View from the Bottom

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

2006-06-06T19:06:00.000-04:00

-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

2006-05-23T10:51:00.000-04:00

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...

2006-05-22T10:22:00.000-04:00

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

2006-04-25T19:32:00.000-04:00

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

2006-04-18T19:46:00.000-04:00

Clogging up NAGAS again.

3/28/2006: Live

2006-03-28T21:06:00.000-05:00

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

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

3/21/2006: Live

2006-03-21T19:19:00.000-05:00

www.notanti-greekanti-system.blogspot.com

2/21/2006: Live

2006-02-21T12:18:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-02-13T19:55:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-30T16:16:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-17T19:20:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-16T22:51:00.000-05:00

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...

2005-12-06T00:59:00.000-05:00

...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...

2005-11-28T22:50:00.000-05:00

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...

2005-11-21T01:04:00.000-05:00

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!

Leg before wicket - you're out.

2005-11-17T20:40:00.000-05:00

So there's not really a lot to post about this week. Tuesday's Senate meeting was enjoyable but, on the whole, uneventful vis-a-vis anything unexpected. The rider was passed, as expected. Kudos to the Budget Committee for, at the very least, forging some sort of compromise on the issue. I still have to wonder why they needed to set that limit so that events could sufficiently advertise, when every event had a specific Advertising line item appropriated for them. But I digress...

Diane's speech was heartfelt and definitely powerful, and a message all Senators, and everyone else in SG as well, needed to hear - but it definitely makes one go "hmmm..."

Seguing into the electoral side of things, there is likewise little to report. Everyone who's anybody knows who both parties are running, but no one is willing to confirm it. Attempts at pre-planning and disorganization plague both parties, and again, neither side is willing to admit it. The secrecy is warranted, or is it?

Also, I can't help but notice that posts on this blog and others seem to be almost uniformly from the independent side of things. We know you Gator Party types are out there - grace us with your opinion, too. Unlike NAGAS, I don't mind if you post anonymously. The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for discussion, preferably of things that one wouldn't discuss publicly otherwise, if their name were attached; only secondarily is it a vehicle for my opinion.

And on that note, apparently we have a new "voice" in the blogosphere - our dear friend Carl the Baptist. Here's hoping he sticks around, for better or worse.

Have a great weekend, folks.

Week In Preview

2005-11-14T02:49:00.000-05:00

Any half-awake observer could give you a brief summary of what happened in SG this past week, and this fully caffeinated observer already has two posts up detailing the Revolution and its implications. We're sure you've already read them. Nay, we will instead, this beautiful eventide, pontificate on what is to come in SG this week - and it's certainly going to be a big one.

Senate on Tuesday night ought to be interesting, what with the Special Events budget coming back up for debate. We have little doubt that it will appear this time with the contentious honorarium rider embedded within, and we highly doubt there will be a movement to re-remove it with any chance of success, as the tremendously opinionated Icon kindly pointed out in the comments.

We won't extract this certainty to a theoretical level, or analyze its effects on the revolution - such would be folly. But we have to wonder, taking seriously what The Icon mocks, exactly why the Budget Committee is so nonchalantly disregarding the "will of the Senate" in this matter, particularly on such an insignificant matter. Would it really hurt them to leave off the rider, as a majority stated definitively they should?

More importantly, this is the week that the Spring tickets get wrapped up, or, at the least, the tops of them. NAGAS has been preaching November 14th as the day of reckoning for some time, and we're finally beginning to believe him, on, if not the exact date, that things will be decided this week, based on some of the buzz coming from the third floor and otherwise.

But who will be on the tickets? Who will Gator pick? Who will Impact pick? And when will us plebians find out about it? Has it already been done? All these questions answered and more (we think) this week. Ought to be a good one.

And lastly, what is this sudden fascination of the Alligator's with Jared Hernandez? Today's editorial masquerades as a critique of SG in general, but is in reality a thinly-veiled hit piece on Jared and his would-be competitor Ms. Cosimi. Firstly, (although it is very likely the case) there is nothing to suggest every single action of Jared's is based in his presidential ambitions, in particular this party. Jared is, after all, the president of SALSA - it's only logical he would host the party. Likewise, it's not as if he needs to shore up his support within SALSA - he's the president, for God's sake.

Secondly, wherefore the implication that Jared was knowingly breaking statutes? Again, we do not outright declare this to not be the case, but the Alligator is drawing that conclusion from what Jared "seems" to say, which "seems" intellectually dishonest at best, particularly for a purportedly objective news source.

Obviously, he broke the rules, and by all means he should be lambasted for it - but he also paid back the money immediately after his infraction came to light, a fact the Alligator lightly acknowledges in a terse, one-sentence paragraph which "seems" to have been shoved unceremoniously in the middle of the editorial.

Perhaps the Alligator should leave looking into what "seems" to exist to us sketchy bloggers, and stick to reporting hard facts, like the real media sources they imitate.

The Cullin Revolution: Reloaded

2005-11-10T17:47:00.000-05:00

Yesterday we proclaimed the existence of some amorphous revolutionary force sweeping SG, and we stand by that proclamation, even as no one seems to agree with us. Regardless, what, praytell, could possibly be the effect of our purported revolution on that other hot topic of SG rumormongering: Spring?

Interestingly enough, barring further, much more visible, action taken along the lines of Tuesday night, events that have thus transpired will, I believe, have little to no effect on the Spring election.

Allow me to explain. The main point to take into consideration, and one I think those in the echo chamber consistently forget, is that, regardless of the attitudes of SG insiders, and how much or how little they've changed vis-a-vis Tuesday, SG elections come down to one thing: the students' votes. And most students (not already told how to vote), are going to vote based on two things: issues of concern to them/party platforms, and the candidates on the ballot.

Tuesday was a brilliant exercise in the legislative process, but what was accomplished was effectively nil. As one of our illustrious commenters pointed out on the last post, not even the budget rider that was symbolically axed will have effectively changed due to Tuesday. So, although Tuesday night was great activity and a significant event for SG insiders, the student population at large, those who will be deciding the outcome of the Spring election, still have nothing to show for it.

Likewise, Tuesday's Senate meeting did nothing to shake up the presidential horserace The tops of both tickets have been pretty well-set for some time now, and although Tuesday night helped immensely to reveal the true nature and temperament of those candidates in action, it, once again, provided no change in what students will be seeing in the Spring.

But, that certainly does not mean all hope is lost for Impact. Obviously the second factor: candidates, cannot be changed at this point, but the independents still have about three months to work on the first, and luckily for them, this is something that can be changed from within SG, where Tuesday night did have an effect. If Ally Cullin and crew can use their momentum to swing crucial issues away from the establishment and towards themselves, and thus portray themselves as a viable alternative, and more interested in working for all the students, to the student body at large, then we could see a substantial effect on the Spring election spawned from Tuesday night.

But the fight is only beginning, and we have a long way yet to go. The only certainty at this point is that it will sure as hell be interesting to watch.

The Cullin Revolution

2005-11-10T01:48:00.000-05:00

It often happens that an event occurs of such outstandingly large proportions, under the guise of something so insignificant, that if one were to fail to spot it, or even view it from the wrong perspective, one could possibly miss it, and be forever out of the loop. Let us make one thing clear: Tuesday night was not about honorariums, or Special Events Budget riders, or second-degree amendments. Tuesday night was not about Allison Cullin, Lindsay Cosimi, Erin Dykstra, Jesse Kirsch, or any one person in that room.

One could certainly make a great deal of analysis based on what visibly happened at Senate on Tuesday, and on the actions of individual Senators and officers while it was taking place, but this blogger feels such an analysis would be superficial and, frankly, demeaning - this issue runs much deeper than personalities or the particular amendment in question. What occurred on Tuesday night struck at the very core of SG - it affected its very culture, for now, and hopefully for in the months to come, and in an incredibly beneficial manner for the student body at large.

This would've been impossible, firstly, without the element of spontaneity about the evening. None of what occurred on Tuesday night, with the possible exception of Erin Dykstra's public debate speech, bringing to light the issue that was co-opted to bring about the controversy, was planned, and thus no preventative action on the part of the majority could possibly have been taken before the meeting began. It was with this element of surprise that we can reasonably conclude the Senators voted in a manner they believed would best serve the students, rather than their party leaders.

With this spontaneity came chaos, and out of this chaos arose a golden opportunity - for an aggressive but well-meaning leader to take advantage of the situation, and in the process shape the very soul of SG as we know it. Of course, our dearly beloved Ally Cullin was surely not scheming so grandly in drafting her innocuous amendment; she just loves creating controversy, but I digress.

Regardless, it was so, and one could almost feel the center of gravity (power-wise, of course) in the room shift in the aftermath of that horrendously amazing one-vote margin. Yet, despite the trumped-up rhetoric thus far in the post, the shift of power, though clearly evident, was not as great as perhaps it seems. It would be folly to state that the independents suddenly have control over SG or any facet of it. Far from it, in fact. But the independent movement did indeed score a huge victory Tuesday, and if such happenings become a trend, we might very well have a revolution on our hands. Will the independent movement be able to block any bill they wish from consideration or passage? Of course not. Will they be able to vote down any bill they please? Of course not. But it has become quite clear that the range of actions the majority can viably take has been limited to those beneficial to the student body - they can no longer depend on mechanical party unity or brute force to push through any agenda they wish.

Nonetheless, this is but one victory in what needs to become a string of victories for the independents and their collaboraters, for there to be any significant, and permanent, culture shock in SG. We trust Senator Cullin is well-aware of what an opportunity she has, and we can think of very few other folks we believe would take better advantage of the situation.

With this sudden shift, then, Spring 2006 will possibly be far more interesting even than anyone was predicting a few days ago, and that, my friends, is the subject of another post. So, coming (hopefully) tomorrow, an electorally-based analysis of what effects this may or may not have on the spring election, and the factors determining.

Add.- Also, many kudos to Ryan Nelson for standing up and speaking his mind, and for the most part, we concur with his assessment. Nonetheless, while we agree that there were certain excesses taken during debate, we do not believe they were meant in a disrespectful manner. Likewise, we don't feel that the committees should simply get a free pass because they are the committees - otherwise, what would be the point of bringing bills to the full Senate?

What occurred on Tuesday night was the legislative process truly at work - something Senate hasn't seen for some time. I'm sure it's going to be a bit rough for Senators to get used to doing their actual job, so we'll cut them a break on some of the less decorous stuff this time. Cheers, all.

Haec olim meminisse iuvabit.

2005-11-06T21:48:00.000-05:00

Alas, this blogger hates having to do "week in review" posts, such as this one, almost as much as I'm certain the readership hates reading them, but 'tis an unfortunate necessity -

1. At long last, the International Student fee problem has been rectified, and in the only possible manner. While economically it made sense to charge the international students for the services they used, it didn't make sense in the face of the fact that nearly every other university in the country simply budgeted the extra charge into their budget. We applaud the University for finally making the right decision on this issue, and thank Sen. Long and co. for their tireless service in attempting, and apparently finally succeeding, to fix this problem.

2. Moving on, Tuesday's Senate meeting offered an interesting spectacle to an untrained eye such as myself. The hassle given such a well-organized and prepared organization as JAMSA was surprising, to say the least, particularly when similarly-sized requests, from much less worthy groups, have been approved easily, nay, lazily, in the past. This, we think, and moreover hope beyond hope, is evidence of a new streak of fiscal conservatism in the Senate - although it seemed to be more the general thought that JAMSA should be part of CaribSA than simply not funded at all. This is definitely the wrong way to go about it, as Chairman Lutin noted later on in the meeting - it should not be the Senate's job to decide which student organizations should be funded or not, merely to fund those organizations as responsibly as they see fit.

We applaud the Allocations Committee for trimming down JAMSA's request considerably, and to those Senators who were consistent enough to look for further fat to trim, and when none was found, voting to approve the spending. Shame on those Senators, whether they voted yea or nay, who saw fit to challenge JAMSA's legitimacy as a student organization.

We also hope many of the Senators held to the same thought process we did on the GSC travel grants bill - although dipping into Reserves is almost uniformly a bad idea, this application was not. We were pleased to see this bill pass with such overwhelming approval.

3. It should be noted also that Jackie Pace is leaving us. We thank her for her service and wish her the best. On that note, the applications for the Budget Chairmanship and open Budget seat have been moved up, purportedly due to the "importance" of the positions. Likewise, the application process for the Business Administration seat she has vacated has been expedited. We certainly hope R&A makes an impartial decision regarding those seats, no matter how unlikely that may be.

4. So exec tickets are nearing a final decision (some might already be decided - makes one go "hmmm..."), and this blogger isn't entirely sure if he likes what he's hearing out of the rumor mill. It seems more than slightly amiss that: there are three major candidates emerging, and only two established parties on which to run, yet all three are almost certain to run, whether slated or not. We have to imagine both parties' exec are taking this into account, and we are interested to note that it's not particularly clear whether three candidacies would do more to split the Greek vote or the independent vote.

This blogger thinks he has already made his decision (meaning he might well be persuaded otherwise, meaning he hasn't really made much of a decision at all), under the assumption that at least 30% of the rumors are true (and it is altogether a possibility that they are not), and we advise both parties to select very carefully and deliberately which candidate they choose to endorse.

5. And, finally, we'd like to bid a fond farewell to some of our colleagues in this damnèd business. To Ms. GDI, our Fearless Leader, to Ms. Swamp Pundette, who, though not leaving us per se, will no longer be covering SG matters, and to Ms. Orange Juice, whose presence on the scene, though short-lived, was colorful to say the least. So long, and thanks for everything.

On that tack, apparently we passed 2 000 hits some time ago. I'm honored y'all feel the punditry and pontification propagated here is somehow important or worthy of attention. Thank you.

And kiddies, don't forget that Senate is at the Law School this week! Have a wonderful week - we cannot guarantee another post before next weekend.

I like baklava...

2005-10-29T21:09:00.000-04:00

...as much as the next guy, but this is just getting ridiculous. Let's take a look at what My Big Fat Greek SG has been up to recently.

1. The selections for the 2006 Emerging Leaders' Conference staff have been announced, and, wonder of wonders, the nepotistic side of our student leaders once again reigns supreme. A little background:

The Emerging Leaders Conference is a weekend-long event that brings together outstanding high school leaders from around Florida, Georgia and Alabama. The conference is sponsored by University of Florida Student Government and is run entirely by University of Florida students. Attendees at the conference have a chance to interact and solve problems in small groups, as well as attend workshops concerning ethics, leadership theory, applying to college and more. This year’s conference will be held in Gainesville, February 17-19, 2006.

Supposedly, the thirty "most outstanding student leaders" were selected from the applicants to run the conference, yet looking at the list of those selected, one has to wonder just what qualifications the ELC panel considers indicative of "outstanding student leadership." Nineteen out of the thirty are members of Greek organizations on campus, according to information gleaned from the ubiquitous Facebook (meaning, to be sure, that there could actually be more Greeks on the list.)

Now, I will certainly concede that members of Greek organizations are, on average, far more involved, and better leaders on campus, than those not involved - on average. I wouldn't have been surprised to see 10-12 of the ELCers be Greek. But two-thirds? Something is fishy here. It gets even more interesting when you consider that at least five of those selected are members of the Alpha Delta Pi sorority, and two of the members of the ELC committee are from ADPi. Things that make you go "hmmm," indeed.

Another interesting "coincidence" is that three of the non-Greek selectees, and two of the Greeks, also happen to be Reitz Scholars, another honor bestowed upon "outstanding student leaders." Obviously, then, this is no surprise, except for the interesting information that they were told not to worry about putting effort into their applications or required to show up to interview. It would make sense that Logan Murphy, the agency director for ELC, and also a Reitz Scholar, made this proclamation.

So what, you ask? SG has been run in this Machiavellian manner for ages, what makes this any different? The answer is simple: a number of folks were rejected by the committee in favor of their cronies. Not just any folks, either, but folks who are much more outstanding student leaders than those selected, and folks who are ostensibly being punished for their political affiliations vis-a-vis SG.

An interesting thought, no? We encourage the Alligator and the students at-large to look into this atrocity. This is something that should have never been allowed to happen, but, in the current state of affairs, is business as usual for SG.

2. Moving on, we see - surprise - more of the same. This issue is practically history by now, but this blogger feels compelled to pontificate upon it. Lola Bovell, as most know, was, practically inexplicably, voted off the Budget Committee a week ago, and replaced with two Senators with no committee experience: Rachel Sandelli and Jesse Kirsch. Not only was she voted off, but she was voted off under suspension of the rules, which require the more experienced candidate to be selected.

Now, while this blogger is all for giving younger members of Senate the ability to get much-needed committee experience, we have to wonder what purpose the rules serve if they can simply be suspended on a whim - parliamentary nerds such as ourselves do not take suspensions lightly. And regardless the possibility of shady dealings surrounding her replacements, we have to wonder, why was Lola unceremoniously forced from the committee - what offense has she perpetrated against the Gator powers-that-be to deserve such treatment? We doubt it was having the guts to say "impact" thrice in the post-election meeting. We want answers, dammit.

3. My fellow e-pundits have spent most of the last week blowing smoke over the imminently-decided nominations for the Spring election. Let's recap what is, at this point, common knowledge: both party tickets will be all but decided within a month; Impact currently has no clear frontrunner, nor even anyone on a shortlist; Gator has too many presidential wannabes, but no one candidate visibly Greek enough to maintain the base, yet independent enough to significantly hurt Impact (i.e. John Dicks on one hand, John Boyles on another) - except Lindsay Cosimi; and, finally - whoever Gator picks will essentially decide who Impact will pick.

We won't exec-speculate (execulate?) over who Gator will pick - honestly, we don't much care in dealing in rumors - our business is hard facts, and the fact of the matter right now is that both partys' tickets are still up in the air. We will most definitely be watching incredibly closely the actions of party leaders on both sides in the next several weeks. You've been warned - Virgil is watching.

4. One has to wonder precisely how good of an idea it is to give college students control over $12 million dollars. In most situations, in fact, such an idea would be absurd - it has the makings of a TV reality show. Of course, SG isn't that far removed from a crappy reality show, but I digress.

We wonder if the SG higher-ups are beginning to recognize the error of their fiscally-irresponsible ways now that the hammer is beginning to come down. The minimum-wage increase (an economically deplorable decision on the part of Florida voters, but what can one do?) is beginning to take its effects, and student fee increases of the maximum amount are all but assured.

The problem arises, though, when necessary services, such as health costs, require a large increase (of 78 cents per credit hour proposed), while SG is attempting to cover its own water-bottle-littered tracks with a yet-larger increase in A&S fees (of 84 cents per credit hour proposed). But alas, the sum of student fee increases is capped by law at 95 cents per credit hour. So, it appears SG has two options: a) cut back on their own spending, or b) stiff Health Services. Judging by their past actions, we fear the worst, and we hope students have the cojones to make a statement about it.

5. And lastly, what sort of a nonpartisan media outlet would this be without a little Impact-bashing? Senators from both sides have always been horrifically, disgustingly negligent in meeting, talking to, and working for their constituents, and lo, such is the case now. This blogger has failed to see all but a couple Senators out meeting constituents and talking the issues with them, but, interestingly, those that we have seen have been of the Gator Party - admittedly, some of our favorite, most student-welfare-oriented, Gator Party Senators, but Gators nonetheless. Where are the Impact Senators? Where are all those who ran on the platform of "accountability?" It isn't even a political issue - though staying holed up in the shadows will doom Impact for Spring - it's a simple issue of doing their job.

That's the round-up for the week. Go Gators!!!

Graduate Affairs

2005-10-20T14:49:00.000-04:00

It is still the legislative offseason for Senate, and without substantive policy to debate, Senate meetings are a free-for-all of showboating and shameless lobbying, as opposed, of course, to when they do have bills to debate, and then it's all business.

Tuesday's Senate meeting was a particularly good example of this. But among all the self-promotion and pet issues, there were some real issues of concern brought up - the one I'll discuss today is that of the "plight" of graduate students at UF.

Let me give you a quote from the SG Constitution - the preamble of the Constitution, if you will:

We, the members of the Student Body of the University of Florida, desiring to: Provide a form of government for the supervision of student activities; Provide a forum for the expressions of student views and interests; Maintain academic freedom, academic responsibility, and student rights; Improve student cultural, social, and physical welfare; Develop better educational standards, facilities, and teaching methods; Help promote national and international understanding and fellowship at the student level; and Foster the recognition of the rights and responsibilities of students to the school, the community, and to humanity; do hereby establish this Constitution.

I won't demean your intelligence with the argument that this should apply to all students, at all levels - that much is obvious. By the latest enrollment figures, 14,000 out of UF's 49,500 students are in graduate or professional programs, and these students contribute greatly to the university via research, academic prestige, etc. Yet these students often get the short end of the stick from SG and the University as a whole. This, my friends, is a problem.

Why is this the case, we ask? The answer seems apparent - SG is run, almost uniformly, by undergrads. Graduate students, though over one-fourth of the student population, have about one-eighth of the Senate representing them. The Executive Branch is almost unilaterally undergraduates. Graduates vote far, far less in SG elections than undergrads. While this is not by itself a problem, it becomes one when those undergraduates in charge start ignoring the issues of concern to graduate students simply because they do not apply to their constituency.

We applaud the Graduate and Professional Student Caucus for, along with choosing an eclectic, and possibly appropriate moniker, working their hardest to bring the issues of concern to them to light in the Senate, in SG, and in the University as a whole. Senator Eklund and his crew are moving forward at full speed to rectify the problems plaguing graduate students, but they cannot do it alone. We charge the members of the Senate, and the members of the Executive Branch, and all of the administration in their comfy chairs over in Tigert, to look into these issues:

First and foremost, on-campus Family Housing. In 2004, 950 graduate students lived on-campus in Family Village Housing, a substantial, if not overwhelming, proportion. Yet SG and the University administration seem to see fit to ignore this portion of campus. GPSC proposes to push for wireless Internet access in Village Housing - but that makes little sense when a sizable portion of Family Housing doesn't even have a wired Internet connection! Many grad students living there are forced to go to a private provider - a dial-up ISP or cable company - to get Internet access. In any other dorm, this would be completely unacceptable.

The so-called "international student fee" has been haggled over for ages, and yet nothing has been done. The fee is derived from the extra strain on University resources by students entering the United States on a student visa or otherwise. However, other universities have to deal with the same issues, yet don't force the students to pay for it - it comes out of the general budget. Is there really any reason this fee hasn't been eliminated yet, other than stubbornness on the part of the administration? If there is, I'd like to hear it.

Money isn't everything - that's a given. But it does make me wonder a bit, that the University of Florida is ranked third in the nation in doctorate degrees awarded, but fifteenth in research funding. This is another administration issue - SG has nothing to do with this money (thank God!), but I think it deserves to be looked into, at whatever level that takes place - are we skimping?

President Machen's wish for UF to become a top-ten research university is well-known. A vast majority of research at UF goes on with the assistance of graduate students. It logically follows that improving the quality of life of our current grad students, and consequently attracting "better" grad students, would help an immense amount in our march to the top ten.

Far more than something silly like banning alcohol on campus, at the least.

To whom it may concern...

2005-10-17T16:12:00.000-04:00

Apologies for the skimpy (non-existent) blogging over the past week. Virgil was too busy ~~drinking~~ studying to be concerned with such unimportant and useless affairs as Student Government. I promise more brilliant wordsmithing is forthcoming...perhaps something you'd be interested in.

Until then, open thread...

Common Sense

2005-10-10T20:30:00.000-04:00

SG is quickly seguing into that awkward period that occurs at every level of politics - the time when the partisanship and rhetoric of the election are fading away and those that came out on top are now tasked with working for those who elected them.

This blogger thrives on controversy, but recognizes as well the need for bipartisanship, cooperation, and compromise in creating and shaping policies, and wants nothing more than to see a student body happy with its SG. So, for this post at least, we ourselves will put aside the partisanship and rhetoric - we're going to stop telling SG and SGers what NOT to do, and instead tell them what they, as a whole, SHOULD be doing.

The Senators recently elected ran on their party platforms, and we're making the assumption, true or false, that they won on their party platforms. Going back and looking at the platforms again, the contentious issues of yesterday have become the common sense policies of today.

Both parties support Sunday bus service.

Both parties oppose the proposed 21-and-up age limit on Gainesville bars.

Both parties want to see more bike racks in high traffic areas.

Both parties support reducing or eliminating the so-called International Student fee.

It's time to see these policies implemented. It doesn't matter to this blogger or, more importantly, to the student body, which party supposedly implemented the policy, just that it gets done. That's common sense.

Both parties support extending wireless access, but differ on the extent to which it should be done.

Both parties support online voting, but differ on the manner in which it should be implemented. After the fiasco that was the recent election, a reevaluation of current policy seems too obvious.

It's time for Senators from both parties to sit down, and talk out their differences over these issues. The longer partisanship delays their resolution, the more the student body suffers, and the more disenchanted they become with their Student Government. That's common sense.

It's time for the Gator Party Senators and the Impact Party Senators to put aside those labels and become Student Senators, working for the students who elected them. That, my friends, is what I call common sense.

Personalities on Parade

2005-10-05T18:35:00.000-04:00

Senate meetings are the logical location for whoring oneself out to those with power. It's generally the one time of the week when all the SG influentials are gathered in one spot, and it allows those with power to sit around and chat with other folks in power, those out of power to sit around and watch folks in power talk amongst themselves, and those who want more power to attempt to endear themselves to those of higher power in an attempt to gain the power they seek. Simple, no?

Last night, amongst the teary-eyed goodbyes, advice to Senators new and old, and what precious little business was actually accomplished, there was a great deal of raw personality in circulation, more than usual, even, and it gave this blogger, and hopefully many of the attendees, a chance to see many of the folks who have been, are, and will be in positions of high power in SG. It's time for this blogger to make some friends, and, much more importantly, some enemies.

The Good

Diane Kassim and John Boyles - a greater President/Pro Tem team, we're not sure that the Senate has ever known. Both of these leaders have served the Senate magnificently well. We do not fail to recognize that both got their start on the independent side of politics, and we do not fail to recognize that applying the Gator Party label to them means little - these two leaders serve at the pleasure of the students, not a political party, and not a discrete ideology. We are pleased to hear both of their names in circulation for SBP, and would note, for those listening on the dark side, that John Boyles on the Greek party ticket would be absolutely deadly to our hopes. We look forward to a very productive session of Senate with John Boyles at the helm.

Retiring Senators Chamoff, Fontanet, Semmel, Slaughter, and Wathen - class acts, the lot of them. These are folks that served the students, not themselves or their party, and who put in the work necessary to keep the Senate running smoothly, something far too many Senators seem to find unnecessary. Best of luck to them in the future.

The Bad

The Gator Party hacks - we're apparently not the only ones concerned at Laura Gonzalez's sudden change of heart with regard to Pro Temp. Although we have no beef with Mike Patrone - we're certain he'll make a fine leader in the Senate, it seems awfully suspicious that Laura would go to the trouble to ask someone to nominate her, and then decline. We smell something foul on the air, and it smells like hackery. Hopefully more to come on this very interesting subject.

The Gator Party hacks - it's true, we think Amanda Kane should be a Senator. We also think Justin Bell should be an R&A member-at-large. We haven't had the privilege of meeting John Lloyd-Montgomery and Merissa Mofsen, and we hope, for the sake of the students, that they will be just as fine in those positions as my chosen candidates would've been. However, we're disappointed that the results of those elections were more or less decided before they even began. Adam Roberts didn't have to show up and speak on Amanda's behalf; Susan Henriques didn't have to show up to speak on Amanda's behalf. But they did, and unfortunately, it seemed as if no one was listening. Kudos to the Senators who voted across party lines, and shame on the Gator Party Senators who let their affiliations guide their votes. We very much hope that last night was not indicative of the manner in which the Senate will be run this term.

The Ugly

Jared Hernandez - this blogger absolutely despises Senator Hernandez. We are of the opinion that a larger douchebag has not yet graced the chambers. Mr. Hernandez apparently views the Senate as his own personal campaigning time, and spent the whole of the meeting changing seats between every speaker, chatting pointlessly with basically everyone with an iota of power (even trying to endear himself to a member of the press!), talking out of both sides of his mouth, drumming up his own accomplishments, no matter how absurdly minute, and, essentially, just making an all-around ass of himself. Not to mention how obnoxiously he was dressed. This blogger hopes the Greek party finds the cojones to put up Jared Hernandez for President - he is their most easily beatable candidate.

William Perry - while we would suggest Perry take tutelage from Mr. Hernandez, it wouldn't be all that necessary - even after just one meeting in office, Perry easily takes the title of vice douchebag, and shows much promise for being just as disgustingly annoying as Mr. Hernandez in the future. Arrogant to the point of self-deification, Perry spent most of the meeting introducing himself to fellow senators, observers, and anyone who would listen, as a "future Senate President." Luckily for us and the students, we highly doubt Perry is much more than an empty suit, full of big talk and devoid of any real motivation or potential for effort - we see him doing little work for the students in the future. It would be poetic justice for him to lose his seat to inactivity or, at the least, being voted out of office next fall.

That's the roundup - there were plenty more other folks last night that made an impression on this blogger, but 'twould be pointless to list them all out, too. Besides, everyone reading this blog knows most or all of these people, and has formed their own opinion on them - we're not here to give you the news, we're here to broadcast what needs to be said.

It's Tuesday...

2005-10-04T10:44:00.000-04:00

...and you know what that means: Senate!

Not just any Senate meeting either, but tonight our new Fall Senators get sworn in, and a new President and Pro Temp get elected.

No long-winded post from me today, I want to hear what my readers have to say. So, who do you THINK will be elected, and why, and/or who do you WANT to be elected, and why?

Any tidbits too juicy for even anonymous commenting can always be e-mailed. You know you just can't help but tell someone what you heard about John Boyles.

EDIT: Or anybody. It could be anybody. I'm not calling out John Boyles in particular...

The Case for Dan Maland, Pt. 2

2005-10-03T17:10:00.000-04:00

Several commenters have pointed out that Dan did have a choice in which system to implement for the election, and, indeed, under the 700 Codes, he did. Mea culpa. However, I would tend to believe that his choice was a "choice" in name only. It would make little sense to spend all summer working towards a new voting system and then fail to use it in the election directly thereafter. To go against a Senate and Online Voting Committee that voted overwhelmingly in favor of secured-site would be folly - Dan would be tarred and feathered. I won't be so absolute to say the decision was made for him, but I doubt he seriously deliberated over it for any length of time.

Likewise, it would still be unfair to blame him for the problems in the implementation of the system, and even moreso to suggest punishing him for it, which I believe was my original stance.

Mr. Gareth Kerr, a member of this summer's Online Voting Committee, and a man I have a great deal of respect for, argues in the comments for the previous post, "The system did not fail. Yes, there were problems which were expected with any new system. Those of us whom think that the solution is unsecured-location voting are delusional," an argument I would tend to respectfully differ with.

Obviously there are to be problems with any new system. Murphy's Law dictates it. There would be problems with unsecured-site voting as well, as Mr. Kerr goes on to argue. But to suggest that this election should be considered a dry run for the system is abhorrent. This election elected 44 new Student Senators, who will represent those who voted for them for the next year. If even one of those Senators was elected illegitimately due to voter disenfranchisement or other problems (a very real possibility with one seat tied - a single voter unable to vote could have changed the result!), then the election was, to me, a wholesale failure.

Is unsecured-site voting the answer? Possibly. I would like to see it implemented, but that's not for me to decide. What I am stating is that secured-site offers no more convenience, for voters or those running the election, than paper ballots, and has, as we've seen, far more problems. One illegitimately-elected Senator is not worth all the money we've purportedly saved with secured-site.

The Case for Dan Maland

2005-10-03T14:25:00.000-04:00

This election was a fiasco - an utter failure for secure-site voting. There are incredibly few, even among its Gator Party cheerleaders, who will deny that. Voting irregularities made Broward County 2000 look, by comparision, like a walk in the park. The increase in turnout had nothing to do with the new system, which, with various stories of disenfrachisement and inconvenience floating around by the second day, could be argued to actually have marginally decreased turnout.

There are those who would pin these problems on Dan Maland and his team. Your humble correspondent, however, is not one of them. Nay, in fact, I applaud Dan for doing his absolute best with the resources given him. He's made mistakes, sure ("vote naked," anyone?), but he's human, like the rest of us. Slapping him with a complaint is not the way to fix the problems with secure-site, and shame on Impact for preferring publicity to policy change.

It is not Dan Maland, or the Elections Commission, or anyone, in fact, in that area of SG that decides how the election will be run. It is, yes, their job to make sure the election is run smoothly, but it is the Senate that dictates to them which system they will be using. This election was bad, and credit for such should go to a Senate in destructively partisan hands, but it could have been worse, and credit for keeping it from such should go to Dan Maland.

After seeing all the problems associated with secure-site and the Senate's preferred implementation of it, it's a wonder to me that anyone would continue to support it as a viable election mechanism for any reason other than blatant partisan hackery. Our friend Dan knows better than anyone all of the problems with the new system, and as a totally non-partisan functionary of SG, I would expect him to be completely disgusted with the system as implemented.

So here's what I want to see: Section 781.0 of the Statutes reads:

The Supervisor of Elections shall present the vote totals to the Student Senate.

When Dan Maland stands before the Senate at its next meeting, I want to hear him present the vote totals to the Senate, briefly summarize the problems that occurred, and then state his lack of confidence in the system. Whether we return to tried-and-true paper ballots or move to an unsecured online system doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't matter to Dan - all that matters is that we relegate this God-awful secured-site system to the history books.

Freedom of speech?

2005-10-02T08:26:00.000-04:00

Anyhow, while Elections Commission hearings drag out, and focus is still on the elections, today's lecture is on the First Amendment and the 700 Codes. First of all, Chapter 760 is not, prima facie, a violation of the freedom of speech of candidates and parties. The provisions of the campaign act are there for a good reason - to keep elections from becoming a zoo. It was Henry Kissinger who said, "campus politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."

There are, without a doubt, some folks who would love nothing more than to see SG Elections turn into a free-for-all fight to the death, and there are folks who ferally hate members of the opposite party. There are these sorts of people in both parties, and it's folks like this, folks like the utterly disgusting William Perry, that are the reason why Chapter 760 is there.

In fact, it's not even Chapter 760 itself that I have a problem with, it's the draconian manner in which officials have taken to enforcing it, and the way parties lean heavily on the code and filing campaign violations, as opposed to, you know, actually campaigning.

For instance, Dan Maland's "rejection" of Impact's Jackie-Pace-quote and "vote naked" posters has absolutely no basis in any part of the statutes (not even 762.11, as Jackie Pace did indeed say "we tended to give away money" and you could damn well vote naked if you pleased if Impact had its way), and was a blatant violation of the First Amendment. But Impact's first recourse shouldn't have been to file a violation, but rather to just put up the damn things. They did what they were supposed to - alert Dan Maland that they had this completely legal campaign material they wished to post.

Likewise, the Election Commission's acceptance of a Gator complaint that the Impact-Progress "marriage" somehow signified campaigning, and reprimanding them for campaigning prior to the Election Cycle, is patently absurd. It'd be best not to comment further, for fear of an aneurysm.

The controversy surrounding the Gator Party banners on Frat Row also seems misplaced to this humble observer. Once again, freedom of speech. It was probably a mistake on the part of the frats, or the Gator Party, whichever made the banners, to label them as paid political advertising, but regardless, this opens up a whole new can of worms. Is ALL political speech except that explicitly approved by the Supervisor now forbidden? What sort of a society would allow THAT?

The 700 Codes have their place, and the First Amendment has its. Students, candidates, and parties alike should be allowed to say whatever they like, under the sole restriction that they are not to disrupt the educational process. Election complaints should only be filed in the clearest-cut circumstances. Simply, I would like to see future elections err more on the side of free speech, than on litigation.

The mystique of anonymity...

2005-10-02T08:14:00.000-04:00

...should neither discount what I have to say, nor replace discussion of it, even if it may pervade everything I write or do.

My contacts inform me that several people have already been drunkenly accosted for being me, and already, too many people know too much. While I'm honored you have all taken to liking me so quickly, does it really matter who I am? Honestly?

So, no more hints. You'll have to find out on your own.

***

And yes, for those of you observant enough to notice, I have removed a few revealing bits previously posted. It will be far easier to do this under the pretense of complete anonymity. Those of you who are latecomers, I suppose y'all are just screwed.

Ah...I see.

2005-10-01T14:13:00.000-04:00

See, it's good to have contacts in the know.

Apparently, the SG Constitution, Article III, Section 6.(f) reads:

[The student senate shall have the power to:] "(f) decide all tie elections at its first meeting following validation;"

Best of luck to far-more-deserving Amanda Kane in an overwhelmingly Gator Senate.

Quick Hits (before the game)

2005-10-01T13:30:00.000-04:00

Lauren Asher can't possibly be the District E Senator. For one, she doesn't live anywhere near District E. She lives in District A. How do I know? She was elected Senator for District A. Yes, in this very election. The highest vote-getter, no less. It must be incredibly nifty to be able to say she won in TWO districts in one election, though.
John Dicks can't possibly be District F Senator. He doesn't live anywhere near District F. In fact, I'm not so sure anyone does, as there were all of about 10 votes in the district.
Thus, it seems the District E and District F seats will continue to be vacant. I very much like Boyles' idea to combine the two, and would like even more to have the both of them merged into one of the off-campus districts currently standing. You know, the ones in which people actually vote.
Ideally, those living distantly off-campus would have discrete representation, but obviously, if the major parties don't care enough to put up candidates, and horrendously few people bother to vote, there's really no point in having an election for them. I mean, honestly, when we have campaigners from both sides encouraging E & F residents to just write themselves in, the election process has failed.
My proposed solution: combine Districts E and F and have the Senator either appointed by {someone}, or selected in the same manner as a replacement Senator. This a) makes it far easier to get these folks involved and b) makes it far easier to actually get them representation in the Senate. Who doesn't want that, really?

That last District D seat raises some interesting questions, too. The tie between Amanda Kane of Impact and John Lloyd-Montgomery of Gator appears to be surprisingly unprecedented, although I highly doubt that (my lack of historical SG knowledge manifests itself again.) A quick persual of the 700 codes reveals no procedure in place for determining the results of a tied election, only provisions for recounting the ballots - rather useless under the new electronic system. Yet the vast majority of rumors have circulated around the vote going to the Senate.
The only place in the 700 codes where this might possibly take place is in Chapter 780, where the Senate has the authority to validate or invalidate votes. This still doesn't give them the authority to break ties, though.
I'll be hitting the Florida State Code books later tonight (extremely nerdy, again, I know) to see if there's anything there, but I'm not hopeful.
I have to wonder how this will be resolved, though, if no one has authority to resolve it. That's all.

And, I have to attempt to at least give the appearance of being moderate. But seriously, although I support Impact 110%, I don't irrationally hate the Gator Party. I count Senators Weiss, Slaughter, Bovell, and candidate Jones of Hume among my friends, and I'm certain they're looking out for the best interests of the students. At the same time, I'm not anti-Greek. I believe the Greek system does great things for a great many students - I choose not to participate, but I believe the Greek system, without a doubt, has its place on campus.
I, like most GDI's, don't want it, however, to control the SG that should represent 100% of the student body. That's all.

Here's to UF trouncing the Tide this afternoon. Cheers.

The Election

2005-09-30T23:44:00.000-04:00

Obviously, the biggest news in SG this week was the election for Senate Tuesday and Wednesday.

From an outsider's perspective, Gator won running away. Thirty-eight, with a possible 39th and 40th, out of 46 seats is, by almost any definition, a landslide. Sixty-five percent of the vote cast is, by almost any definition, a landslide.

But SG campaigns and elections, as I have very quickly learned, rarely abide by the accepted norm. Turnout in Fall 2005 was the highest in a fall election in several years - 6,666 people cast votes. As much as Gator was hoping it would, the secure-site system most definitely DID NOT do anything towards increasing this turnout. This is a success for Impact - there are a finite number of people in the Greek system and the SG Establishment, and the more people that get involved, the more their influence will diminish, relatively speaking.

District D may have gone 9-4 Gator, but it was, for the most part, expected to go 13-0 Gator, like the rest of off-campus. No one expected Impact to grab four Senators, and tie for a fifth, from this district, a fact the reaction of the Gator loyalists in the O&B clearly revealed. Likewise, no one expected Impact to have three candidates within twenty votes of a seat, either. All told, the number of votes separating the top vote-getter in District D from the lowest vote-getting party candidate was less than a hundred. This is an amazingly strong showing for Impact and GDIs everywhere.

On-campus results were disappointing, but not entirely unsurprising. Impact wins in Hume and Tolbert (not just wins, but smashing wins!) weren't unexpected, but also weren't guaranteed, particularly with strong independent candidacies in the Hume race. Although there were other on-campus races that could've possibly been won with more resources, winning two Senate seats is more than more pundits gave us, much less winning two seats just among the on-campus districts. Another absolute victory for Impact.

And, at long last, Impact won 33.68% of all votes cast. That's one-third of all the votes cast. Consider that the Gator party won lopsided victories in Districts A and B (of 600 and 300 votes per candidate, respectively), and it's easy to see that the real winner in this election is the Impact Party. It has practically already been decided that Impact will be around for the Spring, all that remains is to find a standard-bearer to rally around.

The Gator Party comes away from this election maintaining the status quo - a continued dominance of SG - with one huge exception; Impact now has a core of strong Senators, ready and willing to fight for the cause. Senators-elect Bell, Cullin, Grant, Grove, Johns, Kane, and Tran, my hat is off to you. Go forth and fight for the students.

Inaugural Post

2005-09-30T22:03:00.000-04:00

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

Those words might as well be scrawled in blood over the entrance to the SAC. It would be fitting, after all, to have to take the Reitz elevator to Hell.

Let us lay out the facts straightaway:

SG is horrifically corrupt, and barring an act of God, will not change.
The Greek system is fully in charge of nearly all that occurs in SG, FBK, and any related agencies.
Very few students outside of SG care.

Unfortunately, there are those of us that do, but we are vastly outnumbered. So from hence, I will be guiding both the uninformed and the passersby through the Hell that is University of Florida SG. Once again, another bullet list to quickly dispense with some facts:

I am new to this game, and thus largely untainted with the stain of too many years in the echo chamber of SG politics.
This doesn't disqualify me from pontificating on issues of major and minor import to students, rather, it makes me far more unbiased and objective in my analyses. Or, at the least, allows me to view issues from the perspective of what's best for the students, not for the politicians.
I hold no position in SG, or, for that matter, any student organization. Hence the title "View from the Bottom." I'm truly (for the most part) an outsider, and with precious little SG history knowledge under my belt, am starting from scratch.
I am a diehard GDI, and will be for the duration of my college experience, regardless of how damning it may be to my career in campus politics.
I am indeed blogging on a Friday night, which should merely verify for y'all my immense nerdiness.

Even with all that working against me, though, it doesn't mean I can't get the facts. I have been speedily building up a list of contacts - heavy-hitters in and out of campus politics, execs past, present, and future. No, I don't have Joe G. on speed-dial, but I can (or I would like to think I can) make a few calls or send a few IMs and learn all there is to know on an issue, or the veracity of a rumor.

I have spent much of the evening reading over the SG blogs that have come before me and, God willing, will continue with me in this endeavour. And to the naysayers who consider SG blogging a fad, to Hell with all of you.

Wait, most of you probably are already in Hell. SG, that is. You Establishment hacks.

Let the journey begin.