Failure to Communicate: Re-elections can't come early enough for SGA
Why are people who can't follow the rules in charge of enforcing the rules?
Luke McIntyre
Issue date: 3/25/08 Section: Opinions
In February of 2007 when the UNCG Student Government Association was placed on probation, it was because the SGA failed to give the university 12 hours notice before holding an event on campus. It was a small rule broken, essentially a technicality.
In March of 2008 our SGA was placed on probation again, for what we again can essentially call a technicality. The SGA recently lost its affiliation with the university for about a week and a half when SGA President John Bryant was supposed to submit some paperwork, but apparently did not. Its current probationary status is the result of Bryant's error.
These errors might seem small when taken at face value, but they reflect a huge failure of our SGA to fulfill one of its major purposes. To many students, SGA is known mostly as the governing body they have to deal with in order for their student group to gain and maintain affiliation with the university or receive any of the funds allotted to student groups. Without filling out the correct forms and taking the technical, SGA-approved steps toward affiliation, you're not getting a dime.
I know plenty of people who have failed at this task, frustrated, because they simply forgot a form or turned something in too late. But them's the breaks. You don't go through the motions, you don't get your moolah.
So, the mere fact that these violations happened in the governing body charged with deciding if all other student groups can receive or maintain affiliation with the university begs the question, why are people who can't follow the rules in charge of enforcing the rules?
It seems simple enough to expect that the people at the highest levels of student command in our university, the people expected to be most familiar with the policies they deal with on a constant basis, actually follow those policies.
It also brings up another, possibly more important, question. Why does the SGA get second chances when other student groups committing the same error would simply lose their affiliation and funding? What's unfair about expecting the rules to be, well, fair? It is important that we have an SGA. That our SGA needs to exist is not in question, especially when the other option is an administration-appointed council. But we need not allow those seats of power to be filled by people consistently proving themselves incapable of the most basic tasks of their jobs, not the least of which being another failed election, which is becoming something of an annual event for the SGA. It's not really the type of behavior you want from the people who have stepped up to complete these tasks and are being paid to do so.
In March of 2008 our SGA was placed on probation again, for what we again can essentially call a technicality. The SGA recently lost its affiliation with the university for about a week and a half when SGA President John Bryant was supposed to submit some paperwork, but apparently did not. Its current probationary status is the result of Bryant's error.
These errors might seem small when taken at face value, but they reflect a huge failure of our SGA to fulfill one of its major purposes. To many students, SGA is known mostly as the governing body they have to deal with in order for their student group to gain and maintain affiliation with the university or receive any of the funds allotted to student groups. Without filling out the correct forms and taking the technical, SGA-approved steps toward affiliation, you're not getting a dime.
I know plenty of people who have failed at this task, frustrated, because they simply forgot a form or turned something in too late. But them's the breaks. You don't go through the motions, you don't get your moolah.
So, the mere fact that these violations happened in the governing body charged with deciding if all other student groups can receive or maintain affiliation with the university begs the question, why are people who can't follow the rules in charge of enforcing the rules?
It seems simple enough to expect that the people at the highest levels of student command in our university, the people expected to be most familiar with the policies they deal with on a constant basis, actually follow those policies.
It also brings up another, possibly more important, question. Why does the SGA get second chances when other student groups committing the same error would simply lose their affiliation and funding? What's unfair about expecting the rules to be, well, fair? It is important that we have an SGA. That our SGA needs to exist is not in question, especially when the other option is an administration-appointed council. But we need not allow those seats of power to be filled by people consistently proving themselves incapable of the most basic tasks of their jobs, not the least of which being another failed election, which is becoming something of an annual event for the SGA. It's not really the type of behavior you want from the people who have stepped up to complete these tasks and are being paid to do so.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 23
Laura
posted 3/25/08 @ 2:44 PM EST
The Elections having to be re-done over the past 3 years has not been because of SGA, but because of OSL. The elections and publicity chair submits all the proper paperwork and schedule to the IT person in student life and they are in charge of making sure that everyone gets the email and that everyone gets to vote. (Continued…)
Nicole
posted 3/25/08 @ 5:32 PM EST
I am not ashamed to say I am one of those people in SGA who gets paid. But for the stress I and others put on me I think I deserved to get paid. I treat it as a job (becasue it is) and work hard to keep up at what I do. (Continued…)
Madeline
posted 3/26/08 @ 5:41 PM EST
I really and truly wish that the previous poster "Nicole" would write for the carolinian. She is able to effectively write in a way that I see in NO OTHER WRITER who submits to the little paper. (Continued…)
Shandra
posted 3/26/08 @ 5:56 PM EST
this story like all the others that this weak paper runs on SGA should not be taken seriously. if i had to guess i would say that they are just joking. (Continued…)
Ashley
posted 3/26/08 @ 6:22 PM EST
Before everyone goes bashing Luke, consider that things as simple as re doing an election or losing affiliation do affect the students.
The fact is that there were some organizations affected by the affiliation let down, the finance committee chairperson said so in their meeting two weeks ago, and more than that the fact that they cannot even get simple paperwork turned in on time makes me wonder about their ability to do the other simple tasks they are assigned to. (Continued…)
devon
posted 3/26/08 @ 11:45 PM EST
Luke:
"The organizations lost funding for those two weeks, and the lack of money is how some came to realize they were no longer affiliated with the university. (Continued…)
Ashley
posted 3/27/08 @ 12:41 AM EST
Instead of finance committee chair. I meant treasurer... sorry for the misunderstanding.
Regards
Corey
posted 3/27/08 @ 1:49 PM EST
It was not an apology letter that was sent in regards to the lost affiliation, but a letter of appeal which was approved under strict conditions.
disappointed student
posted 3/27/08 @ 5:27 PM EST
wow, this will be the first issue i have ever looked forward to!
so will it be an "apology" or a "correction"????
and has this mistake from the Carolinian "failed the students" ??? if so, how many more times can the student body be let down by this and many other failures from the paper???
stan k.
posted 3/27/08 @ 7:06 PM EST
i must say that as a student, i have much respect for the job my SGA does for the campus. much more regard for SGA than for this lousy cheap paper. integrety is what sets SGA apart from these "writers. (Continued…)
Post a Comment