Raising the Standard.

SGA Watch: 2015 Amendment Guide

Election time is here.

SGA Elections are now live. The Arch Conservative doesn’t endorse candidates for any particular office. We do, however, care about how SGA will function for the coming year and beyond. To this end, we bring you a guide to the amendments on the SGA ballot:

 


AMENDMENT 1:

An Amendment to Reform Student Life Representatives

This amendment proposes to change the current system of appointing constitutionally defined Student Life Representatives to the following instead:

  • Electing at-large Senators, and
  • Electing Senators representing areas of campus involvement that are defined each year by the Elections Committee

The new Student Life Senators would be elected in addition to and at the same time as the senators determined by populations of colleges and schools.

The full amendment can be found here. If passed, the new system shall be implemented for the 2016 Elections cycle.

Would you like to vote to approve SGA Constitutional Amendment #1:
Reform Student Life Representatives?

Yes

No

OUR TAKE: This is a tough one. On the one hand, un-elected “Student Life” senators are a threat to SGA’s sacred democratic principles. On the other, electing these people means more pompous SGA Senate types running around believing that the “Voice of Every Dawg” is on their side. Oh well. On this one, we’ll take democracy. YES vote recommended.

 

AMENDMENT 2:

An Amendment to Remove Graduate Student Representation

This amendment proposes to make the Student Government Association (SGA) the voice of only undergraduate students by removing graduate and professional school senator seats from the organization. Graduate and professional students would only be represented through the Graduate Student Association (GSA) if passed instead of represented by both SGA and GSA.

The full amendment can be found here. If passed, the new system shall be implemented for the 2016 Elections cycle.

Would you like to vote to approve SGA Constitutional Amendment #2:
Remove Graduate Student Representatives?

Yes

No

OUR TAKE: Graduate Student Representatives, in our opinion, are unnecessary. (Well, the whole Senate is pretty unnecessary, but bear with us.) Overbearing law students hopped up on pre-exam NoDoz might be entertaining theater for Senate spectators, but they shouldn’t be given yet another platform from which to grandstand. Plus, this amendment would lessen the overall number of pompous SGA Senate types. Count us in! YES vote recommended.

 

AMENDMENT 3:

An Amendment to Revise SGA Freshman Programs

This amendment proposes to do the following:

  • Add the three-year-old Freshman Focus program to the SGA Constitution as “Freshman Connect”
  • Slightly revise the purpose of Freshman Forum and revise the Freshman Board selection committee

The full amendment can be found here. If passed, the amendment shall take effect immediately.

Would you like to vote to approve SGA Constitutional Amendment #3:
Revise SGA Freshman Programs?

Yes

No

OUR TAKE: Two TAC Editors participated in SGA’s Freshman Programs back in the days of yore. It’s hard to express the uselessness of these Programs, but we’ll give it a shot: Freshman Forum and Freshman Board are nothing more than springboards to illustrious campus-tool careers for annoying freshmen. Should they be reformed? No, they should be abolished. ABSTENTION recommended.

 

 

AMENDMENT 4:

An Amendment to Add Legislative Committees

This amendment proposes to create Legislative Committees independent of the executive branch to coordinate and implement the initiatives of the Senate. This amendment aims to improve the strength and independence of the legislative branch.

The full amendment can be found here. If passed, the amendment shall take effect immediately.

Would you like to vote to approve SGA Constitutional Amendment #4:
Add Legislative Committees?

Yes

No

OUR TAKE: Our view is that the Executive branch and executive committees of SGA are far more competent and respectable than Senate. Anything that strengthens the Senate (a den of resume-padding frat boys and pretentious progressives) at the expense of the Executive is less than ideal. NO vote recommended.

 

 

AMENDMENT 5:

An Amendment to Modernize the Constitution

This amendment proposes several changes to reflect the current practices of SGA. It includes the following:

  • Raising the GPA required to run for office from 2.50 to 2.75
  • Adding responsibilities to the duties of the President and Vice President
  • Changing the language to match the vernacular that is currently used
  • Removing offices not required for the basic functioning of the organization (e.g., Historian, Secretary)

Many of the stricken clauses are to be defined by the Rules and Procedures each year in lieu of being constitutionally required.

The full amendment can be found here. If passed, the amendment shall take effect immediately.

Would you like to vote to approve SGA Constitutional Amendment #5:
Modernize the Constitution?

Yes

No

OUR TAKE: This is one you need to read in full. Upping the GPA requirement seems reasonable. Removing some arcane Constitutional offices does as well. Giving the Vice President power to appoint University Council spots is more controversial – but we’ll let our readers make their own minds up. Remember, any powers you give to these folks are unlikely to disappear. Finally, this amendment amends the SGA Officer oath of office:

“I, (name of nominee), do herby [sic] affirm that I will faithfully support and defend the Constitution and Bylaws of the Student Government Association of The University of Georgia, the Constitution of the State of Georgia, and the Constitution of the United States of America; and I will endeavor to fulfill my obligations to the students and my duties as (name of office), to the best of my ability.” [Stricken language is to be removed.]

 

This is untenable and disgraceful! How dare we stop forcing our SGA overlords to swear fealty to the great and noble governing documents of this state and this nation. We might as well abandon our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Based on this dramatic oversight alone, a NO vote is recommended.