By Natalie Crnosija
Undergraduate Student Government Senator Adam Kent announced the creation of a USG Constitutional Oversight Committee on Feb. 12, during the USG Senate’s first meeting of the semester.
The committee, which would focus on remedying disparities between USG Senate bylaws and USG Constitutional Laws, was the brainchild of Kent and USG President Jeffrey Akita. Kent offered himself as liaison between the committee and the USG Senate. The chairmanship of the committee itself would require the election of an official, according to Kent. USG bylaws are the collected and codified amendments to the constitution made by the USG Senate.
“The committee would investigate these differences and present them to the Senate to be amended,” said Senator Katie Schultz. “The committee itself would not have any power to amend the bylaws. Only the Senate can do that.”
The Senate moved towards establishing a formal timeline for USG’s spring elections with the confirmation of Kate Patestas, the new Chair of the Board of Elections. Patestas had already established a Spring 2009 Elections Schedule, effective pending her confirmation.
“I hope this will make everything go smoother,” Patestas said.
Patestas’ sentiments were mirrored by Senator Kevin Brady’s proposed handbook to help out nascent student-organized clubs.
“Lots of clubs have the same problems and if they are provided the correct information, they will avoid the pitfalls and mistakes which cause clubs to lose their funding,” Brady said. New clubs’ ignorance of the intricacies of budgetary management can cause the deactivation of the club and loss of its budget.
These peripheral moves towards stricter oversight and organization are part of the prevailing tide of reform, which on the most basic Constitutional level is being spearheaded by Kent and Akita.
“The Constitution is best used as a skeleton,” Senator Lauren Potenza said. “Bylaws are needed to flesh out the Constitution.”
The bylaws are subject to the interpretation of current senators and are subject to amendment with every new senatorial election. There is rarely a direct conflict between the constitution and the bylaws, according to Potenza.
This move is mostly for housekeeping reasons, according to Schultz. The conflicts or perceived conflicts between the Constitution and bylaws slows USG action and negatively impacts the perception of the Senate on campus.
“I was aware of the sense of disparity,” Senator Daniel Graber said. Graber could not specify what laws, in particular, diverged from the original Constitution. The copies of the USG Senate bylaws had not yet been given to Graber or any of the other senators, who may be called on to amend current laws.
Related posts:
- USG Resignations A-Go-Go Along with Nathan Shapiro’s resignation from the post of Executive Vice President, Jeffrey Akita, Vice...
- Proposed Election Reform Shakes It Up! By Natalie Crnosija Undergraduate Student Government President Jeffrey Akita proposed the abolition of the petition...
- NYPIRG Strikes Back! By Natalie Crnosija The Undergraduate Student Government Senate gave oral support for reactivation of New...
- Paying for Proxies USG Senate’s approval of an act that created a staff for the Vice President of...
- Jeffrey Who? He’s Our President, Stupid! Not many students know about the Undergraduate Student Government at Stony Brook. In fact, last...
“We do need to talk” Senator Graber, Lots of Luck getting a copy of the USG Bylaws. What you don’t know will hurt you and those who are supposed to act in USG’s “Best Interest” are only out for themselves and that is what is referred to as “unjust enrichment”. Beware of the Administrators, they can not be trusted and are leading USG to a path once traveled by “Polity”.
We are already into our second semester and the USG Senators don’t have a copy of their bylaws? Do they even know what their USG Constitution says and what everyone’s responsibilities and rights are under the USG Constitution? Poor advisement by the Administrative Director is to blame for this. Wake up USG,demand accountability from someone who is getting paid a whole lot of money and is doing nothing to earn it. Better yet find someone who is not so self absorbed and who will be genuine and protect your rights as Stony Brook undergraduate students. Too many policies and procedures have been broken by those who are supposed to enforce them.
Firstly, note that this is my personal viewpoint, not necessarily the viewpoint of USG as a whole.
While there is a need for reform within USG, something which I can vouch that myself and a number of other members of USG are attempting to achieve, I must take issue with this statement.
“I was aware of the sense of disparity,” Senator Daniel Graber said. Graber could not specify what laws, in particular, diverged from the original Constitution. The copies of the USG Senate bylaws had not yet been given to Graber or any of the other senators, who may be called on to amend current laws.”
That is totally incorrect, Senator Graber said that he did not have the bylaws on him, not that he does not have them period.
All members of USG have constant access to all the bylaws including the constitution, as copies are are freely available to everyone (including non-usg members) in a cabinet above the front desk in the USG suite. I encourage everyone interested in USG to read them over.
In light of the quote I see the reactions here as good and understandable, because if the USG did not have access to the bylaws that would be a large issue.
However, that is not the case, I assume that it was an honest mistake, but the press should offer a retraction and an apology for the incorrect information.
I’m glad we all now know where the bylaws are kept.But have they been read or are they being ignored just like the constitution was last year?
In case you were wondering what I am refering to, maybe you should ask Joe Antonelli,the USG President 2007-2008, why he ignored not only the USG Constitution, but the agreement between FSA and USG and he excluded the Executive Council when it came to employment issues.
I would also like to share my opinion on the butcher job that was done last year on the Proposed USG Constitution. For one thing I can’t believe that the Executive Board would become the Executive Council and those positions would be appointed positions. This takes away your rights; your right to run for a position, to vote and you lose your voices! This is like “taxation”, (the student activity fee) without “representation” (the loss of your rights).
No suprise that your Administrative Director was looking for a three year contract either.Job security is what we would all like to have. If she continues to screw up and do what FSA wants her to do and what is not in the best interest of USG; then by having a three year contract she would be guaranteed a paycheck no matter what she does or doesn’t do. What a sweet deal that would have been.
Isn’t your Campus designee Dr. Baigent? On his webpage he states that:
In all your activities, you need to remember that as a Stony Brook student, you have both rights and responsibilities. We take seriously the assurance of these rights for every member of our campus community. Likewise, we expect each community member to fulfill his or her responsibilities.
Didn’t he have to approve that proposed constitution before it was put on the ballot? I guess he missed the part about the Executive Council/Board and that the undergraduate students would now lose their rights to run and be voted in by their peers.
MattA I’m glad I got your attention! It seems like no one else is listening and I for one, have plenty to say. Remember “Our trust is very expensive”. And that is not just my opinion- Go to the Statesman Archives and read the two articles titled “Our trust is very expensive”. I’m not the only one questioning the USG Administrative Directors role in USG.
*My personal opinions again*
Firstly, you need a disclaimer that you don’t speak for Student Advocates on your post. Regardless of whether you are a member of the Student Advocates party or not, you do not speak for us, and even though the name choice is presumably a coincidence, it is very easy to assume that you speak for the party.
Are the bylaws being read? Yes, quite carefully.
As for the situation with Antonelli, I am not sure what you mean about violating the constitution and the memorandium of understanding (not a contract, I can explain the difference if it comes up) in regards to employment. Care to explain what you mean?
I think you misunderstood the proposed constitution, the President would have the power to appoint the exectutive board, at will. This means that effectively the powers of the current exectutive council would be the powers of the President who would delegate them. This is not a loss of representation, it’s just making the power less divided.
Regardless, how is Eunice Ro implicated in this? You’ve given me issues with Antonelli, and you just jump to her, saying that she continues to “screw up” and “do what FSA wants her to do”.
How exactly is she “screwing up”?
I would like to inform you that the point in the contract is so that the Administrative Director is so that they have some job security. If they do something that bothered someone, then they could be fired way too easily. No one would take a job like that. It is very standard for a job like that to have a contract. Also I would like to point out as Matt A did that this article has many issues with it.
With the FSA and constitution being ignored by a past president, there is very little can be done about something in the past at all. On top of that there is a rule from SUNY that made what he did perfectly correct. I am not sure if you are aware of this but when SUNY mandates something it trumps everything we have dealing with the school.
Most importantly, I would like to point out that this author of the article has made many mistakes with her “quotes.” This for example was something that was stated in less then 2 minutes about some issues between the constitution and bylaws. This whole article has made a giant mountain out of a minor thing. Yes it is an issue for them to be conflicting, but a whole article with misquotes is not needed. This author has made many many many mistakes in every single article with dealing with. Within this article it states
“Undergraduate Student Government Senator Adam Kent announced the creation of a USG Constitutional Oversight Committee on Feb. 12, during the USG Senate’s first meeting of the semester.
The committee, which would focus on remedying disparities between USG Senate bylaws and USG Constitutional Laws, was the brainchild of Kent and USG President Jeffrey Akita. Kent offered himself as liaison between the committee and the USG Senate. The chairmanship of the committee itself would require the election of an official, according to Kent. USG bylaws are the collected and codified amendments to the constitution made by the USG Senate.”
First thing if anyone was there or watched the SBU-TV they would know what was said. This committee is not for what the author of the article wrote, nor idd Senator Kent ever offer himself as a liaison between the committees and the Senate. President Akita had a committee made to look into the constitution. The committee (as stated in that senate meeting) was to be an advisory committee and will not write the legislation itself. Senator Kent was having a committee of senators made to write this legislation. The resolution that Senator Kent proposed did state a there should a liaison between the senate committee and the advisory committee. He never said that it should be himself, nor did he express in that meeting that he would be willing to be on the senate committee. Also later in the article the author states, “These peripheral moves towards stricter oversight and organization are part of the prevailing tide of reform, which on the most basic Constitutional level is being spearheaded by Kent and Akita.” President Akita just appointed one person as a chair person of an advisory committee. That does not make him “spearheading” anything at all.
Any article written by Natalie Crnosija dealing with USG has had major errors in it. I think the press should have someone else go with her to the meetings, and also make sure she gets her quotes verified. This is horrible and looks very poorly upon a newspaper group. This is not how any paper should be…filled with wrong stories.