6/06/2006: Live - Mark of the Beast Special Edition

-Fin-

10:12 PM: I propose an amendment to zero the entire budget of Student Government. I am absurdly tired and cutting this off short. Sorry, folks.

10:07 PM: Amendments #5 and #6 hold the entire budgets of ACCENT and SGP to a 3.6% increase, as opposed to merely the program lines being held to such a standard.

10:06 PM: Amendment #4 fails.

9:58 PM: Ryan just doomed Amendment #4 by stating he had not discussed cutting Museum Nights to once a month with anyone in a position of authority regarding Museum Nights.

9:58 PM: William Perry is still watching his economics lecture.

9:57 PM: Ryan is oh-for-3 on his amendments so far. Rather saddening, but not unexpected.

9:51 PM: A goodly bit of debate over Senate's own budget. Is it any real surprise that a vast majority of us are adamantly opposed to reducing the money that we spend on ourselves? I am perturbed, but really have nothing to say worth putting in debate.

9:47 PM: I hope Stan doesn't read the blogs, because I'm taking this opportunity to throw out that he is an arrogant bastard, and completely useless. I'm almost certain we have the ability to terminate his employment, too. Hint. Hint.

9:39 PM: Aha. The sum of any money saved by Ryan's amendments will be put towards the USA Today/NYT readership program. Good call.

9:37 PM: Ryan Nelson feeds a PowerPoint addiction.

9:31 PM: So a general theme here regarding certain vague lines is that President Boyles and Treasurer Moseley will be responsible with the money. It's not that I think they won't be - I'm sure they will. It's simply that the budget should not leave a lot of room for irresponsibility, because if it is possible, it will inevitably occur. There's no reason we should give our executives the opportunity to misspend our money, whether they openly plan to or not.

9:30 PM: Mobile Campus is useful for something? Apparently there is an informal quid pro quo whereby SG promotes Mobile Campus and Mobile Campus makes a reasonable endowment to us. That caught my ear.

9:18 PM: Discussing the budget and such things.

9:08 PM: Finally. Some meat and potatoes. A&S Fee Budget Amendments. Tanaz, despite many people telling me she is in fact quite smart, sounds like she has no idea what she's talking about.

9:07 PM: Passes unanimously.

9:04 PM: Senator (Ryan) Nelson's bill codifying certain awards into statutes, merely a clerical addition to prepare for another bill coming next week, apparently, limiting A&S Fee Award funding to awards codified in statutes.

9:04 PM: Passed by acclamation. Whee.

9:03 PM: William Perry is still watching an economics lecture.

9:01 PM: A clerical amendment to the SG Constitution offered by Senator Armstead. This is also common sense. I support passing this only if we can do so in five minutes or less.

9:00 PM: Passes by acclamation. Sweet.

8:55 PM: Presentation of Federal Research resolution. For the uninitiated, this is a resolution supporting a bill in the Senate that would require federal research to be made available for access online. Straight-forward, common sense, this should pass with a minimum of dissent. That's not always held up before, though. Let's watch.

8:55 PM: Transfer of $100,000 from Reserves to fund some administrative fee thing.

8:39 PM: Committee reports and things.

8:37 PM: Weiss gives a Pro Temp report, eight minutes after having given a President's report. This would be confusing if I weren't so smart. Still some seats open. Apply, kiddies.

8:34 PM: By acclamation. "Oh look how cute," Senator Cullin exclaims.

8:30 PM: Patrone is our only candidate for President. He is wandering the front area, "speaking from his heart." A generally drab speech. Not that he's not sincere, surely, but he's just not saying anything important, methinks.

8:22 PM: Treasurer Moseley brings his Assistant Treasurer recommendations. General discussion, approval by unanimity. Snore.

8:17 PM: States that "proper advertising" should not merely mean buying ads in the Alligator, but should start with SGers themselves. All but calls out Ryan for "putting oneself at an advantage," or something of the sort. I mean, I agree with the anger and all, but I'm not sure I can understand how they can maintain that the applications process was legit AND the publicity thereof was lacking. Perhaps I am typing too much and listening too little.

8:16 PM: VP Lydia is making a similar speech. "Apparently I can't do anything right." William Perry is watching an economics lecture.

8:14 PM: Reiterates that those who work hard will get where they want to go, those who merely bitch about being excluded will not, and should not.

8:11 PM: Decrys the student body for not wanting to get involved. I agree all-too-entirely. States that the application process surely could've gone better.

8:10 PM: Decrying the Alligator for perpetuating the same stereotype, states that he too as a freshman was disenchanted with SG, hated his first term in Senate, etc. I do not entirely agree.

8:05 PM: John Boyles is raising his voice. Decrys those who will perpetuate a stereotype of a closed SG for political ends, etc. etc. "I worked hard to get where I am."

Three problems with SG: Student Government, the Alligator, and the student body.

8:05 PM: We have power. Interesting happenings with Cabinet appointments. As stated in Ryan's column, the Student Affairs Secretary has little experience with University committees and Faculty Senate, Athletics Secretary has no experience with UAA. I get the distinct impression that they may not entirely be qualified.

7:46 PM: 8% battery. Short break.

7:43 PM: STAAR appointee I-Forgot-Her-Name speaks quietly about something.

7:41 PM: That he is as straightforward as he is about the problems in the Spring election, that the student body voted overwhelmingly for true online voting, etc., seems almost too good to be true. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

7:38 PM: Asked which voting model he would support, appointee Aungst states all three have their pros and cons, but that the recent elections were very poorly run.

Vows to listen to the voice of the student body in that they want to be able to vote from any computer, that some people felt there was not a proper paper trail after the Spring election.

Will spend the most time investigating paper ballots and true online voting. Either he's a really good SoE candidate, or a really good politician.

7:35 PM: SoE appointee Brian Aungst speaks to his qualifications. Former Senator, Elections Commissioner, not a DPhiE (kidding), etc.

Hey! He knows what a 700 Code is! This is an improvement.

7:34 PM: President Boyles presents his appointments. A slew of appointees crowd the front desk area. Blocking a fire exit, methinks.

7:28 PM: Senator Cullin. She is selling her Blackberry. Scandal.

Nelson's column does not "represent the independent movement." Not, or at least should not be, a Greek/Anti-Greek conflict - "not anti-Greek, anti-System." NAGAS will appreciate the plug.

Taking the words right out of my mouth - same conclusions, but not simply because a majority of recommendations are Greek, but because the application process is not properly advertised. Says that columns such as this INCREASE, rather than decrease, the closed nature of SG by turning regular students away.

A gold star for Senator Cullin.

7:27 PM: Random dude talking about student groups and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He is speaking so softly that I can't tell which side he's on.

7:24 PM: Senator Brett. Supports Patrone. Denounces "playing partisan politics" with Cabinet recommendations. I am none too fond of discriminating against appointments merely on the basis of their Greekship, and am none too fond of Ryan for doing so, but I think questioning their qualifications is not only justified, but the duty of us as Senators.

7:22 PM: Senator Delgado vouches for 17% of President Boyles' Cabinet Secretary recommendations, and urges passage of the whole list. Supports Brian Aungst for SoE, Mike Patrone for Senate President.

7:21 PM: Maybe it's just me, but Reilly does not look entirely too pleased to be saying these things. I get the impression he really wanted the position. Interesting.

7:20 PM: Reilly endorses Patrone. General qualifications and things. "He's been a role model."

7:20 PM: Senator Reilly steps up. I already know what he's going to say.

7:18 PM: Nelson makes a final plea to President Boyles and VP Washington to re-open Cabinet applications. Everyone looks concerned.

7:14 PM: Senator (Ryan) Nelson steps up. Apologizes for referencing "his party" in his article this morning. Then reads a Facebook message from a student, apparently reasonably qualified, who was denied an ACCENT position in favor of an anonymous Fratty McFrat. I am glad he is not stepping back from what he wrote, as many others have done in the past when fallout got too thick.

7:14 PM: Nothing for me. I'm hurt.

7:12 PM: Senators Johns and Hardwick speak about the NACURH conference and apparently have a bag full of goodies. Yippee!

7:10 PM: Senator Cineas speaks in favor of Patrone for Senate President. Pro-Patrone public debate speeches will waste approximately 15 minutes of my hard-earned time tonight.

7:08 PM: Senator (Mike) Nelson speaks in favor of the Public Research Thingy resolution. I'm guessing the same argument will be made approximately 7000 times before the resolution is passed by general assent. Boooring.

7:06 PM: A resolution supporting the CLO removed unanimously. Apparently the situation regarding the CLO has been resolved already.

7:05 PM: See what happens when you live-blog? I almost miss roll call.

7:01 PM: Called to order. Lauren has apparently ingrained in Pro Temp Weiss a punctuality oft not seen in these chambers.

Verily. Interesting night ahead.

Cabinet Restructuring

We are not particularly a fan of the Cabinet bill that will more than likely pass second reading tonight, yet, unless some particularly salient point in opposition is brought up, we plan on voting for it. Why, might you ask? Because we're tired of dealing with Cabinet, hearing about Cabinet, and fighting about Cabinet. If this is the system that the administration wants, let them have it.

The history of this Cabinet fight is an interesting and particularly revealing one. There is no doubt that Cabinet currently is filled with myriad boondoggle divisions and subdivisions - no one argues that reform is not needed. The first iteration of proposed reform - former Vice President Medina's attempt - did not change the purpose of Cabinet, and cut deeply into the number of Cabinets. It failed after members of her own party turned against her. Let us not pretend that it was poor legislation - the reason the bill failed is because it cut into the number of positions that could be handed out by an elected executive ticket as political patronage.

This brings about a tangent. I am of the opinion (currently explained in an incomplete .txt file on my desktop) that the most egregious nepotism in SG does not occur at the top, with agency heads, but at the bottom, with Cabinet directors and low-level agency positions. The appointed agency heads are often the most qualified for their positions by far, and often do the best possible job out of anyone, by far. Thus, the damage done is often little to none. However, consider for a second how those agency heads become the most qualified for said positions. Often, it is because they are given preferential treatment in applying and being invariably selected for the lower-level positions that serve as their training and qualifications for the upper-level positions they end up holding.

Cabinet is the best/worst example of this. Houses or student organizations are promised a certain number of Cabinet positions for their continued support of the establishment. This is a fact, and is not up for debate. Joyce's bill failed because it drastically cut the number of Cabinet positions available to be handed out.

The latest iteration of Cabinet reform cuts the size of Cabinet by a whopping 9.1% - from 44 to 40 available positions. To accomplish this, it changes the purpose of Cabinet from mere programming to both programming and policy advice for the executives. Interestingly, the new Cabinet will reflect the intent of the United States government's Cabinet much more, aiding, as I pleasure in telling my Senatorial confidants, our shift towards a bureaucracy identical in undue influence and inefficiency as the United States government.

But I digress - I have no doubt my readership is well familiar with the specifics of the bill. Why, you must be asking, do I plan to vote in the affirmative for this bill if it seeks to preserve the System I so very much hate? Simple - the size of Cabinet as is most evident to me, and should be most evident to the student body at large, is not in the number of positions, its scope or purpose, or its influence in SG as a whole, but in its funding. Under the proposed budget, whether Cabinet has 10 officers or 100, it will still be funded the same amount - approximately $36,000.

The other arguments in favor of cutting Cabinet - that it will be too large and unwieldy to respond effectively to students' needs, or that it will be unaccountable, wasteful, and hard for a Vice President to control, are negated simply by the fact that Vice President Washington and President Boyles state that they do not believe either to be the case. Whether they are right or not, and whether they will be able to do a good job with the Cabinet they desire or not is of no concern to me - they will (or should, anyway) bear the brunt of poor public opinion if they fail to produce with the system they desire. That they probably won't is a completely different issue, and a proverbial bridge we'll proverbially cross when we proverbially get to it.

So I'll let John and Lydia have the Cabinet they want. However, they should not expect to be allowed to appropriate more student money to fund it. The practice of political patronage with Cabinet positions is not going to change without an SG executive willing to be honest and open about it. The least we can hope for, then, as regular students, is that it does not suck up any more of our money than is necessary.

Blogging...

There was a time when blogging was glamorous, flashy even. There was a time when anonymous bloggers were revered and reviled, often in the same breath. This blogger remembers dearly making his first post, and less than twenty-four hours later attending a get-together and hearing his pseudonym bandied about. This blogger remembers dearly sitting at his desk, late into the night, typing up posts, and seeing by the next morning ten comments and a flame war already in its infancy. Et cetera, et cetera - boring you with such nostalgia is not the purpose of this post.

Times have changed - that much is certain. Two semesters worth of subpar grades, the Spring election, a greater involvement in other ventures, and a loss of that naivete and idealism (not to mention anonymity) that made this blogger so great in the beginning have taken their toll. The UF blogosphere that began approximately last Spring with the lovely Swamp Pundette, since graduated, and a slew of followers - GOAL, since retired; NAGAS, currently MIA; Reitz Rambler, since graduated; Gatorman and GDI, the only two still around, has become equally stagnant.

The blogs are on life support; no doubt about that. I was tempted to let them languish and atrophy to nothingness, save an occasional live-blog, until I received a missive from a friend of mine (and a damn fine Senator) expounding upon the utility - nay, the necessity - of the blogs. I realized the truth in this - where else, says they, is the pressure for serious legislation and substantive policy debate going to come from? From the Alligator? Hah. SG stopped paying attention to the Alligator a long time ago. From the student body? Double hah. Most students couldn't be bothered to care about SG even if it was their money paying for it - which, as I'm sure none of my readership needs reminding, it is.

The problem here, I explain to my friend, is one of culture, both in and out of SG. The culture inside SG is one of closed-mindedness and blind ambition. Too many SGers are far too obsessed. This of itself is not a particularly bad thing, until you realize that most are obsessed with precisely the wrong thing - their careers and their futures, the student body be damned. No one is involved in SG solely for the students - as a libertarian and a newly-minted Economics major I can easily tell you this - but I would think that at least some of them would do more than merely pay lip service to the idea that SG is supposed to represent and serve the students. This culture of self-service has caused a slew of problems, arguably the worst of which is a disturbingly strong embrace of the status quo.

Likewise the culture outside of SG is in a terrible state. Regular students can hardly be bothered to vote, much less keep up with the policies and politics of SG. Unfortunately, these attitudes are perfectly symbiotic, and neither will be changed for the better without the other - until regular students start caring about and participating in SG, those who get involved will only do so out of regards for their own ambitions. Likewise, until SG stops acting as a training ground for Florida's future sleazeball politicians and starts being reasonably useful to the student body at large, students will not merely neglect, but flat out refuse to concern themselves with SG politics.

The blogosphere seeks to remedy this vicious cycle. By revealing the hypocrisy of SG and its officials and simultaneously providing a forum for substantive policy debate among anyone and everyone these policies may or may not effect, we seek to create a flow of information between SG and the student body that is not presently there.

Does this post serve any particular purpose, you wonder to yourself 700 words later. Not really, comes the response. This is merely some reflections upon blogging in general, and an announcement of our return to active blogging. This summer (with any luck) will be a contentious one, and we plan to be there to chronicle every bit of it, and offer inspired and irreverent punditry every step of the way. Or at least that's the GOAL.

The blogs really took off last year only in the dead heat of summer. I believe that this year's summer session can have an equally constructive effect, and build a vibrant UF blogosphere right where it needs to be - between a people and its government, feeding information in both directions.

4/25/2006: Live

11:15 PM: Calling it a night. Go to Swamp.

11:11 PM: Sam Green offers that Senators who are leaving after this meeting can go ahead and leave if they do not want to be here. Not sure why, as we are perilously close to losing quorum already, but whatever.

11:10 PM: Special request passes. Move Swamp for great justice.

11:09 PM: "Please do not question the Parliamentarian or the Senate President!" - Mierley

11:08 PM: Parliamentary chaos again. Motion to call the previous question. Voted on, I think, three times running now?

10:59 PM: Debate on the request. Con speaker notes that it is a large sum for such a small group, the equipment it is purchasing is not easily accessible, etc. etc.

10:42 PM: Special request in the amount of $3522 for construct a communication system to communicate with amateur spacecraft. That'll grab you by the horn.

10:40 PM: Budget passes overwhelmingly.

10:39 PM: Baker offers tepid support to budget.

10:38 PM: Nelson agrees with the rider, but does not approve of student organizations not knowing about it until after their budgets were finished. Yeah, it happens.

10:36 PM: "What better way to get an organization to seek outside funding" than to force them to... - Patrone

10:29 PM: If a personal contribution is already figured into travel costs, then where do they expect this other 50% to come from? What purpose does this serve?

10:26 PM: Lots of questions surrounding this 50% travel cap. This blogger does find the rider rather ominous - doesn't make a whole lot of sense, methinks.

10:21 PM: Academic Orgs. Budget. Half a million in student money that is, if history is any indication, going to be pushed through as quickly as possible so we can all go to Swamp and drink. Great.

10:13 PM: Chairman Agrusa throws it out there: "I feel like this was you trying to push this through Senate." Point well taken.

10:06 PM: "I don't think any committee report could ever top that one." - Mierley

10:01 PM: I'm not good at live-blogging all the emotional-ness that goes on during these things, so I don't try. Needless to say, Laura is still going on, and the whole of chambers is having one of those "moments."

9:38 PM: Chairwoman Gonzalez definitely deserves a long-winded goodbye speech.

9:36 PM: Over the course of the night, this blogger has used three discrete computers to get the good word out. Thanks to those loaning their hardware to the cause.

9:35 PM: Moseley with various matters of business. No long-winded goodbye speech, thankfully. I mean, he's not exactly leaving, so I should think a long-winded goodbye speech is not particularly warranted.

9:30 PM: Weiss lamenting the loss of Chairwoman Gonzalez.

9:28 PM: Open summer replacement seats - one in particular - look enticing.

9:27 PM: Summer replacement seats approved as a bloc. Seth Mollitt, as a fellow Eagle Scout, gets a special shout-out.

9:~15 PM: Dean Jett makes the point that the House bill is extremely vague grammatically, although it makes sense to this legislative nerd.

8:50 PM: Joyce speaks out against the Cuba resolution. Looking it over, I realize that the intent of the State House bills it speaks out against is to keep university funding from going to the Castro regime, and this is without a doubt a noble goal. I am still not entirely sure if it was a good idea to keep it off the agenda, but all the same it is not a good bill.

8:44 PM: Joe supports going to an all-paper ballot system. This blogger whole-heartedly agrees.

8:42 PM: President Goldberg bashing the Alligator - reporters reportedly harassing folks during the banquet, muckraking about banquet funding while all but ignoring swearing in of officers and Joe's presentation about the past year. While he has a point, it is the job of the free press to hold SG accountable. They should be reporting on BOTH the banquet and its funding. Not sure anyone is in the right on this one.

8:38 PM: Rene Carballo makes a very strong speech in opposition to Fei's resolution based on the BLATANT human rights violations of the Cuban dictatorship. I cannot argue, although I do not see how the resolution supports Castro and his government.

8:33 PM: Amanda starts naming agency directors. What is this? Jason Lutin, Lobby Coordinator? Andrew Brown, ACCENT Chair? Sarah Krantz, Supervisor of Elections? Everyone looks agitated. How could this be?

8:31 PM: Amanda Kane takes the podium. Thanks everyone, etc. etc. All kinds of advice, yadah yadah yadah.

8:30 PM: Devin starts going around the room, thanking people, and gets barely past the second row before being cut off. Sad. Virgil wanted to be thanked.

8:25 PM: We are really going to miss Devin Renner. Really, really going to miss Devin Renner.

8:2X PM: Motion fails.

8:15 PM: Senator Nelson moves to reconsider the decision to add the resolution to the agenda. Parliamentary chaos ensues.

8:13 PM: Fei also going on about the resolution that is not on the agenda.

8:10 PM: A graduate student just spoke about the resolution that was not granted placement on the agenda. Fei Long is now speaking, congratulating Devin Renner for speaking out, "even when you're not a major voice." This blogger is amused, but will honestly miss Mr. Renner's unmistakable presence in chambers.

7:57 PM: Gavin Baker decrying the amount of student-funded awards handed out at the SG Banquet, and the suppression of freedom of the press that occurred there. This blogger absolutely despises any and all attempts at censorship, particularly those practiced by certain SG officials at said banquet.

Gavin Baker brings up his controversial question from the latest Judiciary meeting with regards to the Cabinet restructuring and promised positions. A number of Senators across the room, including at the front table, look bored and/or agitated. Conspicuous.

7:50 PM: A motion to bring Fei Long's seemingly innocuous resolution to the floor tonight is denied, apparently on the grounds that resolutions should be brought through Judiciary first. That's never stopped them before.

7:48 PM: Mierley denies a motion to move a bill before reports. Is this allowed?

7:45 PM: Recommendations have been made. The full report is on Gatorzone.com. This blogger will investigate at a later date.

7:42 PM: Much-maligned Vice President Patricia Telles-Irvin. Speaking on a relatively mundane topic: the university has commissioned a study about athletics, that studied the academic integrity, governance and compliance, student equity and general welfare of the athletic program and the University Athletic Association.

7:40 PM: "You all CHOSE to elect ME your Senate President. I ask you all to respect the decisions I make as Senate President." - Mierley

7:36 PM: Called to order. The room looks emptier than usual. This blogger wonders why...

7:31 PM: Watching from my perch. Senators are filing in. Ought to be interesting. PTI is scheduled to speak, Academic Orgs. Budget. Also some replacement seats - nothing particularly interesting. Probably going to be approved as a bloc, as usual. I'm interested in some of the open seats, personally, one in particular. ;-)

--

So here we are, once again.

God spake saying, "let there be Senate." And there was Senate. And it was good.

4/18/2006: Live

Clogging up NAGAS again.

3/28/2006: Live

http://www.concernedgator.blogspot.com/

Let us welcome our new friend to the UF blogosphere. Hello, friend.

3/21/2006: Live

www.notanti-greekanti-system.blogspot.com

2/21/2006: Live

12:49 PM: Eh, summary later. I'm tired and hungry. Good show, all.

12:47 PM: Susan sort of skips around the experience issue again in the "UF community" question. No on-the-job training is definitely a huge benefit, though, and she should just come out and say it!

12:46 PM: Online forum for online voting? Brilliant!

12:45 PM: This blogger definitely appreciates Susan's penchant for making public information as accessible as possible.

12:44 PM: Again with the "no unfeasible goals" talk. At least, this time, I believe it.

12:43 PM: Although she's right - the SBT doesn't handle recycling that much, it's probably not a good answer.

12:43 PM: The "experience" question is a softball. She's almost "over-experienced," but luckily that's pretty much not possible.

12:42 PM: Again trying to go over the time limit. Sigh.

12:40 PM: The lovely Susan steps up to the podium. Experience, experience, experience. Either nervous, or trying to cram a lot of talk into the short time allowed.

12:39 PM: Talks about advocating for the students to the administration, to the city, and to the state. That was pretty good; not gonna lie.

12:38 PM: He starts out well on the "UF community" question, talking about giving back to the community, etc., and then goes into listing his main platform planks. He is, granted, closing pretty strongly; I'll give him that.

12:37 PM: JB talks "open forums." Another decent, if not particularly memorable, answer.

12:35 PM: JB steps up to take the "weak & unfeasible" question. Also dodges, and starts to go into some of his platform planks. Undertstandable, no one wants to admit to having a weak & unfeasible platform.

12:33 PM: They're rotating their candidates; Moseley steps up to answer the recycling question. Suggests increasing recycling in Sorority Row, a Unite platform plank, suggests putting the Alligator back in the box, because students certainly are going to do that, and biodegradeable utensils, a solution pursued and deemed unsustainable in the past.

12:33 PM: Lydia steps up, flaunting their candidates' experience. Again.

12:32 PM: Were the time limits actually told to anyone, or are they making this up as they go along? Neither candidate has came in under the time limit on any of the questions. Seems like this is sort of being thrown together.

12:31 PM: He's speaking to his party. Not the audience. Terrific.

12:30 PM: John Boyles and co. step up to the podium, looking very stiff and dejected.

12:30 PM: Jared is a class warrior? Probably not a good answer.

12:28 PM: I'll stop with the Jared-worship. He is fumbling the "UF community" question a bit. Kind of goes on a tangent about "political machines" and "promised positions." Okay, we get it already. Calm down.

12:27 PM: This is good stuff. Jared is at the top of his game. A shame a lot of regular students are missing this. Talks about the open forum being held on Friday in the Plaza of the Americas. Hopefully more "regular students" will show up to that.

12:25 PM: "We don't put weak and unfeasible goals on our platform." Good or bad answer? Seems like he's sort of dodging the question, but also turning it into a good opportunity to throw down some good rhetoric.

12:24 PM: Jared is an Eagle Scout! Why did no one tell me this?!? Good answer to the recycling question - he has both experience and ideas to solve the problem.

12:23 PM: Jared is speaking well; maybe I'm a bit biased.

12:22 PM: Student Government should be "accessible, accountable, and relevant" to the student body.

12:21 PM: Jared steps to the podium, looking incredibly relaxed. Starts talking about his experience. Good stuff.

12:20 PM: The moderator just "performed a hat drawing" to determine the order: Unite, Swamp, and then the lovely Ms. Henriques.

12:18 PM: Apparently, all the questions are to come from the audience. Probably not good planning, since a good 80% of the audience are hard-core party operatives come to see their candidates perform.

12:17 PM: So, Virgil's apparently not fully in retirement. My cohorts here convinced me to show back up and live-blog the FLC Platform Informational Session being held today on the Reitz South Terrace.

Morning, sunshine.

In case you haven't noticed, I haven't posted in a while, and unless something major happens, probably won't until the election is over.

Just too much to do...always running, running, running.

See y'all in two weeks. You stay classy, UF.

A Little Perspective

So John Boyles is running with the reincarnation of the SWAMP party, which as much as he wants to argue otherwise, is little more than the Gator Party minus a few supporters, and Jared Hernandez is running with Unite, more or less Impact plus a few supporters. Personally, I find this all very exciting, but as a blogger, 'twas a rather hum-drum weekend, and I was afraid I might not be able to string together a righteous post for the 13th day in a row. After all, we've only been predicting this for six months now.

But then this came flying out of left field. Let me make this fully clear: I in no way oppose the creation of this party, or its running candidates in any race this Spring. SG is (or should be) in the business of getting all students involved, after all. And our superstar athletes, love 'em or hate 'em, are definitely students too. But all the same, I think certain folks need a little perspective.

(And be it noted that this is Virgil the objective blogger speaking, not Virgil's alter-ego, the Unite operative. In fact, I was discussing this earlier with a couple folks, and came to the conclusion that from a theoretical standpoint, the MVP party will probably be more of a boon to Unite than a bane. But I digress...)

That aside, I have to wonder, though, what exactly is the purpose of creating a party more or less solely for student athletes? Are there really any pressing issues facing athletes, or do the athletes bring different ideas to the table that are being ignored by the two "major" parties? I certainly understand that they haven't created or published a platform yet, and one article is definitely not room enough to start pushing issues, but all the same - what can they push? What is there to put in a platform that would differentiate themselves from the established parties without merely lording their athletic talent over us average folk?

There is a brief mention of the party's intent in the article, with Ryan Sherry stating he wants to form a "joint student-athlete community" through the party. Why, though, is such a thing necessary? Athletes, as I noted earlier, ARE, in fact, students. Are we alienating somehow them? Are they alienating themselves? I really think not. With the way students around campus worship our university's great sports teams (myself included), I highly doubt there's any need to attempt to increase rapport between the general student body and athletes.

And even more importantly - how many of their candidates are really willing to get in there and do the jobs they might be elected to? Properly being a Senator is a time-consuming job, and athletes are busy people. Our superstar athletes doubly so. This isn't the first time superstar athletes have gotten involved in SG; Teddy Dupay was elected to a CLAS Senate seat with Fusion, and Chris Leak was the Impact Party treasurer for a spell last Spring, but neither did any real work - Teddy was replaced soon after being elected, and Chris pretty much just gave Impact permission to use his name. If the MVP candidates are elected, they won't have that option.

Most disturbingly, though, is the glaring fact that none of the MVP candidates have any experience at all in SG. That includes their presumptive Presidential candidate, Mr. Sherry. I'd be interested to know if Mr. Sherry even knows what the 700 Codes are, much less if he has read them and plans to follow them with his campaign. Of course, the way the article was written makes it seem as if there won't be any campaign at all, only superstar athletes putting their name on the ballot.

There is a fine line between desiring qualification in SG officers, and blatant elitism, and I recognize this. SG is for all students. And I have no qualms with electing Senators, or even appointing Cabinet Directors, with no SG experience. But I don't think it's too much to ask for potential Student Body Presidents and Treasurers to have a bit of experience in the field. Twelve million dollars is a bit much to just throw around for someone's ego trip.

I don't know what is to come of the MVP party, if anything. Rumor has it that they won't be the only out-of-left-field party running in this election, but I have no interest in spreading rumors. NAGAS used the word to describe next year's election scene currently, I think it applies just as well to this year's: clusterfuck. Best of luck to all the competitors. At this point, they all need it.

1/17/2006: Live

10:25 PM: Special Request bills passing unanimously.

~10:10 PM: Polling Location Visibility Act passes unanimously, even with the amendment. I'm glad sanity prevailed.

9:54 PM: Calling it a night. Brief summary of the rest of the meeting up later.

9:53 PM: Amendment passed. Interesting to see what becomes of the bill now.

9:50 PM: Blogspot is down, 10% battery life. This will be going up way late.

9:43 PM: Jared makes a decent, if a bit frivolous point, that "Vote Here" posted the day before the elections would be a bit misleading. A number of Senators are picking up this line as a good reason to oppose the amendment.

Tankersley shoots down a friendly that would require the signs be up an hour early instead of a day.

Ecklund - good point: college students can, in fact, read.

The talking point recycled by all the con speakers is an interesting point, to be sure, but one that I think is being way over-blown.

9:42 PM: Tankersley's amendment (requiring signs to be put up a day in advance) considered formally. A good idea - hopefully those previously in objection will qualify their objection.

9:39 PM: Some friendly amendments, and a bunch of parliamentary garbage. Necessary? This is pretty straight-forward, I think.

9:31 PM: The Power Corner objects to a friendly that would require the signs to be put up a day in advance. Why?

9:23 PM: Ally with the Polling Location Visibility Act (requires prominent signs near polling locations) - this should be common sense. Minimal financial impact, increase in voter convenience, etc. - of course, we know how the Senate has treated proposals doing that sort of thing in the past. General questions.

9:20 PM: Vaghaiwalla (spelling?) - general business. No second readings tonight, we've whittled down the second readings to four, none particularly controversial - this should be over soon.

9:17 PM: Guerra and Green with general business.

9:16 PM: Blogspot back up.

9:14 PM: New Allocations Chairman Kevin Reilly steps up to the podium. We recommit the other allocations bill on the docket for tonight.

9:08 PM: Moseley steps up, Blogspot is down, not really paying attention.

9:07 PM: John promises to send minutes of the meeting to the folks who spoke earlier, and offers to give their e-mail to anyone who wants it. Nice.

9:05 PM: Patrone steps up, two new Senators (Paul Anderson - HP, David Dresser - Dist. C), a new Allocations Chair (Kevin Reilly), and a new I&C member (Lacey Logsdon) are approved in about seven seconds time.

Patrone makes a terrific point in that the folks who spoke earlier against the LGBT cabinet left early, and Sens. Clark, Nelson, and Dykstra were left preaching to a sympathetic choir. Wants it put into the minutes that leaving early is stupid and unbecoming.

9:02 PM: JB talks about Special Request Policy Committee - one of those ad hocs that are actually worth something. Nelson talks up Transportation something Committee. Weiss talks about Campus Improvement Committee - they're taking up the textbook issue now. Whee!

9:00 PM: Joyce talked for a bit, I missed it. Cosimi at bat now. General stuff.

8:56 PM: 49% battery life. Joe talks about courtesy phones. Says courtesy phones have probably been there for "ten years or so." No. They were installed by Chris Carmody's Campus Committee, in 2002. Now, I'm no scientist, but that's only four years.

Joe talks textbooks. General anger.

8:55 PM: Appeared to be 74-0 for Cosimi. Mass exodus.

8:54 PM: Patrone's losing count. At the S's, no dissent.

8:53 PM: Probably unanimous. At the G's, no dissent.

8:52 PM: Roll Call vote. Whee.

8:50 PM: Some good questions. Lindsay's deflecting the provocative ones quite well, preferring to smother us in technical mumbo-jumbo.

8:46 PM: Lindsay's back. "I need to continue because no one else is qualified."

Well - that's almost the truth. Meh, I'm being mean - Lindsay will do fine, and she probably is the best one to be in the position (of the candidates, sure), and since she's going to be overwhelmingly re-confirmed, I imagine that's all a good thing. This just feels...wrong.

Lindsay laundry-lists her accomplishments in the office.

8:45 PM: Oh dear. "If you're elected, would you accept?" "Umm, hmm...uh, yes." Not convincing. General deference to Lindsay on, well, everything. I feel sorry for the girl - she's a pawn in a much larger, horrible game.

8:41 PM: Hmmph. There's not three nominees. There should be. But there's not. Boyles: "But we'll go ahead with the election anyway, because we haven't done enough statute-raping already, and I can't really do anything anyway."

8:37 PM: Heeeeere's Lindsay. An "I" on the transcript. Harsh. Assuming she got it fixed, she's okay to be Treasurer again, but should she?

Gabrielle Leon withdrew her nomination, and I highly doubt Freya Birdie will present any sort of a challenge. Not surprising.

8:34 PM: Joe with the President's Report. Strongly disagrees with the angry anti-LGBT folk earlier, and then to add insult to injury, calls up Tyroler to announce one of the Rent actors is coming to speak. Luckily they're all gone or they might riot. Spike Lee's coming, too.

8:34 PM: They pass unanimously.

8:30 PM: Some Honor Court appointments. Good stuff. Alex Hadjilogiou (hell of a name!) for Vice Chancellor, Trisha Low for Chief Defense Counsel - I wonder if she'll be the one in charge of the First Honor Court Armory. They'll pass unanimously.

8:29 PM: Passes unanimously.

8:19 PM: VISA allocations bill. Mass exodus. This will pass unanimously. Everyone's ready to move on to the heavy stuff, and it's hot as holy hell in this room.

Advertising in the Alligator? I thought that was forbidden! Oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, dear.

Various Senators - general "like-minded" support of the bill.

8:15 PM: Diane Kassim to wrap up public debate. Black History Month, talks about Senate being unresponsive to students' needs and issues on occasion, talks about how much she used to hate Lindsay, and now how much she loves her. "Disservice to the student body" line pops up again.

I'm no law scholar, but I think that enforcing the statutes isn't usually a "disservice to the student body." In fact, I would think it's a bit more of a disservice to defraud the student body (in this case about Lindsay's resignation) and to circumvent statutes, effectively rendering them pointless for the future. That's a disservice.

8:11 PM: Clark. Rebutting anti-state-funding types. General emotional plea.

Nelson steps up. Notes unanimously passed resolution more or less on the subject back in Spring.

Erin Dykstra speaks.

8:09 PM: Mierley praising budget hearing colleagues and Lindsay Cosimi. Wonder of wonders.

8:05 PM: Laura. More "Lindsay is grrrreat!" talk.

"I would remind you - the overwhelming majority of the student body elected Lindsay." False - turnout last Spring was, I think, around 25% - just over half voted for Lindsay, meaning a whole 12.5% of the student body voted for Lindsay. Hardly an "overwhelming majority."

8:04 PM: Another concerned student on LGBT affairs cabinet. Same talking point. Not worth the effort.

8:02 PM: Preacher-man's daughter. She obviously has thought through what she is saying over, and over, and over.

"Discrimination is wrong, but groups fighting it shouldn't be funded by the state." Again - kudos for courage, a raspberry for ignorance. Nay, two. Pbbt. Pbbt.

8:01 PM: Tons of five-minuters tonight. Stone supports Cosimi. Surprise.

7:58 PM: Ally. Whee! Speaking out against the "announcements after adjournment" motion, or, in tonight's case, "announcements after final roll call" motion.

7:57 PM: Fei Long, doing what he does best - talk about his constituency.

7:57 PM: Diane is getting five minutes. Let's see where this is headed.

7:55 PM: Lola! Did Gatorman cause this bill to be recommitted? Intriguing.

7:54 PM: More of Cosimi-love-fest, this time Moseley.

7:53 PM: Concerned student speaks against state funding for LGBT cabinet. Kudos for courage, a raspberry for ignorance. Pbbt.

7:51 PM: Lutin is back! Various, supports Cosimi.

7:49 PM: Weiss: "removing Cosimi from office and not allowing her back in is a disservice to the student body." Oh, well that makes sense.

7:48 PM: Mofsen speaks in favor of Lindsay Cosimi.

7:47 PM: Public debate.

7:41 PM: Called to order. Finally.

7:31 PM: Why are there three different bills from the Special Requests Clarification Committee? They're not anything particularly controversial, and should be approved easily - why not combine them? Same effect, less time. Humbug.

7:28 PM: I believe we've exceeded fire capacity. JB is wearing a terrific lime-green shirt, that perfectly matches Glenda's turtleneck. Coincidence? I think not.

7:25 PM: Apparently Joe has issued an executive order, or a memo, or something, to "review the cost and usage of the yellow courtesy phones," a stated purpose of the Campus Improvement Committee. Yet nowhere does the memo reference the Campus Improvement Committee, and I doubt it would be much of a stretch to think that this is just another breakdown in communication between the legislative and executive branches. Ah well...

7:21 PM: The room is buzzing already. Everybody who's anybody is here.

The agenda is unsurprising: Lindsay did indeed recommend herself to be reinstalled as Treasurer, and there are tons of bills to debate. Everyone's favorite Turlington preacher is here too, trying to get time at the podium.

Sprawling Bureaucracy

I took a break - sue me.

So, SG nerds came back from a refreshing, and in at least my case, an SG-free break to a bit of a jolt in the resignation of Treasurer Cosimi. I'll lay off the general asshattery generally practiced by some in the blogosphere (usually more by commenters than bloggers, though) and not pry into why she resigned - we should "find that out" on Tuesday anyhow, and NAGAS already has a tremendous post summarizing the candidates for replacing her that I couldn't hope to match.

Nay, I'd rather do what I do best - rail against wasting of students' time and money, a modus operandi our Student Government has become unnervingly comfortable with. Today's specimen is John Boyles's new Campus Improvement Committee, whose self-described goal is to "find and make little changes on campus."

That's all well and good and fine and whatnot - heck, I'll admit that it might even need to be done...there's plenty of small changes for the better that could be made around campus. But I have always been under the impression that we already had a "committee" slated with this purpose - the Student Senate. Isn't it sort of the job of Senators to look for things around campus they think need to be changed, or talk to students about little things they want changed, and then come back to the Senate with their ideas?

That doesn't necessarily mean they would have to change laws, or appropriate money, or even write a bill or resolution on the matter - but Senators are the students' representatives to Student Government, and if it is Student Government's responsibility to take care of those sorts of things, as it seems to be, then shouldn't all the Senators be on the lookout for these sorts of things to change?

It's not so much the simple creation of the committee that irks me - with the members that are on the committee, and under Sen. Weiss's leadership, I'm sure it will probably be reasonably productive - it's that a lot of the things that will be accomplished by the committee could probably have been accomplished under the current SG framework.

For instance, there are already established arms of SG that likely cover the goals stated in the Alligator article on the committee. The additional tables in Turlington, and probably the courtesy phones, could easily be covered by the Capital Improvements Cabinet, and lighting on campus already has a University administration-level committee dedicated solely to that one issue. Perhaps this brings to light a much larger issue - a lack of communication between the executive branch and the students, or a lack of discrete roles for the legislative and executive branches, or perhaps it's just a case of JB trying to perk up his resume for the Spring election.

In any case, it's a waste of my time, and undoubtedly my money, and as a result, I'm definitely not pleased.

Dark Tales...

...of nepotism and graft. Partisan hackery runs rampant. The few and the powerful, covering their asses, and ensuring their future in a manner that would make Machiavelli blanch. So it is, my friends, with Student Government. Despite the advances made in the Fall elections, and in the Senate this term, there is no doubt that Student Government is still in the hands of a select few powermongers, pulling strings behind the scenes. Nothing happens without their invisible influence. Sketch. Scandal. Indeed, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

R&A met on Sunday, for quite some time, in fact, with a number of recommendations to interview for and eventually decide on. Firstly, they interviewed for three Senate seats, Accounting, Engineering, and Liberal Arts and Sciences, and even if we're not entirely pleased with some of their picks, we can't find fault with them. But when it came to fill the two open Allocations seats, R&A let us, and the student body, down. Significantly.

The two Senators to be recommended for the seats tomorrow night are John Lloyd-Montgomery and Marissa Mofsen. While we have no particular quarrel with these two folks, it is the Senators that didn't get the nod that bothers us.

For one - Ryan Nelson. Who can tell me, with a straight face, that Ryan is not far and away the most qualified of the bunch. The most senior by a full term, member of the JWRU Board of Managers, president of his fraternity, and apparently a finance major - c'mon, folks, this is a no-brainer. Adam Rosen, Senator for Jennings, also applied, with treasurer of his fraternity and Freshman Leadership Council to his name. Our old friend Justin Bell also applied, this time with two months of constituent devotion and general activism under his belt.

Obviously, there were two spots and five applicants (maybe more, I'm not entirely sure), so several people were going to get the short end of the stick. We're sure (or, at the least, we hope) Mr. Lloyd-Montgomery and Ms. Mofsen have the qualifications necessary for the job too. But we have to wonder at the fact that they seem to be the two most likely applicants to toe the party line. Obviously, after the beginning of term committee recommendations, we've come to expect little better out of R&A, but we're absolutely appalled that they would give one of their own the shaft because he is not "hack" enough for those in charge.

What R&A, Senate, and SG in general needs more than anything, is a culture shock. The budget rider was a significant event that was not capitalized on. Perhaps a fight over these recommendations is imminent? Perhaps some legislation coming up in the next few days, or at the start of next semester, will spur a controversy of sufficient proportions? A fight over Allocations Chair would be sufficient, except - there shouldn't be a fight. There should be the most qualified candidate, who should get the post. No politics - a simple concept, but one not easily grasped, or rather, disgustingly unappealing to those in charge.

Spring elections are coming up much quicker than anyone seems to realize, and if us progress-minded SGers are to make a statement, if we are to make our voices heard, if we are to make the impact necessary to show the students we mean business in Spring, we need to do it NOW.

This terrific business...

The times, they are a'changin'...SG is being shaken to its core, and will likely never be the same. Events have been set in motion that will forever change the face of what we call Student Government - this year, and this election, will, very simply, be huge in SG history.

We have several posts currently in the conceptual stage, but neither the time or motivation to sit down and write them...so until we do, here's another open thread. That's two-thirds of what these damn blogs are good for, anyway - the comments.

The biggest thing I'd like to hear folks' opinions on is the Exec tickets currently in the making. Who is in the running for SBVP, and SBT? Who would you like to see? We have our own ideas as to those (and we've learned quite a bit since our last embarrassingly ignorant post of this type), but we'd rather hear your's.

Also, please throw out some ideas for those issue-oriented posts GOAL (and us, for that matter) desire...with any luck, there will be enough of a lull between picking tickets and the election cycle that we can actually accomplish something legislatively, and we should be starting the discussion now. One question should reign supreme in assigning priority to legislative issues: what is best for the students?

You've been charged. Discussion - go!

Happy Thanksgiving...

There's not really anything interesting to post at the moment, and I highly doubt anything of particular importance is going to happen this week...

In the Presidential arena, there are some rumblings, but nothing this blogger cares to divulge or pontificate on yet...talk amongst yourselves. We love the comments.

Legislative business will probably be close to nil this week, for obvious reasons.

So, with that, Happy Thanksgiving!