Deconstructing GUSA: Vote Angert-Kluger Tuesday

yeah, calen and jason are two sophomores that have successfully bs'ed the hoya. it sounds like the endorsement was solely based on the fact that they worked in gusa this year, where, as 'Disappointed Hoya' notes above, they have done absolutely nothing other than use it for this campaign. it's all they talk about - their "experience." it seems to me many of the other candidates have just as good, or better experience, and most all others are juniors (which gives a year more of experience at Gtown to start). don't waste a vote on these jokers.

Two claims in this endorsement seem very problematic to me:

1. I'm not sure where anyone got the $60,000 budget from. GUSA's budget for this year was, I believe, $18,000 and for next year will be $20,000 (which was doled out just last week at the annual funding board meeting). If the Anglert-Kluger ticket is going to make the claim that they have $40,000 more than the rest of the student body knows about, they should disclose specifically where that money is coming from.

2. The Angler-Kluger ticket and the Hoya misunderstand the funding access-to-benefits policy. In the editorial, the Hoya announces that the $30,000 will be made available to "to devote half of the $60,000 GUSA budget to a "Georgetown Fund," which would enable student groups to host events that SAC couldn't or wouldn't fund."

As it stands, GUSA already has the ability to allocate some of its funds to co-sponsorship with current University student groups or to good ideas the Executive comes up with (summer fellows) or brought to them by groups of students not in official clubs. A separate "Georgetown Fund" is unnecessary.

More importantly, the quoted line makes it seem like the Anglert-Kluger ticket wants to set up GUSA as a "backup option" for SAC groups who are denied funding through the normal channels. Though the explanation on the Anglert-Kluger website is more clear ("Under this plan, student organizations may apply for money and a GUSA co-sponsorship to host an event") both explanations fail to understand the system. In this way, suggesting that GUSA funding could substitute in place of SAC approval misrepresents the rules of the University's funding boards and misleads student leaders into believing that under an Anglert-Kluger administration they could operate outside of their assigned funding boards.

These questions should be answered before a full endorsement is given.

GUSA executive has a $60,000+ budget as far as I know.

regardless of whatever your partisan inclinations are, you have to admit this editorial is as balanced as it gets--it admits that GUSA is sometimes useless but also makes the point that all students should care. This is the right tone to strike.

calen and Jason are the way to go - they might want to check that they actually have to 'ask' the senate for $ though

Everyone else, stop whining that the Hoya didn't endorse your buddies...

The GUSA executive does NOT have a $60,000 budget unless the current president has found $40,000 additional dollars and has not disclosed it or there is some weird counting thing going on. I mean, if you counted summer fellows money that was raised and hindi program money that was raised it might add up to $60,000 but that's not really part of the budget and it can't be reallocated. GUSA would still have only $20,000 in discretionary funds.

More fact-checking errors: Peter Dagher and Elias Ibrahim are in the MSB.

As others have pointed out, GUSA's budget is more like $20,000 than $60,000. But ignoring that oversight, even if Calen and Jason were going to take half of that $20,000, there are still huge issues with access to benefits and how GUSA would be able to operate on half its budget (i.e. i'm pretty sure a lot of that money goes to funding GUTS buses...). Instead of complicating things further by creating this redundant parallel funding source, if GUSA really wants to fix club funding they need to fix SAC - i.e. revise their policies and make it an elected board and give GUSA some kind of meaningful oversight.

The Hoya's ed board has shown an extreme lack of judgment and a very poor understanding of the way the funding boards work in this endorsement.

As per the Voice's endorsement, Lamb/Breen seems to be the strongest ticket.

well it looks to me like Lamb/Breen are doing a great job of getting their freinds to go around trashing the candidates who are doing well. Every candidate has some good ideas and i'm sure if you weren't all best buds with Jeff and Molly (which is pretty obvious) you would take a step back and tear apart some of their platform issues as well. Whether or not you like Angert and Kluger personally is completely irrelevant. You should all be looking at the platforms and the possibility of the promises actually being carried out. Maybe GUSA doesn't have $60k to spend but regardless the plan to assist SAC groups is a good one since SACs funding is significantly lower and there are several groups who need help in order to accomplish their goals, even if the budget is only $20k if some of that funding could go towards and "Georgetown Fund" I think it could do a lot of good. Angert and Kluger's plans to improve the career center would be beneficial to each and every one of us especially given the current economy. I've read through the platforms of each candidate and been sure to ask questions of the ones I've had the opportunity of running into around campus and Angert and Kluger are by far the most qualified and competent.

Those of you referring to them as the "*****iest" and "a joke" need to get off your high horse and realize that just because they are nice guys who enjoy having fun and messing around every now and then doesn't mean they can't get the job done better than everyone else. Their video was funny, maybe it doesn't have great audio or visual quality but they're doing a great job of campaigning and it's a shame that just because they don't have friends who are hell bent on tearing down the other candidates they seem to be taking the brunt of the insults.

I don't know any of the candidate well but based on the conversations I've had with them and the platforms and interviews I have read, Angert and Kluger are the way to go.

And as for the person who referred to them as 'stereotypical MSBers...take a look at which school the majority of the candidates are in. I'll give you a hint: it's the MSB. Who cares if someone is studying business as opposed to government or linguistics or any other major. We all got in to this school and deserve to be here so I don't think using someone school as something to hold against them makes any sense.

Good luck to all the candidates and I hope people will stop being so rude about this. Don't invent reasons to insult someone just to promote your friends. If you think the others are so good then how about stating why they would be more qualified because from what I, the Hoya, and many other people and organizations around campus can tell, Angert and Kluger are the best vote.

I agree with hoya298. Everyone needs to stop trying to bash these kids just because they're doing well. From what I can tell Calen and Jason seem like a great choice for GUSA. I'm sure every other candidate has some good points but they seem to have the most realistic goals. They've got my vote.

I'm close friends with Jeff and I'm going to back him up all the way. What I've read here makes sense (other than hte budget discrepancy) but I'm sticking with my friend cause I think he can do it. yea LAMB!!!!

wtfhoya, one quick correction:

None of the GUSA discretionary budget goes towards GUTS buses. GUSA got that money allocated out of a charity fund donated by alumni to support "student activities" three years ago and it automatically renews out of that fund. It is unrelated to the GUSA discretionary budget.

GUSA does allocate 50% of the student activities fee every year, which works out to about $350,000. (The other $350,000 goes into the Student Activities Endowment, which will fund the expansion of student programs in the long term as the fee is capped.) That money goes to pay for most of SAC, club sports, social justice groups, as well as GUSA's discretionary "operating budget". They could theoretically redirect some of that money into the proposed Fund, if they could find a way to get past the Access to Benefits issues.

And yeah, seriously -- friends of the other tickets, stop bashing the endorsed ticket for no good reason. It's pretty transparent. Vote on the merits, don't just be obnoxious.

(Although I do find the criticism of the Hoya's inconsistency to be hilarious.)

In regards to what 09 said, it wouldn't make sense to redirect money from the funding boards to GUSA for student groups. It would make a one step process a two step process for any organization.

Instead of just going to say SAC for funding, you'd have to go to SAC and then GUSA instead of just getting that money from SAC in the first place. It would be redundant. You are working out of the same pot of money, it's just been redistributed differently to make it more convoluted.

The most significant/sustainable way to increase the amount of funds for student groups would be to lobby the University to allocate more of the tuition to student groups or get students to agree on raising the student activities fee.

whatever you say, 09.

LAAAAAAAMMMBBBBB!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the Georgetown Fund is a solid idea, it just needs to be grounded in reality. For one, $30k is probably way too ambitious an amount (and we don't have it). A more manageable $10-15k to start out with would help.

Next, the Access to Benefits issue would need to be resolved. The issue, to state it in a few words, is this: when SAC was set up, it was set up to decide not only how much clubs get in funding, but whether they can throw their events at all.

So the College Dems might want to conduct a voter registration drive, request $300 and only get $50 (this actually happened). Or it could deny funding completely and tell the Dems to use fundraising to come up with the money. Both of these are examples of the former - SAC is allowing the event to continue, just not approving the amount request (or approving any amount at all). Contrast that with the College Dems requesting to sponsor a "Condom Week" with H*yas for Choice, where they would give out condoms or pay for pro-choice speakers to come on campus for the purpose of pro-choice advocacy. SAC would not only deny funds but not allow the Dems to sponsor the event at all because it violates the Access to Benefits agreement regarding events "inconsistent with acceptable conduct at an American university committed to
the Roman Catholic moral tradition."

As a former Senator and someone involved in many groups, I've observed that the vast majority of denials from SAC relate to the former purpose and not the latter. That is, groups are denied funding but not prohibited from carrying out the event. Like the College Dems event in question - SAC only gave them $50 (with the rest in loans that they would have to fundraise) to carry out an event widely deemed to be a wildly successful non-partisan voting drive.

If you ask any group leader, or read articles in the Hoya and Voice stretching back over a decade, they will tell you that they have seen excessive micromanagement and sometimes denials of funding that seem completely arbitrary. With a completely unelected, self-perpetuating body closely tied to CSP, it's no wonder.

* * *

So what's the solution? The Georgetown Fund. It is _NOT_ designed to out-muscle or overtake SAC. At $30k, I think it's a bit much, but at a more manageable $10-15k, I think it can do a lot of good.

The G.F. would be designed to help clubs that have fallen through the cracks. If they are denied funding (but not denied the ability to actually throw an event) they can go to GUSA to request supplemental funds to throw the event. As the directly elected representatives of students, Senators are in a better position to judge the importance of an event.

There are numerous democratic checks in this system to prevent abuse. First, of course, is the limited amount of money -- GUSA is not going to, for example, fund Rangila. More likey it would dole out amounts in the <$300 range -- small amounts to get events off the ground. With over 200 student groups each potentially vying for additional money, the total amount ($10-15k) would clearly ensure that we are not acting as a second SAC.

It can also help individuals and those with no formal SAC affiliation -- for example, the wildly successful "Supper with the Jesuits" program that GUSA gave funds for and put on last year.

Second, any funding request would need to go before the 7-person Finance and Appropriations Committee first. Groups would have to justify the funding increase there. If it passes that through a majority vote, it would need to go before the whole Senate, where it would need a majority vote. THEN it would need to be signed by the President. If the President vetoes it, it needs 2/3rds vote of the Senate to get off the ground. That's three separate levels of accountability: a committee specialized solely in the Senate's finances, the entire Senate democratically elected from every geographic region on campus, and finally the assent or veto override of a President elected by the entire campus.

Finally, as stated above, funding would ONLY go to to those groups denied funding for non-access to benefits reasons (i.e. the majority of claims).

Let me emphasize - a large amount of SAC funding denials are not for arbitrary reasons. Many groups simply request unreasonable amounts for events, with little solid plan of how to spend it. SAC reasonably denies these groups funding and asks them to prepare more coherent plans for potential approval. I have faith that with the many checks in the Senate, such groups would not get funding. This only applies to those groups that feel they have been unfairly or unreasonably denied funding and have no place to appeal. Examples, as I said before, are unfortunately legion.

I want to better elaborate on what I stated was the $60,000 budget for GUSA. I am fully cognizant that the Funding Board has allocated $20,000 to both the GUSA Executive and Senate. So to answer the question that a lot of the people here have been asking, and rightfully so, is where did the extra $40,000 come from?

After having talked to various members of GUSA and administrators we have come to an estimate of the potential budget of GUSA as being $60,000. This potential estimate has been calculated through a consideration of the various amounts that are allocated to the student activities account as well as a gift account aimed at helping the student activities account. To be more specific, the gift account is a $50,000 annual gift amount consisting of amalgamated donations targeted at replenishing the student accounts fund. Although from my understanding it has not always been used, and lacks a governing body, the idea of the Georgetown Fund has a good shot at receiving money from it. The other amounts allocated to the student activities account are in essence the budget surplus resulting from the Funding Board’s most recent meeting earlier this month. That said, we are not looking at getting the whole $60,000, and we are satisfied with the $20,000 that GUSA has already received from the Funding Board. Our main aim is to secure $30,000 for our idea of the Georgetown Fund.

It is clear that the major stipulation to achieving our hoped-for $30,000 is that this estimated budget is dependent on GUSA working with the funding board on creating proper governance mechanisms for the gift account as well as creating a set-up for co-sponsoring SAC approved events, which SAC was unable to fully fund. So in all honesty, if elected as GUSA Executive we would be more than happy to dedicate half of what the GUSA Senate provides us to this proposal of funding groups SAC couldn't or wouldn't fund due to, and here is the emphasis, funding constraints. The remainder of what we hope to be a $30,000 budget for our idea of the Georgetown Fund will come from working with SAC, the rest of the Funding Board and other relevant administrative bodies to secure what looks to be about $22,000, after committing about $8,000 of the $16,000 we predict the Senate will allocate to GUSA based on previous allocation schemes, for this main purpose through both restructuring the governance of the gift account and if possible reconvening the funding board to allocate more of the student activities funds’ surplus towards this idea.

Yes it is ambitious, and I personally believe that Matt S. has a point in terms of getting $10,000-$15,000, but there is the possibility of achieving the $30,000 which we hope to get should we take the proper approach and work with the appropriate bodies. And above all, as Matt S. emphasized, we are not looking to undermine SAC, but rather provide a springboard that not only helps Georgetown groups but also supports SAC in its funding efforts.

-Calen Angert

Though I think that Matt and Calen's explanation regarding compliance with the access-to-benefits policy fairly answers the criticism about the Georgetown Fund, I still remained confused on a basic vision for it.

If the purpose of the fund is to provide more GUSA co-sponsorships for groups who aren't fully funded by SAC, and the money comes out of the same big student activities pool that SAC and GUSA's normal money comes from, why do we need another board and process for this money?

Matt S. is helpful in acknowledging that SAC has a limited amount of money it has to divy up amongst a lot of groups, and this means not all groups can have all of their funding requests met, leading to some under-funded events. But if this is the problem, why not simply increase SAC's budget?

Separately, GUSA currently has the ability already to co-sponsor events, this is ostensibly what the $20,000 they were already allocated for next year is for. If GUSA wants to offer more co-sponsorships, why not just increase this money?

I don't feel like there has been an adequate explanation for why we need a completely new fund and advisory board for this. It just adds another level of bureaucracy to a system most people criticize for having too many hoops.

Nick,

While I can't speak for Calen, I had a similar idea last year and can at least answer for my own part.

I'll answer part by part.

>>If the purpose of the fund is to provide more GUSA co-sponsorships for groups who aren't fully funded by SAC, and the money comes out of the same big student activities pool that SAC and GUSA's normal money comes from, why do we need another board and process for this money?

There's no other board or process for the money, actually. The Senate already has a Finance & Appropriations Committee. All bills requiring funding for GUSA - whatever the reason, be it a GUSA project, co-sponsorship, whatever - have to pass through the FinAp board then get voted on by the Senate and signed by the President.

>>Matt S. is helpful in acknowledging that SAC has a limited amount of money it has to divy up amongst a lot of groups, and this means not all groups can have all of their funding requests met, leading to some under-funded events. But if this is the problem, why not simply increase SAC's budget?

That's not quite correct. For one, Senate research last year lead to the revelation that over $800,000 in money was being squirreled away by the Funding Boards in 'reserve accounts'. Any money that's not used at the end of the year goes into the board's reserve accounts. SAC and other groups tried to justify it by saying that they need a 'rainy day' fund in case of contingencies - but the obscene amount of money belied their claim. SAC tentatively agreed to spend down $100,000 on club space improvements, but so far I haven't heard of anything (Perhaps the HOYA should follow up on this?). So, one, there are funds available.

Two, even if there weren't enough money to go around, why not just increase SAC's budget instead of giving it to GUSA? Well, first, I'd refer you back to my post about the shortcomings of SAC. SAC is not democratically elected, but rather self-selected and self-perpetuating. SAC members currently have the 100% final say in saying what clubs can do or not do or how much funds they will get. Votes are taken in secret and decisions cannot be appealed to any higher body. These commissioners are responsible for allocating the $200,000 you - Georgetown students - pay each year out of your Student Activities Fee.

Many clubs have reported that SAC can at times be overly micromanagerial and bureaucratic. Senator Nick Troiano, who attended a meeting earlier in the year, for example, reported that SAC Commissioners spent a substantial amount of time debating the price and merits of a tablecloth within a club's proposed budget!

As I said above, SAC is not always micromanagerial and many times its expertise can help clubs developing realistic and cost-effective plans for events. But what happens when clubs fall through the cracks? Right now they have no recourse. Even if the entire campus is for funding an event, a bare handful of SAC Commissioners can put the kibosh on it. It has happened many, many times in the past (just look at the articles I posted above).

The Georgetown Fund will allow clubs denied funding a second chance to present their case to democratically-elected and electorally-accountable Senators. Let's put it this way: if SAC denies funding to a club, but a specialized Senate Finance committee of 7 Senators initially approves the club's request, a Senate of students representing every residence hall, apartment and townhouse on and off campus approves the request, and it's approved by a President elected directly by all the students, why *shouldn't* clubs get funding?

>>Separately, GUSA currently has the ability already to co-sponsor events, this is ostensibly what the $20,000 they were already allocated for next year is for. If GUSA wants to offer more co-sponsorships, why not just increase this money?

The money GUSA is allocated can be used to co-sponsor events, but it can also be used to fund GUSA projects (in past years this has included GUTS buses, Supper with the Jesuits, events like Opera in the Outfield, wireless, etc.) as well as individual students' ideas.

Why make a separate fund? Well, for one, the fund really wouldn't be separate - it would be part of the operating budget of GUSA (though it could be specified the funds may only be used for Georgetown Fund purposes). For another, co-sponsorship isn't quite what the fund would aim to do. That's like saying that SAC routinely 'co-sponsors' events when it approves funding for clubs. Co-sponsorship implies that GUSA would be taking an active role in the club's event - like when GUSA co-sponsored a panel on the eve of election night with the College Dems and Republicans that Pat Dowd helped to moderate. The fund would more aim to provide funds directly to the clubs on behalf of GUSA's Georgetown Fund. So if the Dems and Republicans wanted to sponsor an absentee ballot drive but were denied requested funding (which actually happened), they could turn to GUSA and get the money. This would not imply that Senators would have to be out there collecting ballots.

Overall, however, the biggest reason for having a 'Georgetown Fund' distinct from merely increasing the GUSA budget is to advertise to clubs that GUSA is available to lend a helping hand for those times when clubs feel they have not been given a fair shake. Again, the Fund wouldn't aim to supplant SAC (nor could it, with the limited amount of funding). It's a way of making sure clubs don't slip beneath the cracks -- and also holding open the door to interested individuals with good ideas for projects.

Hope this answers your questions, Nick.

Calling Sean & Andrew's ideas "unrealistic campaign proposals" is ridiculous in itself when you take a look at the other candidate's platforms. These two are proposing a restructuring of the career center (creating more opportunities for non-MSBers), mentor programs for interested students in which they would reach out to local alumni that students could network with, and a greener campus (which would include recycling bins next to every trash can and vice versa, and reducing energy consumption by using 5 watt light bulbs campus-wide instead of the 120 watt ones we currently use). Those are their 3 main platforms and sound more realistic to me than ANY other candidate's. The article singles out two much smaller ideas they had, with campus-wide printing for a small semester surcharge (like current MSBers have) and also grab & go on weekends (does not sound too unrealistic)! They have my vote.

Calen and Jason are too short. No one likes short people. That's the bottom line, and they will be ineffective in office due to their stature. I doubt they win.

hey tek...i heard you have a small penis and thats why you feel the need to bash short people. true story?

having spent a lot of time looking over all of the candidates, i have decided to vote for Calen and Jason as they are the best looking candidates