said. “We’re going to try to stay as positive as we can. I guess our only option now is to go in as a write-in ticket.”
Dagher agreed that a write-in ticket is probably the only option left.
“All the hours of work put into this, for nothing now. We’re telling our supporters to write us in,” Dagher said. “We’re filing a formal complaint to the Election Commission and to try to follow up with whatever administrators we can.”
Disqualifications in GUSA executive elections are not new. In 2006, Khalil Hibri (SFS ’07) and Geoffe Greene (SFS ’08), after winning a majority of votes in the election, were deemed ineligible to fill the positions of president and vice president by the Election Commission for setting up a voting station for students to vote on election day. In 2004, Kelley Hampton (SFS ’05) and Luis Torres (COL ’05) were disqualified for exceeding the expense limit, though the decision was later reversed.
Behnia could not be reached for comment.
-Hoya Staff Writer Dawn Hu contributed to this report.
Feb 24 2009 at 6:33 a.m.
Sophia strikes again! Chalk another one up there along with years of wonderful leadership of SAC. Who thought it was a good idea to giver her any more power than she had?!? FML
Feb 24 2009 at 6:44 a.m.
GUSA at Georgetown has been de-legitimized more than it already had been. What a freaking joke. GUSA is now absolutely irrelevant; its only purpose is for entertainment in the Vox Populi blog.
How about we start some other way of electing a President and VP? We can have a lottery, or we can even let the Jesuits choose! Anything is better than this madness. Give me a break!
Feb 24 2009 at 7:20 a.m.
Wait a minute FML, let's be clear about something: the "madness" described in this article is in no way the fault of GUSA. Rather, it is the result of a rash decision made by the independent Election Commission (chaired by Three Stooges Benhia, Dreher, and Moore).
If you will take a moment to examine the facts, you will see that GUSA, in fact, is doing everything in its power to make sure that justice is preserved in this election process. I encourage you to look at the letter that GUSA President Pat Dowd wrote to the election commissioners urging them to reconsider their completely eroneous verdict.
(http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2009/02/24/great-minds-think-alike-dems-endorse-lamb-breen/#more-2582)
The independent election commission went ahead and DQed Lamb-Breen and Dagher-Ibrahim tickets despite Dowd's urging not to. As the reason behind their decision, the Election Commission said that the candidates had violated ResLife flyering policy. Well guess what?: the Election Commission was never meant to enforce ResLife policy. So, as it turns out, the Three Stooges' decision to disqualify Lamb-Breen and Dagher-Ibrahim was completely non-sensical.
Contrary to the uniformed opinion of FML, I am pleased to see that GUSA's current leadership is taking the time to sort things out. GUSA has not been "de-legitimized" in the slightest. In fact, it seems to functioning suprisingly well under pressure. Kudos!
Feb 24 2009 at 4:28 p.m.
Why was this reverted to the 1:38 edition and not the 3:30 am edition?
Feb 24 2009 at 4:32 p.m.
I was wondering the same thing Matt S.
Feb 24 2009 at 4:53 p.m.
J. Ryan Zambon
Information Systems Director
The Georgetown Hoya
Feb 24 2009 at 5:13 p.m.
Clarity: I understand your concern for, well, clarity, but if it's called the "GUSA Election Commission," isn't it part of GUSA? Sure, it may be functionally independent in some technical sense, but it's still part of the GUSA apparatus. That's why I think that the FML people above are correct: GUSA does not function.
I was around to see the utterly disappointing DQ of Khalil and Geoff a few years back, even though they won by a huge landslide.
These DQs are routinely performed on a completely arbitrary basis. Every campaign probably mistakenly violates at least one of the bylaws, but only certain candidates ever face violations.
The pattern here, and I'm just pointing out the obvious elephant in the room, is that the more "liberal" or "least bro" candidates tend to face the ire of the DQ police. Joe Bro Hoya doesn't have to worry about the DQ.
[Side question: How can GUSA campaigns even have control over what happens to their fliers? Is it not conceivable that someone could photocopy a flier and post it somewhere out-of-bounds? Did the DQ police consider that possibility? Why not allow the election to continue and then worry about following up with violations after the fact?]
Either way, GUSA is absolutely dysfunctional and irrelevant to the needs and concerns of the student body. The student body needs to organize itself into a force for actual change by creating a real student union.
On other campuses, students fight against outrageous tuition increases, cuts to popular programs and departments, and many other real issues. You guys and gals won't get any real change through GUSA, even on a good day (which they haven't had so far this century).
It's such a shame to see so much potential student power go to waste. GU is full of a bunch of bright, dedicated students who are capable of doing so much. Please take this in the best possible light:
Students of Georgetown, it's time to stop acting like sheep.
Don't wait for approval from anyone.
Don't submit any "amendments" for GUSA to "consider."
Don't pay any more attention to GUSA.
When you demonstrate real power, the university administration has no choice but to listen to you. I know this from experience, that the university can be rapidly shaken out of its slumber when you're physically pounding down their office doors for change (living wage, LGBTQ Center, etc). Now some people complain that those strategies and tactics weren't comfy or "nice," but no one can argue that they weren't effective in getting the university to make significant changes to which they were opposed.
The admins love GUSA, because it insulates them from the actual power of an organized student body. Ever heard of "divide and conquer"?
It's time to set up a shadow student government that actually works. I strongly urge one of these DQ'd campaigns or another group of students to mobilize themselves outside of this ridiculously silly little box called GUSA.
Feb 24 2009 at 5:21 p.m.
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters....
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
-Frederick Douglass
Feb 24 2009 at 5:34 p.m.
If we are going to disqualify all that violated these supposed rules, I would suggest to the election commissioners to take a walk down the steps of Village C, look straight in front towards the window of the Village C RHO, and make a decision, because other posters are there as well.
This is stupid and will not help matters.
Feb 24 2009 at 5:38 p.m.
Wow! What a great last minute disqualification. (Complete sarcasm.) Well, we can only fathom that the Election Committee want to make the selection more easy for voters- homogeneous much????
This exploitation of a legitimate election to further private interests is disgusting. No elections results will be legitimate in this election. It's a shame one of the top undergraduate institutions in this country can't overcome rigging elections. If this university cared at all about honestly and its "Jesuit" values the Deans themselves would be fighting for a re-election as we speak.
Feb 24 2009 at 5:47 p.m.
Bansky, the university doesn't care. They love this stuff, because while we bicker around the bylaws, they can go on doing their own little thing without having to bother with us pesky kids.
You, the students, need to get out into Red Square and start organizing. It's time to set up a real movement, without the Big Egos trying to claim credit or cast blame, which is what your "leaders" are doing all day every day. (Sophia said this, but Pat said that, but Matt told you a few months ago that.... blah blah blah)
Forget them. It's pointless. Only you can stand up for what you know is right. Get organized now.
Feb 24 2009 at 5:48 p.m.
You can make a decision on your own to see if the candidates violated them. These are the only by-laws applicable to the campaigns.
ELECTION STRUCTURE AND REGULATIONS
16. Presidential Elections and Campaign Rules
16.01 The total cost of a presidential campaign may not exceed $300, including all materials and any other expenses incurred. All receipts must be handed in to the Election Commission by no later than 8pm on the day following the election. Such receipts may be submitted to the Election Commission in the Center for Student Programs. If the Election Commission finds that a ticket has spent more than the set amount or has neglected to hand in all receipts or has submitted falsified receipts, the Election Commission shall have the power to disqualify said candidate.
16.02 The content of all campaign materials shall be free from any regulation or prior approval.
16.03 Candidates may begin campaigning starting at 12:01 AM, fourteen days before the election.
16.04 On Election Day, candidates or anyone acting on behalf of a candidate may not
set up voting stations with any electronic device, including, but not limited to, laptops, desktop computers, BlackBerries, et cetera. However, candidates may conduct normal campaign activities on Election Day, including campaigning using electronic devices. Election Day is defined as the period during which voting occurs, beginning from the receipt of the official election email and ending when voting is closed.
16.05 In order to appear on the ballot, candidates must sign the candidacy form, which signifies understanding of the campaign rules and intent to abide by them. The form also lists campaign managers and staff (if applicable).
16.06 No other restrictions other than those stated here shall apply to campaigning.
16.07 In order to be elected, candidates must comply with all campaign regulations.
Moreover, anyone who a candidate enlists to act on his or her behalf or anyone who a candidate knowingly allows to act on his or her behalf is also subject to the campaign regulations. Any violation of the campaign rules by the aforementioned parties may result in the disqualification of the ticket concerned by the Election Commission.
16.08 All Election Commission communications, including disqualifications and complaints, shall be delivered via e-mail immediately to the candidates accused of a violation. Candidates are responsible for checking their email. Appeals may be made to the Constitutional Council only on the following two claims/grounds:
(a) The Election Commission incorrectly or inadequately applied the rules.
(b) The Election Commission showed bias in its application to the rules.
16.09 Candidates may files complaints with the Election Commission, but they must do
so in writing.
16.09 Elections for President and Vice-President shall be conducted with a two round plurality system. On the last Tuesday in February, the first round of the plurality election will be held. If in the first round a ticket receives a majority of the vote, the members of that ticket shall be the President and Vice-President pending certification of the election results by the Senate. If no ticket receives a majority in the first round, then the two tickets receiving the most votes will advance to a run-off plurality election that will be held the following Tuesday, unless Spring Break occurs the following Tuesday, in which case the run-off will be held the Tuesday following Spring Break. The members of the ticket who receive the most votes in the run-off election shall be the President and Vice-President pending certification of the election results by the Senate.
16.10 The tickets shall be ordered randomly on the ballots, and the Senate should review the ballot prior to its release to ensure that this has been done.
16.09 At minimum, the election must run for 24 hours.
16.11 The Senate must certify the results of the presidential election – as modified by the final decision of the Election Commission or Constitutional Council, if applicable, and after all appeals or objections have been exhausted – before the president is eligible to be sworn in. Certification requires a two-thirds majority. If the Senate votes to deny certification, as opposed to failing to certify, another election must be held no later than two weeks after that vote. If the Senate does not deny certification, but a certification vote fails, then the Election Commissioner must appear for testimony, and subsequent votes will be held until the results are either certified or denied certification. In the event of a new election, the certification of the new results shall be dealt with in the same manner by the Senate.
16.12 Barring ongoing challenges or lack of certification of the election result, the
President and Vice-President elect shall be sworn in by March 15. If there are still challenges to the results after March 1, or if a conclusive vote on certification has not been held by that date, then the President and Vice-President elect shall be sworn in immediately following the successful certification of the results.
17. The Election Commission
17.01 The Election Commission shall consist of three members appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate that shall serve for the duration of their enrollment at Georgetown University.
17.02 If there will be vacancy due to the graduation of a member, a replacement shall be
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate before the end of that semester in which the member is graduating.
17.03 If there is a vacancy due to resignation or removal of a member, then a replacement shall be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate as soon as possible, but no later than three weeks after the vacancy arises.
17.04 The Election Commission must run the Senate and Presidential elections according to the election by-laws established by the Senate. The Election Commission does not have the power to make any new rules for election or modify election regulation. In the event that they fail to do so, the Senate
17.05 The Election Commission should report the results the day after the election, and
must report the results within 72 hours of the elections being concluded.
17.06 The Election Commission must appear before the Senate to report the result of the
election report the election results to the Senate..
17.07 The Election Commission is responsible for exercising due diligence in
investigating all complaints made in writing.
Feb 24 2009 at 5:51 p.m.
Boycott the election until this is sorted out and properly arbitrated.
Feb 24 2009 at 5:55 p.m.
17.08 The Election Commission is a routinely dysfunctional element of a pointless GUSA student government.
Come on people, think outside the box! Everyone knows this isn't working. This process won't help you achieve a single one of your goals. Get organized!
Feb 24 2009 at 5:59 p.m.
Anonymous, you have a good idea in calling for a boycott, but it's still not good enough to just wait "until this is sorted out and properly arbitrated"
By whom? The same nutcases who claim to be your leaders? You want passivity, and what we need is action.
We need to do the sorting out.
Feb 24 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
This decision is unwarranted and completely biased. If the election committee is going to disqualify two of the most qualified candidates in the running, then they should disqualify everyone, because I have seen other candidates' posters repeatedly placed in illegal zones, yet they are not being punished for their actions. GUSA elections should be unfair and unbiased, yet somehow we are allowing all power to be placed in the hands of three people who do not reflect the principles of integrity and fairness that Georgetown is meant to uphold.
Feb 24 2009 at 7:01 p.m.
Even if the Election Commission thinks the regulation they enacted is completely common-sense and rational, they still cannot make it binding on the candidates.
The EC quotes rule 16.07 disingenuously. It must be read in context. Specifically, the statement that directly precedes it!
16.06 No other restrictions other than those stated here shall apply to campaigning.
16.07 In order to be elected, candidates must comply with all campaign regulations.
The only restrictions for candidates in the by-laws I can see are:
$300 campaign limit.
No setting up voting stations.
That’s it.
A ‘regulation’ is nothing but a ‘restriction.’ Saying that candidates cannot post campaign posters in ICC is the same as saying “Candidates are restricted from posting campaign posters in ICC.”
It may be common-sense, it may be smart, it may be a violation of other rules, but the bottom line is this: it’s not a violation of GUSA rules, and therefore cannot be the basis for a disqualification.
Feb 24 2009 at 7:30 p.m.
Matt's comment above is still just a bunch of words. Still just typical GUSA-speak.
This is what GUSA spends most of its time doing -- getting lost in an endless series of debates about the meanings of various vague wordings and things that people might have said or didn't say years ago right after bumping a line off the urinal.
It's still pointless. The entire GUSA system is flawed from head to toe, and no bylaw is going to change that.
Feb 24 2009 at 7:54 p.m.
I think all this is just a huge distraction, perpetrated by campus media, to shift focus from the REAL issues that GUSA seems incapable of solving-- like getting that damn bird out of Hoya Court. It's been there for three weeks!
Feb 24 2009 at 7:58 p.m.
Again, Sophia doesn't run this University. She got saddled with this bullshit Election Commissioner job because no other group on campus is willing to do it, and it gets dumped onto the Senior Class Committee. There are dozens of reasons why that's stupid (like that the SCC doesn't give a damn about your GUSA elections). But aside from that, it also means that there is CSP oversight. Again, I urge people to look to Erika Cohen-Derr. That's the actual University decision-maker involved here.
Might this have been a Sophia blunder? Sure. But considering the number of things that have been thrown her way, I think it might be time to take a glance behind the students who get stuck with these jobs and start looking at Erika and Bill McCoy.
While we're at it, can GUSA just disband already?
Feb 24 2009 at 8:11 p.m.
How about we go all the way up the totem poll, past Erika, to Todd Olsen, VP for Student Affairs. He's your real target, because he has actual decision-making power. Organize a mob of students and show up at his office unannounced, and he'll have to act. I've seen it done before.
But, first, you have to think about what your demands are. Is it just a short-term "we want a re-do of the election with all candidates on the ballot"?
Or, are you tired of all the re-do's? I mean, this broken record has been repeating itself for longer than any of you have been at Georgetown. Will someone please pull the plug?
Maybe you have a bigger demand? Maybe it's time to form a student union that actively engages and mobilizes the student body, instead of worrying about what the GUSA goons have to say?
Feb 24 2009 at 9:02 p.m.
"Organize a mob of students and show up at his office unannounced, and he'll have to act. I've seen it done before."
Do tell.
Feb 24 2009 at 9:12 p.m.
>>Maybe you have a bigger demand? Maybe it's time to form a student union that actively engages and mobilizes the student body, instead of worrying about what the GUSA goons have to say?
Okay, Mike. Would love to hear what you think (seriously). How to better engage the students or campus? Should a small mob of Olson-protestors become the new government. Will they have to be elected? Or self-perpetuate? Or just have a coup d'etat each year by an even more radical, change-oriented mob?
I mean, yes, in the abstract, everyone would probably want to have a more effective student government. The key question is how. And the devil lies in the details.
Feb 24 2009 at 9:23 p.m.
"Mob" is probably too scary of a word for you guys, since you're probably GUSA bros.
But a big group of organized students... you can call it what you will. You don't need to be unruly or break any laws... but the truth is that big groups scare the admins into action.
Apparently you weren't around for any of the events around the living wage, or LGBT coalition last year. Remember it was a large group of students that got un-necessarily barred from entry to Healy Hall to deliver a big scary petition to DeGioia? That prompted a bunch of profs to come over to their side, and made it to the evening news on local TV. DeGioia announced his open forum shortly thereafter. He didn't do anything when we asked nicely -- but he did do something when we put him up on the evening news.
But, yeah, you were probably somewhere having one of your circle jerk bylaw debates, so you didn't notice.
GUSA shoots itself in the foot just about every year right on schedule, and no one takes you seriously.
Feb 24 2009 at 9:33 p.m.
Check out this article about the above events from the Hoya:
The initial story where students are barred from Healy Hall:
http://thehoya.com/node/4639
The professors follow up in response to DeGioia:
http://thehoya.com/node/4676
DeGioia finally holds a town hall and agrees to said demands (which the university opposed for years):
http://thehoya.com/node/14686
This is how students get things done around here. I know.. it's not comfy, and we didn't say pretty please.. But we got it done.
Feb 24 2009 at 9:40 p.m.
^^ GUSA isn't mentioned in any of those stories? ^^
Feb 24 2009 at 9:44 p.m.
To quote someone on the Voice blog, re: the LGBTQ stuff
"Yes you’re right that a lot of people participated, but Ben and Matt both helped lead the effort whether it was in meetings with DeGioia, in Viewpoints they published in the Hoya, in working with Dr. Porterfield to outline the scope and breadth of the LGBTQ working groups, in appointing students to those working groups, in being on the working groups themselves and going to all of their meetings, in organizing multiple town hall style events over the course of the year to address the LGBTQ and race issues that came up, et cetera et cetera.
They weren’t the only leaders, but they were leaders, and their voices (by virtue of their positions) were probably the best heard and best articulated in the student body in general on these issues, both LGBTQ and race. They wrote about it ( http://www.thehoya.com/node/13809 ), spoke often about it, and did a lot to bring the movement that had already built up within the school into the mainstream, serving as the bridge, I think, between the “highly motivated, independently organized” but tiny group of people you mention and the broader community that could have easily dismissed that minority’s concerns as none of their concerns. They gave it their unflagging support and spent hundreds of hours over their two semesters in office working on the issue, especially through the LGBTQ working groups which they served on, and in organizing a lot of discussions about race."
Feb 24 2009 at 9:48 p.m.
However, that raises a broader concern.
Let's abolish GUSA and just let individual students, or groups of them, to organize and advocate change. Bang down the doors! Give 'em hell til you get what you want!
Except, oh wait, then we'd be at the mercy of a minority of strongly-motivated students whose agendas may not jibe with the rest of the group. I'm sure if SCUnity, for example, got appointed to all the boards dealing with diversity and engaged in exclusive talks with administrators, we'd get an extremist package that most students would disagree with.
GUSA - or any version of a student government - is there to moderate and represent the democratic voice of the students. And yes, to advocate for change (which it has, quite successfully in the past few years), but change that is worked out accountably.
Feb 24 2009 at 10:41 p.m.
You used "GUSA" and "democratic" in the same sentence?
OK, you're right, the status quo is just fine. Let's see how things play out from today's election debacle. Judging from past experience, there will be a series of strongly worded emails sent back and forth at 2 am between a few "leaders" in GUSA and the EC or whomever else does this crap. Then GUSA will debate the issues for a few days or weeks, maybe try to get another election, maybe not, (maybe even set up a committee!) then someone will end up getting appointed as pres/vp, and they won't have the full support of the student body because, like usual (with a few exceptions to the rule) GUSA isn't capable of running a fair and "democratic" election.
What I am proposing is the dissolution of GUSA and the creation of a new student government. It doesn't have to "bang down the doors" on every issue, but when the university stonewalls you month after month, it's time to step up and get people activated. Emails and twitter feeds can only do so much -- they can be organizing tools for sure, but sometimes you need boots on the ground -- and I just don't think GUSA is capable of doing that. Has GUSA ever held a public rally to pressure the university? I mean, if you want to be treated like a "President" why not give a public speech once in awhile? Just wondering...
We all know that, fundamentally, GU is not treating its students the same as at other major universities of our caliber. Many of us graduate with the feeling that we've been had. Sure.. academically, it's a wonderful place with fantastic profs, but institutionally, this place isn't working.
Here's something that I bet would never cross the minds of GUSA:
Why don't students have any real control over the Leavey Center? Most universities have a thriving student center with plenty of meeting space. Sure, The Corp was able to get access to its areas of Leavey, but those battles were hard fought, and required some "radical" tactics back in the day. (I'm not as familiar with their history, but they did some crazy hippy shit to get what they got).
But overall, the student groups have been corralled into a few shoebox offices in Leavey and that warehouse thing in Riverside Lounge. Meanwhile, the university takes all the good office space on several floors of that building, and then gets to control the entire rest of the building, along with its corporate Marriott buddies on the hotel side of the building. Then the university brings in defense contractors (for example) to have big expensive conferences with a bunch of people from outside GU.
Leavey should be for the kids, but its not. And the only way you could ever change that would probably be to try to occupy part or all of the building. I'm serious.. try asking nicely for about 10 years and see where that gets you. But if you make a solid case, get people mobilized, and start taking action, you could probably get something done.
Feb 24 2009 at 11:09 p.m.
Whatever GUSA sucks. Got it.
But maybe we should think about whats really going on here. Is it any surprise the most probable of the disqualified candidates is associated with a certain pirvate club and the members of the election committee are members of the rival Wolf's Head Union.
What a shame that WHU cant enjoy their little boys game rivalry with the SS without disrupting the democratic processes that the rest of us rely on and in the process screwing over a great guy simply because he likes to hang out with an esteemed alumni network.
Shame on you Wolf's Head Union and shame on you Election Committee member. You know who you are.
Concerned Hoya Alum.
Feb 24 2009 at 11:28 p.m.
Dude --
Your way off base. Why dont you try to prove your point without engaging in ad hominum attacks. The members of the election commission simply did their job as they understood it. To the extent that they may have had loyalties beyond their service on the Committee, there is no indication that their membership affected their decision to disqualify anyone.
You should chill out and leave your theories to yourself. Stick to the facts. It'll be better for all of us. I promise.
Sanspan
Feb 24 2009 at 11:59 p.m.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=66763666512
Keep an eye on Hipple/Feng. Their platform is making GUSA go away. Given this fiasco, they might actually get some votes.
Feb 25 2009 at 12:09 a.m.
Yet another reason to vote Hipple-Feng... end GUSA once and for all!
Frankly, why have year-after-year of falsified elections... when you can make THIS one, your LAST one!
Feb 25 2009 at 5:29 a.m.
this is so cutee!! college kids pretending to be important, and just proving (predictably) that they are incompetent. who cares about this? it's so stupid. no one cares.
Feb 25 2009 at 6:22 a.m.
So, if I count this right, that means GUSA is shooting two-for-five in conducting fair elections?
That's like playing against yourself and somehow coming up with a losing record.
Feb 25 2009 at 6:48 a.m.
To Mike:
All of your ideas have been tried by GUSA.
To your question: Has GUSA organized a rally to pressure the administration? Yes. In the last few years, I can think of these examples:
1. Large rally in opposition of the keg ban
2. Large demonstration in Red Square against the keg ban ("kegstravaganza," having people race to finish a root beer keg and the equiv volume in cans to prove that kegs are actually a slower way of getting drunk)
3. Meeting in McShain to raise race issues on campus
4. Rally in Sellinger to raise issues on security and demand answers for why nothing has been done to improve campus safety(admins ended up coming and answering questions)
5. Campus-wide referendum opposing new disciplinary policies (more than 3,500 students voted against them)
6. Major get-out-the-vote efforts to force accountability of student financing system (55% of student body turned out to support this, resulted in almost a million dollars of wasted funding being found)
So, clearly you're incredibly ignorant. But thanks.
And regarding your other idea about why students don't control more of the Leavey Center, this has been a huge concern that GUSA has spent the last few years working on. It's been raised at Main Campus Planning Committee meetings, which is where the university decides what new buildings to commission; at Board of Directors meetings. It's been raised with the CSP. GUSA fought successfully against kicking clubs out of their offices on the 4th floor, which almost happened. GUSA also fought to bring real restaurants to Hoya Court, which previously went entirely unused and only had crappy generic restaurants that literally no one went to.
So this idea that "has never occurred to GUSA" has actually been something that GUSA has been aware of and working on for years, with limited success. The unfortunate reality is that Georgetown has a severe, severe shortage of space and there is just not enough room on campus to house everyone. But you'll be happy to know that GUSA got designs for a new student center in the old, abandoned New South dance rooms / old cafeteria / viewing rooms approved by the BoD, and the upcoming capital campaign will raise millions of dollars to build an entirely new student center in the enormous abandoned first floor of New South.
So yet again, way to be incredibly ignorant. But that's okay, you clearly aren't very involved on campus. But before you badmouth dozens of students who are putting forth lots of effort to do something that's incredibly, incredibly hard, maybe you should try to get your facts straight. Because really, all you're doing is insulting your fellow well-intentioned, hard-working students. What exactly do you think you're accomplishing other than spewing hatred?
And have you ever TRIED to run an election? We still don't know the results of the 2000 presidential vote; there were massive irregularities in the 2004 Ohio vote that may have changed the result of that election; we have no clue yet who won the Minneapolis Senate race in 2008 that happened months and months ago. Truth is, elections are ridiculously hard to get right if even "real" governments spending trillions of dollars can't do it. So why don't you quit whining and explain how you would run such a complex endeavor as an election? What, you think that none of the people who've been working on this issue for the last 5 years are smart? They didn't get into the same school and won't earn the same degree as you? They don't include everyone from Harvard Law School students to Rhodes scholars to COL valedictorians to board members of the Corp? Are you really that arrogant?
I'm sorry, it's hard to have respect for the opinions of people who haven't accomplished anything of their own or gotten involved and yet decide to ridicule the efforts of the people who actually have tried getting involved. I don't know where you are able to find all of the senseless anger, hatred and frustration, but it's clearly compounded by your ignorance. Pathetic, I can't believe I go to the same school as you.
Feb 25 2009 at 6:54 a.m.
Also Mike:
Two quick things:
1. By Minneapolis I meant Minnesota
2. Your example of the Corp is an interesting one. As you say, you're not that informed on their history, otherwise you'd know that the Corp was created by GUSA and run by GUSA for several decades, including when the "hippy shit" went down.
Feb 25 2009 at 2:07 p.m.
To Really Mike?:
Your points all seem pretty valid, but I just want to point out that you are 100% wrong about clubs getting kicked out of Leavey last year. Maybe it was GUSA who fought for them, but in any case, there are only about 3 clubs that were allowed to stay in Leavey- Senior Class Committee, APO, and GPB. I'm sure I am missing one or two, but the point remains that a fair number of groups, Right to Life, IRC, etc., were told to vacate their offices and that they could sign up for "storage space" in the near future if they wanted, though nothing of that has been mentioned since. Also Hoya Court currently has basically one "restaurant" open daily, that is Subway, the rest are open for a few hours off and on depending on if they have food. So I'm all for recognizing the accomplishments of GUSA, which I agree are more than they get credit for, but don't add any in there that are at best exaggerations.
Feb 25 2009 at 2:16 p.m.
Does anyone commenting here realize that yes they all had flyering violations and corrected them and were then told "if you violate these regualtions again, you will be disqualified" They were fairly warned and continued to violate the policy that they were told would disqualify them. Maybe they aren't the best candidates if they can't follow a simple rule.
Feb 25 2009 at 3:25 p.m.
Well, thanks for your response. Yes, I have been involved in a number of issues, but I'm one of those students who doesn't try to plaster his name all over everything, which is pretty much what GUSA does. GUSA doesn't know what it's like to be barred entrance to Healy Hall for wanting to deliver a petition, because it wasn't there. I've been in direct negotiations with admins over several contentious issues that GUSA chose to ignore. I spent countless hours helping to work with an organized coalition of students over several years, but for us, it was more important to get things done, than to worry about *who* got it done. That's something that GUSA doesn't understand, because it is mostly a resume padding society.
Look at me! I was the head of a commission!
Sure, GUSA has worked on a lot issues.. they're "involved" just like a lot of students. But, what bothers me and a lot of other people is the arrogance, the idea that you all are somehow leading the campus when it's almost always outside groups who are willing to stand up for something when GUSA won't.
I thought the Keg ban protesters were organized through Facebook by some beer pong enthusiasts. (http://thehoya.com/node/5608) I didn't know that was an official GUSA function? (I was watching it from Copley when it happened) Even so.. GUSA wants to take credit for students rallying around beer??
Furthermore, no, it's not that hard to run a student body election for Christ's sake. They do it at just about every other "elite" school in this country. You guys are what, two for five now in getting fair elections? And your whole comparison to US elections is just presumptuous BS. 120 million Americans vs 6000 Hoyas whatever... at least America isn't two for five.
I'm sorry, but GUSA has had a good run. It's time to be put out to pasture and I sincerely hope that we can get a group of students who are willing to hold this administration's feet to the fire and get some results. Sitting on committees is just a formality that the university uses to stall you people. New South should have been done four years ago. And the Leavey office evictions never should have happened in the first place. Their whole "space shortage" thing is a talking point that they use to keep all the good space for themselves and throw the scraps to the students. If you had had students up in those offices when they tried to kick us out, I bet that they would have thought twice.
But yea, I get it, that's too scary, it's not "following the process" and good Lord, it might even break a bylaw!
Feb 25 2009 at 7:05 p.m.
Does anyone care that a competitive ticket was knocked about because the VP was a member of the wrong boySS club. Has the Hoya looked into it? Has Olsen looked into it? Has Dowd looked into it at all?
Its time for the Wolf's Head Union to call off thier dogs and allow the students to pick their representatives with all their options on the table.
FAIRNESS
Feb 25 2009 at 7:59 p.m.
Chirp chirp chirpy, GUSA is useless, I am the real power in Leavey!
- Hoya Court Bird / Black Squirrel for GUSA prez and veep!
Feb 25 2009 at 8:43 p.m.
FAIRNESS:
Unless you can present names of which candidates were stewards and which election commission reps were Wolf' Head Unionists, then I suggest you stop these childrish accusations.
And while your at it why dont you back up your accusations by signing your posts.
Dan O'Connor '11
Feb 25 2009 at 9:00 p.m.
Hahahahahahahahhahahahha.
Oh this is too much. The "Wolf's Head Union."
Hahahahahahhahahahahahha.
Yes how did you know!? I've been a member of the WHU for years and years, since before I was born (I know! It's so exclusive it starts before you were born!).
It is SO secret, actually, that most people don't even know they are in the WHU until they find out through a cryptic post on the Hoya's website! It can happen anytime! Now that I know I am a WHU member, I will make sure to conduct all of my activities in a much more secretive manner.
Oh man. Too much.
Will Dreher
SFS 2009
Feb 25 2009 at 9:14 p.m.
(1) Sarcasm is not a denial.
(2) The previous poster didnt say all the EC were WHU, maybe it cuts a little too close to home? Protesteth too much maybe?
Feb 25 2009 at 9:50 p.m.
Shouldn't you be brushing up on your knowledge of election laws rather than mocking posters? Hipple/Feng for GUSA!
Feb 25 2009 at 10:13 p.m.
Seriously, the Wolf's Head Union?
Pretentious, much? Can't you guys make your own secret society without blatantly copying from Yale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%27s_Head_(secret_society)
Feb 25 2009 at 11:12 p.m.
As silly as it sounds (and as hard as it may be to prove), this secret society stuff would certainly explain a lot about why GUSA is incapable of holding a fair election. Most middle schools are able to hold a student body election without the inevitable last minute glitch.
Anyone else ready for a riot? Seriously.
How awesome would it be for GUSA to wake up one morning to see their offices occupied by dozens of students? I'd like to see the look of panic on their faces, their frantic calls to admins to come help them, the hilarious scene of DPS officers dragging students out of the student government office and the beginning of a real campus discussion about how student power works.
I dare someone to do this. It would be the best thing to happen to student government in decades.
Feb 26 2009 at 2:58 a.m.
SFS 08... I was a member of GUSA during Khalil and Geoff's election, and you're wrong about a few important points. First of all, they weren't disqualified for "arbitrary" reasons: they were disqualified because they asked for permission to do something outside of the rules, were denied, and did it anyway. Specifically, a member of their staff walked around Leo's with a computer to have people vote on the spot, which violated Election Commission rules at the time (I graduated a few years ago and I don't know what the new rules state). So: not only did their campaign break rules, they did so willfully and in a way which severely compromised the integrity of the other tickets in the campaign.
Despite the above problem, they didn't win a landslide. The vast majority of students on campus simply don't vote in GUSA elections. After being a part of it myself, I can say that I'm pretty sure the legistation enacted by Model UN had more of an impact on my years at Georgetown than did anything which happened as a result of GUSA action.
Feb 26 2009 at 3:58 a.m.
No you're right you're right. If I protest this much, I MUST be a member of this WHU!! This organization that neither I nor anybody else has ever heard of--yes, I must be a member.
The reason I responded with sarcasm is because the original post itself was that moronic.
But I heard Fred Moore is a member...I've never trusted him.
Feb 26 2009 at 5:54 a.m.
(a) Again, sarcasm is not a denial. Its a word game to avoid the question and prevent you from breaking your oath.
(b) Also, is there a reasonable explaination for this ludicious result other than clandestine allegiance.
Feb 26 2009 at 6:15 a.m.
I am not in Wolf's Head Union or any other secret society, including the Stewards.
Is that straightforward enough for you? Or do you simply not understand sarcasm? As others said before, to throw around baseless allegations may offend. Such allegations don't offend me, I find them hilarious and amusing. Hence the sarcasm.
The imagination of Georgetown underclassmen amazes me sometimes.
All jokes aside, look into the record of Fred Moore.
Feb 26 2009 at 7:51 a.m.
Will Dreher is a member of Wolf's Head. Everyone knows that. He's their leader.
Feb 26 2009 at 1:35 p.m.
Here's how to tell if Will is a Steward:
Does he have a leadership position with 3+ student organizations? (That alone does not at all make him a Steward. I would have answered yes, and I was not at all a Steward.)
Here's the key: Does he do absolutely jack sh!t to make that organization any better? Is he clearly just a figurehead who is involved with groups to the extent that it allows him to act superior to other people on campus (like the ones who actually do the work to make our campus organizations run)?
Does anyone else want to start outing Stewards from years past? See how long the "secret" lasts. What BS.
Feb 26 2009 at 2:06 p.m.
"IRV has caused problems in the past for GUSA elections. In last year’s election, using IRV, there was a problem caused by the ballots not being randomized and unclear instructions for voters. Last year’s election was then repeated using the plurality system, in which the voter only chooses one ticket. Though D.W. Cartier (COL ’09) and Andrew Rugg (COL ’09) won the first IRV election, Dowd and James Kelly (COL ’09) won the second plurality election."
Um, I don't think the second election was plurality. It was IRV, but with the final four finishers. It went off flawlessly.
Feb 26 2009 at 2:33 p.m.
TO "False"
Well, being a member of GUSA, I'll have to assume you know the inanities of the bylaws better than anyone, but the process by which they were applied still smells just as fishy as in this case.
Although I was not part of their campaign, I worked with Khalil and Geoff as a strong ally to help build a GOTV operation, and according to what I read in the Hoya at the time (http://thehoya.com/node/12767) they won by seven percentage points. I haven't heard of such a margin of victory in a long time, but feel free to correct me. Anyone who was around for that campaign remembers that there was a lot of excitement; Khalil was the only candidate I've ever seen to speak at a public rally, and who talked about mobilizing the student body. Has anyone else done that since?
But, if you'll check that article above, you'll also remember there was a meddlesome EC that sent out conflicting messages and then caught Khalil and Geoff in a trap. Sure, they made a mistake, but they thought they were acting with permission.
Either way, the end result was a GU admin, the EC and whatever other shady "powers that be" in the background were able to pull the strings and let Twister (the safe Joe Hoya candidate) be appointed -- not elected -- to office. That being said, I worked with Twister and found him to be a person of good character.
But hey, at least I agree with you that GUSA is about as powerful as the delegation from Lichtenstein at a model UN conference.
Feb 26 2009 at 2:40 p.m.
Hey SFS08...you've never heard of a 7% margin of victory? Shaw/Appenfellar ran away with the thing. I am quite certain that they landed 80+% of the vote.
Feb 26 2009 at 3:12 p.m.
Feel free to show me the results.. but was that on a second runoff or something? I mean, it's easy to confuse one of those IRV things with a normal election. Surely they didn't get "80%" on the first ballot?
I'm talking about Geoff and Khalil winning a seven point margin on the first ballot.
Feb 26 2009 at 3:16 p.m.
I've seen Fred Moore enter the tunnels below Georgetown, late at night. Does anybody know what they do down there? I've heard they have subterranean palaces and human sacrifice rituals.
I think Fred Moore is their headmaster and leader. Sometimes I notice that when he walks by, other students bow down to him discreetly.
Feb 26 2009 at 3:18 p.m.
If you think Shaw/Appenfellar went to a second ballot, you must not have been on campus for the landslide. Who else do you think even came close?
Feb 26 2009 at 3:34 p.m.
maybe like most of the campus, he didn't really care or seem to notice. it had one of the lowest turnouts in awhile.
nice youtoob video they did though, for what it's ... worth?
Feb 26 2009 at 3:43 p.m.
Well, according to the Voice, it was a 52% win, and they don't say who came in second, so it may or may not have been more than a 7 pt margin.
(http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2007/02/08/ben-and-matt-win/)
But, the election also had 15% lower turnout than the year that Geoff and Khalil won, so I guess you can just call it a wash.
(http://thehoya.com/node/4831)
And you think they got over "80%"? Come on, let's not get ahead of ourselves..
Feb 26 2009 at 4:29 p.m.
For the novices, what's the "Wolf's Head Union"?
Feb 26 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
Gusa is a total joke that cannot run its elections.
Over the past decade, they have had more botched elections than successful ones. If they can't take themselves seriously, why should anyone else?
Feb 26 2009 at 4:53 p.m.
For the pros, what's the Wolf's Head Union?
I don't think -anyone- has ever heard of them aside from infantile posts in JuicyCampus. Looks like some start-up group is trying to make themselves seem waaaaay more elite than they actually are.
Feb 26 2009 at 5:02 p.m.
Doesn't anybody realize that this election (yes, this one in the year 2009) IS a successful GUSA election?
When people made a mistake, the institution of the Student Association caught it and corrected it. As the Constitutional Council made clear GUSA's bylaws are not perfect, but they were sufficient to make sure that this election debacle was corrected so quickly as to not even have concluded the botched election in the first place.
I think they deserve credit for all the hours of work this must have taken.
Some people messed up, yes. But then others (IN GUSA) caught the mistake, paused the election, had a public meeting to hear out the candidates, established their judicial body, and allowed them to make their decision. That decision, might I add, was the best possible and most fair possible decision they could have made.
I bet GUSA will enhance their election rules after this. That's fine.
But I acknowledge that they did the absolute best possible job for the students in correcting the mistake of the Election Commission, a group of three people who you can't blame for looking out for the rules to some degree, even if they should have aired on the side of following their own guidelines instead of university policy. Fair mistake if you ask me.
Feb 26 2009 at 5:03 p.m.
I remember the Wolf'S Head Union back in 1997-2001. They were a bunch of tool-boxes who tried to play Philodemic games, and hang out at Martin's Tavern.
I seriously doubt they are still around, but I could be wrong. Nothing perpetuates like idiocy.
SFS '01
Feb 26 2009 at 5:20 p.m.
I agree--this is an example of how an election can be run in the right way. I just wanted to clarify one thing: the GUSA Senate did not pause the election. The Election Commission chose to pause the election in order to allow this reasonable debate to continue.
I am unsure where people received the idea that Nick Troiano or Matt Wagner in any way helped pause the election. If anything, it was Brian Wood who collaborated with the Election Commission to suggest this course of action. It was the Election Commission who decided that, in the interest of fairness, we needed to pause the election to allow each side the opportunity to voice their concerns.
Hopefully now a fair election can be held, but let's not jump to conclusions about individuals stepping in to "save" the election. Only the Election Commission had the power to pause the election, and it was the EC who generated the idea, discussed it, and then decided upon that course of action. We have always simply wanted to run a fair election, and it is for that reason that I stated that we were in no way opposed to reinstatement of the candidates, as long as all candidates had the opportunity to campaign in the same manner.
Feb 26 2009 at 7:38 p.m.
All of the people who are actively involved in this silliness need to get a grip.
The student government subspecies gets more kicks out of campaigns, elections, and arguing over by-laws than actualy "governing" anything.
Remember GUSA's biggest claims to fame (as far as I can tell from their website) is that they doubled the frequency of a shuttle bus and extended library hours during finals. Reflect on that. Now answer this question: HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE TAKE YOURSELVES SERIOUSLY!!!
What do you call being part of a government that doesn't actually govern anything? I call it make-believe. It was the same when I was at Georgetown 15 years ago, and it will be the same long after the current students graduate.
Why someone, other than a wannabe politician in training, would spend one second of their time participating in this make-believe is beyond me.
Feb 26 2009 at 8:02 p.m.
"I agree--this is an example of how an election can be run in the right way. I just wanted to clarify one thing: the GUSA Senate did not pause the election. The Election Commission chose to pause the election in order to allow this reasonable debate to continue.
I am unsure where people received the idea that Nick Troiano or Matt Wagner in any way helped pause the election. If anything, it was Brian Wood who collaborated with the Election Commission to suggest this course of action. It was the Election Commission who decided that, in the interest of fairness, we needed to pause the election to allow each side the opportunity to voice their concerns.
Hopefully now a fair election can be held, but let's not jump to conclusions about individuals stepping in to "save" the election. Only the Election Commission had the power to pause the election, and it was the EC who generated the idea, discussed it, and then decided upon that course of action. We have always simply wanted to run a fair election, and it is for that reason that I stated that we were in no way opposed to reinstatement of the candidates, as long as all candidates had the opportunity to campaign in the same manner."
Will Dreher, that's hilarious! "An example of how an election can be run in the right way"? You guys in the Election Commission despite the extremely clear wording of the bylaws attempted to enforce extra regulations, disqualified two tickets (despite the advice against it by many), and still have the hubris to call yourselves in the right and that you "had the power."
How about you, Freddy, and Sophia come out and say sorry and that you were wrong.
Feb 26 2009 at 8:30 p.m.
RE: Obvious.
First of all, the thing ain't even over, so there's still potential for more fubars. And you're wrong, this election is a failure. Even if everything else goes off without a hitch, there's still going to be the pervasive feeling that we've been had, again. You f'd up the normal process of the election, so the thing is already tainted. Seriously.. you should bring in some high school student body presidents so they can show you how to hold a fair election.
But reality check is right, it's all irrelevant anyways. I love how all the Ego Bros are still sniping about who did what when, and who gets credit and blame. That's *ALL* that GUSA is good for.
Please.. I hope one of the campaigns, or some group of lower level GUSA people, or some outside group of students, please.. take this organization down. They're long past due for a healthy insurrection.
Feb 27 2009 at 2:38 a.m.
A typical day in the life of Jeff Lamb:
1) Wake up- remove soggy pull-up....
2) Change into regular Huggies- doesn't want to risk the embarrassment of having an accident while out campaigning
3) Lunch time! Meet Pat Dowd for a nice spoon feeding of pureed peas and carrots followed by a burping session.
4) Time for a nap- wouldn't want the little guy to get cranky and throw a tantrum!!!
While Jeff Lamb is in for a big surprise tomorrow, Pat Dowd is in for an even bigger one- he's going to have one heck of a messy diaper to change once election results are in.....
Feb 27 2009 at 2:32 p.m.
Hey Seeing the Obvious, that's a good one.
"Enhance their rules?" Yes, layer more bullcrap "bylaws" (make sure you number them all fancy-like: 10.1, there shall be no "illegal" campaigning, 10.11, there shall be a court of three jesters to determine illegal activities, 10.111, the court shall produce a new list of bylaws which each number corresponding to the idiocy of the new rules). ENHANCE THEIR RULES? ARE YOU SERIOUS? That's the problem with these elections -- there are too many rules, and the idiots who run for GUSA can't follow them, the idiots who are supposed to enforce the rules can't enforce them, and the elections end up like this. Of course, the GUSA answer to this is "MORE RULES."
10.12 The more rules you layer on, the more likely you'll end up in this outcome.
These fights are always so funny because the stakes are so incredibly, pathetically low.