The Rotunda

Dear "Your Fellow Peer,"

In reading your article I noticed something that seems to strike me as very peculiar; a bit of naiveness when it comes to actual human beings and their actions. While I applaud the idea that someone will set aside all feelings towards something else that they hold dear when they enter a meeting, the truth of the matter is that does not happen. That is why Chi is an ideal that we all have to strive for, it is not natural for us to begin with (to quote the saying at the Chi Fountain "Chi, founded in 1900, is an ideal always sought but never obtained/It is the spirit found in the hearts and minds of those who seek its real purpose/Loyalty-Character-Respect-Challenge-Responsibility."). That would be like the newly elected President of the United States Barack Obama setting aside everything that he has worked for in the Democratic Party and adopting a neutral stance. It is all well and good to strive for that neutrality but the reality is that it will not happen except with much work. And many of the students do not see that kind of work being put out (even if it is).

Also, your letter seems to be referring to the money situation much more than the letter you are referencing. Truly I found only a single reference to money in the previous letter on 12/3/2008 (which I did not write) and that is in the first paragraph! The major of the letter focuses on procedural issues within the SGA itself such as following your own Constitution and the rest focuses on the attitudes of the SGA towards other organizations on campus. I also noticed that you still have not addressed any of these issues in your letter; I am hoping that is to follow in another Letter to the Editor sometime soon.

The questions that need to be addressed in my opinion are as follows:

1) Why is it that the meetings of the SGA are not publicized in some fashion? I am sure more Students would attend if they knew when and where the meetings are. I happen to know they are most often in the ABC rooms on Tuesdays at 3:45 but that is only because I have been instructed to come to them in the past. Student Finance Council (SFC) meetings are on Thursdays at 7pm and are open to the campus as well.

2) Why is it that parts of your own Constitution are not being followed? The biggest reference to that has been Jordan Miles sitting on the Senate as a Senator whilst also being the Chairperson of Judicial Board. This goes specifically against Article IV, Section 1, Subsection A, Paragraph 5, Sub-Paragraph R and it goes against Article V, Section 7.

3) Why are major revisions to the Constitution and other Bylaws not publicized to the campus? I know that we vote on the major changes to the Constitution as a student body, but why are they not publicized in some form such as in the Rotunda or via a mass email to the campus? Bylaw changes, such as to the SFC, are not voted on by the Student Body (Article 4, Section 1, Subsection B, Paragraph 3, Sub-Paragraph A) and are not known to the student body unless someone requests a copy from a Senator. Finding even how the voting went for the changes we do vote for is nearly impossible; I have yet to be able to find the voting group on Blackboard or find the counts on the votes.

4) Why is it that no information is given to the Senate on why the SFC voted the way it did? The Senate is expected to vote on the recommendation of the SFC which is not even a half-count (having just 12 members) of the entirety of the Senate but are given no explanation as to why the SFC reached the decision it did. Most organizations submit budget request paperwork to the SFC; why is this same paperwork not distributed to the Senators?

5) Why is there no publicized way to contact the SGA? This partly goes back to the question of the meetings of the SGA, but why is it that there is no listed way to contact the SGA or even a location of the SGA's offices (they are in the Student Union, around the corner of the C room of the ABC rooms) or a listing of office hours?

6) Speaking of the money, why is there no published listing of how the SGA allocates the money or even how much money the SGA has to allocate to begin with? It has been said that we are in a budget crunch but there has been no evidence to show it. There is also no accountability to the students in how the SGA uses the money.

7) Why was the money denied to APO when there is no current rule in effect that prevents them from having the money? It was said that a revision to the bylaws was being proposed but that it had not been proposed or passed as of yet. According to your Constitution (Article III, Section 4) there can be no Ex-Post Facto laws and yet that seems to be as such.

These are just a few of the major questions that we has students have. And we do have a right to answers to these questions seeing as that we are all members of the SGA (Article II) and that the SGA is to have Freedom of Information in regards to everything that you all do (Article II, Section 6).

Until questions like this have been answered, the student body will be critical of the SGA in every other word. That is the democratic process at work.

Also, I have a large amount of respect for you all and what you do (The Big Event, Election Day rallying, smoker's rights on campus, cleaning up the campus, etc...yes they really do a LOT at the SGA), but it is hard to maintain that respect when we feel we are being hoodwinked every day. Respect is not something that is automatically given, it must be earned and right now that account has been overdrawn.

Thank you for your time and keep up the GOOD work that you do.

Sincerely,

Gerald (Gerry) Martin
Concerned Student, Fellow Peer

To whom it may concern -

1) I understand the need to follow protocol. I understand the need to follow a Constitution and the By-laws that follow it. However, I also believe that just about every organization I have ever been a part of has looked past rules and by-laws if it was for the greater good. Is this always the right thing to do? Not at all. However, as someone who was raised on as much as Ghandi as Machiavelli, if you can be the change you wish to see, then the ends justify the means.

2) During my time with the Longwood University SGA, Jordan Miles constantly went above and beyond the call of duty, whether it was asked of him or not. Jordan is someone who puts his heart and soul into every organization that he is a part of. If you even talk to Jordan for just 5 minutes, this becomes abuntantly clear. Does he take part in more organizations than most? As someone who was overly-involved and had the opportunity to work with Jordan in many different capacities, I can definitely say yes. Does he always try to put himself into leadership positions within these organizations so that he can make change and show how to Lead by Example? Absolutely. So why would the SGA want to get rid of someone who is hard-working and dedicated with everything he is a part of?

3) During my time as the President of the Longwood Student Government Association, Matt Bogar served on the SGA. During his time as a Senator, Matt was also the Chairman of the Judicial Board. The way we justified this was to read the statement of "One (1) Representative of the Judicial Board. The Judicial Board Chairperson would be disqualified from sitting on the Student Senate." as meaning that the Chairperson was only disqualified from sitting on the Senate as the Judicial Board Representative. That is the way that we read it, and I would imagine, but do not know for certain, that that is how President Revene and Vice President Lee read it as well.

4) As to the problems that Gerald (Gerry) Martin brought up, when put into print like that, it really does look as if the SGA is failing it's students. However, I am certain that if he, or anyone else, actually talked to a member of the SGA and raised these questions, the issues would be resolved much quicker than airing them into a public forum, which normally just raises the ire of those you are attacking. I can definitely understand the want for change; Going out there and making it happen yourself instead of just writing about it helps that process along though.

5) I also just wanted to take a second and agree with what "CJ" put down. Every SGA member is human, and they will make mistakes. I made more mistakes in office than I can honestly count. However, I know for a fact that each and every person on the current Senate wants to make Longwood better than they found it. You can say calling them out is a part of the democratic process, and that is your right. But instead of fighting with them, instead of nitpicking everything that is wrong, see what you can do to help. See what you can do to make Longwood a better place with the SGA. To paraphrase President Kennedy, "Ask not what your school do can for you, but what you can do for your school."

Sincerely,

Phillip Burns
President, Longwood University SGA, 2006-2008

I think the SGA is well aware that when they put themselves into positions of power, they will be criticized, but they will also be complimented. They need to get use to that, no matter how extreme the pieces of writing are against them. I imagine that a few who are in the SGA will later go into the political arena or other area of public service, where journalists will write op/ed pieces that tear them apart piece by piece constantly and unabashedly criticizing every little move they make. When a trite little letter shows up on the doorstep of the newspaper, everyone seems to get worked up by it, but something to keep in mind is that the letters will always come and the op/ed pieces will always be written. I'm not defending the letter either, because there is nothing more that I hate than anonymous letters.

I care less about the technicalities of this rather than the general idea. Having written for the newspaper for a little while, I've seen my fair share of good things and bad things about the SGA, but any system with humans is going to be flawed, no matter how good their intentions. Let's not forget the 9/11 t-shirt ordeal from a few years back, and if you don't know what I'm talking about, email me and I'll let you know.

That's all fine and dandy, but to the members of SGA, Honor Board, and Judicial Board do not take the comments to heart when something written about you is blatantly criticizing you. It does no one any good to fret and moan about the fact that somebody had something negative to say. To the people who write anonymous letters criticizing

Members obviously know to expect things like this. To some extents, I agree that SGA sucks, but I believe that every group on campus sucks--meaning that every group has it's own problems that it can't solve or fix; but every campus group has there various forms of shining lights that improve certain things around them. The SGA can't fix everything and we shouldn't expect them to. So that's why we have free press--to allow people to voice their concerns about problems and to provide an outlet for journalists and citizens to write op/ed pieces or blogs that condescend on everything (or offer good, constructive solutions for improvement), even though certain situations might not be solvable. There is no perfect system and to think there is and that we have it all figured out is naive. I also do not agree that everyone who has problems with SGA or ideas to improve SGA should join because, quite frankly, there just aren't enough positions available for that many people. Our next goal as a community should be thinking and preparing for the class of 2013.