SAC Approves Changes to Constitution
Updated: 1:04 p.m.
The Student Activities Commission passed an amendment to their constitution last night to formally empower the SAC chair to select his or her own successor.
The amendment, which reflects the selection system SAC has unofficially used for the last several years, passed with 12 votes in favor and one abstention late last night.
Previously, the constitution officially required that the chair be “appointed by the GUSA president and approved by the student association assembly.”
The change was made after months of collaboration between SAC and GUSA, and was designed to better reflect SAC's current selection protocol, according to SAC Chair Sophia Behnia (COL '09).
“The constitution hasn't been representative of our procedures for five years,” she said. “We needed to approve a constitution that reflects how we operate.”
Bill McCoy, associate director for student programs and faculty adviser to SAC, said that the change would create a stronger institutional memory for future generations of SAC leadership.
“There was never great document-keeping that explained [SAC’s] evolution,” he said. “We don't want to be in that situation again—we want to keep a true history of how things changed.”
Matt Wagner (COL '11), a GUSA senator and finance appropriations chair said the senate approves of the new selection process.*
“The finance committee and the senate as a whole both agreed to it,” he said. “We understand for logistical reasons that they need to have a different way to transfer power right now.”
Greer and other senators said they expect the direct-selection system to be temporary. While plans have yet to be finalized, SAC and GUSA are working to create a joint committee, which may be responsible for choosing the SAC chair in the future.
“This [committee] would incorporate the general interests of the student body from GUSA, the institutional knowledge and student expertise of SAC, and the direct and specific will of student clubs and organizations [into the selection of a SAC chair],” Wagner said.
Behnia acknowledged that some members of the senate were initially unhappy with the change.
“[The approval process] didn't go perfectly alright,” Behnia said. “We got pushback from some of the senators.”
Senator Nick Troiano (COL ’11) said he does not believe that SAC should have changed its constitution.
“Instead of changing the constitution, they should adapt their behavior to the way that the constitution says that they should work,” he said.
Senate Speaker Reggie Greer (COL ’09) said he views the change as a short-term solution and emphasized the importance of mutual cooperation.
“As long as we are still in a good-faith agreement … they'll change it [the selection process] back again once SAC is able to work out a committee structure; I'm fine with it.”
*Correction: In the original version of this story, the quote by GUSA Finance and Appropriations Committee Chair Matt Wagner was taken out of context. The article suggested that Wagner said the entire senate supported the changes to the SAC constitution. Rather, Wagner said that the senate supports the creation of the proposed joint SAC-GUSA Commission.
Nov 18 2008 at 12:54 p.m.
I'd urge everyone to visit the blog I have created to create a dialogue about this issue. www.sacreform.blogspot.com.
Secondly, the Senate never approved SACs actions. A few Senators might think it is OK for SAC to usurp even more authority and shed even more transparency, buy many, including myself, are not.
Lastly, the constitutional changes included more than the way that SAC chooses its chair. More about that on the blog.
Nov 18 2008 at 1:16 p.m.
Here are some other blogs to keep up to date on important information:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2007/08/worlds-weirdeststupidest-conspiracy.html
http://wordpress.com/tag/complaining/
Thanks Nick for updating us with your totally relevant news reporting! I bet your constituents are on edge for your next blog entry!!!! Don't make us wait! Please keep blogging into the future so we know what will happen!
Nov 18 2008 at 3:25 p.m.
There is a serious mis-quote in this article - I never said that the Senate as a whole approved this. I happen to approve of it personally, and so does the rest of the leadership of the Senate, but I thought I made it clear that the rest of the Senate has not spoken on this issue.
I did mention that many Senators seem to like the idea of the new SAC Chair selection process set to fall into place this spring, but I did not (and do not) speak for anyone but myself and the rest of the Senate's leadership (myself, Speaker Reggie Greer, Vice-Speaker Brian Wood) in offering support for this.
I respect and understand senators like Nick who do not approve of the process, and though I thought this article was very thoughtful and well-reflective of the broader issue as a whole, I want it to be clear that I did not say that the full Senate supports this, and that it was an error on the part of Kevin (who wrote the article) to represent my thoughts that way.
Otherwise, though, this article really does do a good job of representing the partnership between SAC and the Senate Finance / Appropriations committee.
-Matt Wagner
GUSA Senator, McCarthy 6-8
Chair, GUSA Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee
Nov 18 2008 at 6:35 p.m.
Wagner,
Do you support SAC changing its Constitution to the situation as currently set up, where the SAC Chair selects their successor?
Or is your support contingent on them later agreeing to your idea of a commission set up to later select the next Chair? i.e., if SAC later refuses to agree to a commission, would you still support the constitution as they amended it?
Nov 18 2008 at 6:55 p.m.
The truth:
http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2008/11/18/i-dont-give-a-damn-gusa-senator-stages-sitin-at-sac-constitution-meeting/
Nov 18 2008 at 8:12 p.m.
"Just to get it straight" -
More or less the latter. We have a good working relationship with SAC's leadership, and I trust that SAC will support the new method of selecting their chair when the time comes next semester. Aakib (their new chair) is smart and takes a thoughtful approach to what he does, and I trust him and the Commissioners to follow through with the agreement that already exists. Therefore I
It's not that my support is contingent on them someday agreeing to support the committee idea - they have already agreed to it, so they have my support because of the mutual trust that the deal will go through.
I also think it's important to note that the proposed changes will also have to be put into the GUSA constitution, and that since the Senate is not a monolithic body with one shared opinion, that is no certainty either. I do feel like a lot of the individual Senators that I have talked to agree with the new committee idea for SAC, but certainly not everyone. Furthermore, the Senate has no official opinion on anything (including this) until it votes on the issue, which has not been the case yet with this.
Hope that clears it up some.
Best,
Wagner
Nov 18 2008 at 8:13 p.m.
"Just to get it straight" -
More or less the latter. We have a good working relationship with SAC's leadership, and I trust that SAC will support the new method of selecting their chair when the time comes next semester. Aakib (their new chair) is smart and takes a thoughtful approach to what he does, and I trust him and the Commissioners to follow through with the agreement that already exists. Therefore I
It's not that my support is contingent on them someday agreeing to support the committee idea - they have already agreed to it, so they have my support because of the mutual trust that the deal will go through.
I also think it's important to note that the proposed changes will also have to be put into the GUSA constitution, and that since the Senate is not a monolithic body with one shared opinion, that is no certainty either. I do feel like a lot of the individual Senators that I have talked to agree with the new committee idea for SAC, but certainly not everyone. Furthermore, the Senate has no official opinion on anything (including this) until it votes on the issue, which has not been the case yet with this.
Hope that clears it up some.
Best,
Wagner
Nov 18 2008 at 8:45 p.m.
The GUSA Constitution or the GUSA by-laws?
Good luck on getting it into the GUSA Constitution.
You're going to need 2/3rds of the Senators approving a Constitutional change, then a yes vote on the change with at least 25% total turnout by the student populace.
I think it could easily be done in the by-laws -- as that's where the current funding board and appointment process is, as far as I know.