What can student government do and does student government matter? These are serious questions, especially for the self-anointed elites (myself included) who run student government and who, unlike normal people, care about what student government does.

We’ll start with Student Congress, where I have the privilege of running the Oversight Committee. Student Congress mostly acts like one great big sugar-daddy. Every student pays a $39.00 Student Organizations Fee. About half of that fee is automatically distributed to the Student Union, STV, WXYC, and the Honor Court. The distribution of the rest of the fee is left up to Congress’ discretion. So, every week, student groups come crawling to Congress begging for funding for publications, speakers, programs, trips, etc. Congress then sets about cutting the requests down, checking the excesses, and ensuring that the money is spent responsibly. There are occasional hiccups, but the system works pretty well.

However, Congress’ work does not stop there. We currently operate under a lengthy and cumbersome Student Code. Weighing in at about nearly 100 pages (it used to be much longer), the Code governs the more arcane aspects of student government (legislative, executive, and judicial), things like committee appointments, elections, operating procedures, etc. Most people probably don’t care about these sorts of things and are largely unaffected by them (until they become involved in student government). From my experience, most of student government exists for itself, e.g. there is no ostensible reason why the Executive Branch needs an Arts Advocacy Committee, except that somewhere along the line, some student government bureaucrat thought that this was important, so he created the committee. Likewise, entities like the Student Supreme Court, if you look at past cases, adjudicate legal disputes arising between different student government entities. Occasionally, there’s a case involving a dispute over a fee or something similar, but most of the disputes are procedural and have very narrow application.

"Why Does Student Government Matter? It doesn't."

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think ASG is an example of this in extremis. You have an organization that ostensibly exists to represent student interests to the real decision makers in the UNC System. But what do they do? Precious little. Especially lately, the organization has become so obsessed with its internal procedures and operations, it doesn’t have time for anything else. Its efforts at advocacy are half-hearted. Somehow they managed to endorse the BOG’s plan to increase tuition 13.5% next year, but they also managed to do that without actually asking anyone outside of their organization what they think about the tuition hikes. They had lots of really important meetings to determine the organization’s stance on the issue, but in the end, they accomplished nothing.

So, back to the original question, “What can student government do and does it matter?” I think the answer is that student government can do a lot… about its own internal procedures, but not much else. Student government can do a lot of things that don’t matter, but very few things that do.

Now, the key word in this passage is “violation”. Does a technological failure that prevented students from voting constitute a violation? It is quite clear that whatever happened “affected the outcome” of the election, as the margin of victory was a mere four votes and the number of affected voters seems to be quite high (with several students apparently being unable to send in a ballot via email because the BOE’s inbox was full of provisional ballots).

However, the Code never actually defines what a violation is in Title I. However, in Title VI, Chapter 7, Section 701 E (4), there is a category of “Technology” violations. According to the Code, “This category shall include but not be limited to campaigning online in illegal ways.” Seeing as the definition here is very broad and there is little other guidance in the Code for a situation like this, one could plausibly interpret the present situation as being a technological violation in Title VI, which would necessitate a re-vote via Title I because of its affect on the outcome of the election.

So, at least in my humble opinion, I believe that a re-election is, in fact, necessary and the proper procedure to follow per the Code. We should not allow technological glitches that prevent students from voting from having a disproportionate impact on the outcome of our elections. While the Code isn’t exactly crystal clear, there is a plausible case to be made for a mulligan.

About a month ago, the UNC College Republicans submitted a funding request to the Finance Committee of Student Congress for a $20,000 grant to provide an honorarium for conservative commentator, Ann Coulter. After facing some criticism for the size of the request, CR Chairman Greg Steele agreed to a compromise whereby the CRs would receive a $15,000 grant and a $5000 loan from Congress.

Despite the fact that this request was totally within the normal bounds of funding requests, it was apparently too much for some in Congress. Steele said that he expected the event to draw at least 550 people (and possibly many more). However, some members of Congress still complained that the cost of the event was too high (approximately $27 per person).  Of course, the per person cost of the event could have been much lower if Congress was willing to appropriate an extra $1000 to the group to cover the costs of renting Memorial Hall (with a capacity of about 1500). Instead, members of the Young Democrats moved to cut the grant size to $5000, and the bill was quickly amended to add $10,000 to the fundraising/loan category. Given that the event was scheduled for September 20 (approximately three weeks later), expecting the CRs to raise $15,000 in such a short time span was unrealistic. However, the measure ($5000 grant and $15,000 loan) passed, by a vote of 10-6-6, with the six CRs in Congress abstaining in accordance with Congress’ ethical requirements

The ridiculousness of this “compromise” was evident to nearly everyone on campus (except the YDs apparently). Student Body President Mary Cooper vetoed the funding request saying, “Expecting the group to raise such a large dollar amount for a speaker mostly ex post facto is unrealistic and sets a precedent that I find to be unacceptable.” The YDs continued to complain that Coulter was too polarizing and didn’t contribute to the intellectual debate on campus, but Congress sustained the veto by a vote of 26-1-1. So, the CRs prepared to go before Congress again with a new request.

On September 20, the day Ann Coulter was originally supposed to speak, Steele and the CRs went before the Finance Committee with a new request. It reflected the compromise originally worked out between the group and the Finance Committee (a $15,000 grant and $5000 loan) and passed with one dissenting vote.

At the next meeting of Congress on September 27, the CRs again ran into stiff wall of liberal intolerance. Reiterating their complaints about how dumb Ann Coulter is and how expensive she is, the YDs led the charge against the funding request. Ignoring the efforts the CRs made to accommodate Congress’ concerns (including making tickets only available to students and agreeing not to submit another request for money in the spring), the body killed the request on a 6-8-13 vote.

As if this couldn’t get any better, there’s another wrinkle in the story. Today, the YDs submitted a request for $14,000 to bring in Naomi Wolf. Now, I consider myself fairly well-informed when it comes to American politics, but I had no idea who this person was until I Googled her name. She looks to be some sort of radical feminist who’s a part of the George-Bush-is-a-fascist parade.

This is ironic, first because the YDs (and many others) claimed that Ann Coulter was “too divisive” and not an intellectual. From what I can tell, this woman, who’s written all of two books, has very little to add in the way of intellectual debate and is merely a liberal flamethrower. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe she’s sort of liberal Hayek, but based on my initial impressions, their choice in speaker is highly ironic.

Second, their request is nearly identical in size to the CRs’ request, yet the YDs predict that their speaker will affect roughly 80% fewer people than Ann Coulter. According to their request, they expect about 100 people to show up to this event, at a cost of $140 per person, making it roughly five times more expensive than the Coulter event. For all of you keeping track, the CRs have received exactly $0.00 from Congress this year.

The audacity of this request is breath-taking. After spending the last month condescendingly lecturing the CRs about not spending all of Congress’ money in one place, I certainly didn’t see this one coming. That they could spend a month criticizing the CRs for the size of the Coulter request, all while planning on submitting a similar request for their own speaker requires the willing suspension of disbelief. If the YDs were truly concerned about the size of the funding request, they would not have submitted a similarly large request mere days after rejecting the CRs’ request. It is now clear that opposition to the Coulter event was grounded only in political ideology and had nothing to do with the size of the price tag.

First, none of the changes Congress has made to the Code in the last few months have had an effect on how student organizations obtain funding. In fact, if I remember correctly, the only change made to Title V (the Financial Title) was the elimination of the stipend for the Honor Court Outreach Coordinator (a bill which I wrote).

Second, contrary to what the editorial claims, Student Congress does not “approve” student organizations, the Student Union (and the Division of Student Affairs) does that. So, I can safely say that no group has had its recognition put in jeopardy by the late publication of the Code.

I’ll also note, given that the Speaker cannot appoint clerks without first being elected Speaker, Zach has conducted the appointment process fairly quickly. Within days of his election, applications for the two clerk positions went out, and interviews followed soon after. The clerks themselves would have been confirmed by Congress much sooner, however, illness and scheduling conflicts created some issues here (two items outside the control of Congress and the Speaker).

There are also obvious ethical issues to consider should the Speaker begin unilaterally updating the Code, as the Editorial Board seems to desire. In order to avoid these ethical conflicts of interest, the role of updating the Code is delegated off to the clerks. Admittedly, there are a few kinks in the present system (mainly that there are no “interim” clerks to serve in the transition period between one Congress and the next). However, considering that we’re already paying someone to update the Code and, we don’t want the Speaker to be in the awkward position of making the law and promulgating it, we should reform the current system. Complete abandonment of ethical principles is unnecessary.

In short, the coded editorial misses several points. In the midst of their decoded coding of disencoded things, they made several coded factual errors. In a discoded rush to judgement, they neglected several obvious coded facts. Perhaps in the future, they should decode their own discoded codes before passing judgement on such a coded Congress.

Let me merely echo her sentiments and say that she is dead-on. The veto underscores the absurdity of what came out of Congress and will allow the College Republicans a clean start and hopefully,  a more fair hearing of their request.

But let’s take a look at the Student Code, specifically Title V, Section 109, which reads

Funding decisions for programs, services, or events shall be made without regard to the viewpoints expressed.

According to Section 202, there are four criteria that “should be used in judging the worthiness of any group to receive funding.” Those are

A.  Representation.  SC should consider the  number of students affected  and  the  number of students involved in a project.  SC should try to anticipate this representation by looking  at past involvement, enthusiasm for the  program, current  opinions about  the  program, and  the  amount of involvement anticipated by the organization.

B. Vitality.   SC should consider how  vital  a program is to the organization.  Criteria to be considered should be the priority of the program in relation to other  programs sponsored by the organization,whether or not it is in part  a fundraising program, and  how it would affect the morale of the organization.

C. Specialization.  The Congress should consider how  unique a program is to the  Student Body. It should consider the cultural/educational value  of the program, whether or not it overlaps another program on campus, the amount of recognition it brings  to the University, and  the identification it has with the organization.

D.  Generated Funds, i.e. outside income.

Note that none of these criteria concern the political correctness of a group’s constitution (which, incidentally, must be submitted every year to the Division of Student Affairs for approval).

Now let’s turn to recent events. In the DTH article, Jared Simmons, Chair of the Finance Committee, says that “any uncertainty surrounding the group’s student organization status could give him authority to apply further scrutiny to their [Psalm 100's] requests.”  This “rule” cannot actually be found anywhere in the Code. Title V, Section 106 stipulates that only groups recognized by UNC’s Division of Student Affairs (which Psalm 100 is) may spend student government appropriations. Uncertainty about the group’s future status does not allow Congress to apply extra scrutiny to such groups’ funding requests. Especially considering that no official review of Psalm 100′s status has been announced, it might be prudent for the Finance Committee to refrain from apply “further scrutiny” until such time as Psalm 100′s recognition is actually revoked.

Apparently, some people are above the law

Equally troubling is the tendency for some members of Congress to openly flaunt the above-mentioned rules. Foremost among these is Leah Josephson, District 6 Representative. As you’ll see in the above screenshot, she has pledged “no more funding if i [sic] have anything to do with it.” While Ms. Josephson is entitled to her own opinion, as a member of Congress (and of the Finance Committee), she is required to abide by the funding standards set forth in the Code. Pledging to ensure that a group receives no funding because you disagree with their political/religious beliefs is expressly forbidden by the Code (in addition to the ethical concerns involved) and sets you up for nice, fat lawsuit when the group is denied funding.

While members of our august body may have differences in opinion over Psalm 100′s decision to expel one of its members, such differences in opinion do not allow Congress to cut off access to (or threaten to cut off access to) student government funds. Every student at this university pays into the student government funding pot, and every student at this university has a right to that funding, provided that the criteria set forth in the Code are met. Threatening to cut off access to these resources over political differences is just as bad as expelling someone from your group over political differences. To do so is not only unethical, it is illegal.

First, there is the rather impulsive urge within me that rebells at the thought of making access to the ballot more difficult. The current process, which requires Presidential candidates to obtain 1000 signatures and Congressional candidates 20, does seem reasonable, as it prevents spurious candidates from getting on the ballot. Obtaining 1000 signatures is no easy task, and I think that the ability to do so demonstrates that a candidate is sufficiently dedicated to the campaign to be listed on the ballot. Bumping the requirement up to 1500 seems unnecessary. Though, I do understand the desire to avoid run-off elections. But is it really so hard to vote twice? I guess there’s a little more work involved for the Board of Elections, but other than that, is it really so bad?

Then there’s the issue of raising the signature requirement for members of Congress. Given the difficulty Congress has in filling all its seats every year, should we really be putting measures in place that will make it more difficult for Congressional candidates to get on the ballot? The only place that I can think of where this was a problem last year was the North Campus district (where, admittedly I would have appreciated less competition). It simply seems counter-intuitive to make it more difficult to get into Congress when Congress perpetually has empty seats.

Student elections were self-funded until Fall of 2002 when they became funded by student fee money. The two main arguments in favor of the current arrangement are seemingly convincing, however invalid: self-funding denies poor students the opportunity to run for office; and not having a cap would allow the wealthy students to “buy” the election.

I doubt self-funding would actually deny students the ability to run based on their socioeconomic status. And if a wealthy student wants to be a sad tool and “buy” a student body election, they deserve to have this as their life’s only victory. Somehow, this system worked fine up until 2002. And students can still fundraise to make up the difference which is where things get interesting, because a common argument I’ve heard against fundraising has been that students wouldn’t actually donate money to campaigns because they don’t care enough to do so.

Implicit within that argument, however, one is saying that since students don’t care enough about student government to voluntarily fund elections, student government should force them against their will to do so. Who’s democratic now?

At the end of the day, is anyone really convinced by a-frames or sheets of paper? No. Students are convinced by one-on-one interaction with the candidates and the arguments candidates make at any of the forums students attend. Also crucial is the DTH endorsement. So even if a student didn’t fundraise on parity with other campaigns, this would not impair their ability to win using any of the usual means candidates reach the students.

So complete, private funding with no cap would be ideal, but given the realities of the situation, the most likely scenario where student fee funding is cut would be to have a cap put in place on private money to be spent. Opponents would argue a cap is unenforceable, but the same argument could be made against the current cap. What stops campaigns from just not turning receipts of purchase in? Theoretically, unless someone turns a campaign in, candidates could spend way over $400 and the BOE would be none the wiser. The cap is flawed either way. But the BOE would still have the same punitive tools in its hands to punish campaigns that went over the cap when private money is used, even up to disqualifying a candidate for exceeding the amount.

Stud cong needs to do the right thing and actually return the choice to students as to which campaigns they would fund. Who knows, maybe campaigns would have so little money they won’t annoy us in the pit with fliers or cause us to trip over their silly a-frames. Wouldn’t that be nice…