College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Daily Toreador > Opinions

Letter to the Editor: SGA decision appalling

By Kyle Crowl

Senior political science major from Conroe

|

Published: Monday, February 8, 2010

Updated: Sunday, February 7, 2010

Friday’s article about the Student Government Association voting down a bill designed to provide a check on the executive branch appalled me. As a senator for three terms, one as the Budget and Finance Chairman of the SGA, I have never seen a senate so dead set on protecting the executive branch.

How can this senate vote down a bill that basically states the SGA office should not be able to spend student’s money without having some sort of legislative check on it? The argument that we should trust our elected leaders is just outright absurd. Have these people ever read the history books or watched the news? There are not many people you can trust in this world and elected leaders would be right below convicted felons in most people’s book.

That is not to say this year’s administration is untrustworthy. Honestly, I have no idea whether they are or not, but shouldn’t we put checks in place for the next 50 administrations? Surely one of them might not be the definition of responsible and trustworthy.

Then there are the excuses presented that the executive officers are liked, and senators do not want to pile on more work for the SGA, but these not only show laziness by the senate, (and perhaps any executive officers who influenced the senate) but shows a total disconnect of the majority of SGA and real students here at Texas Tech.

Senators who voted against this bill, consider this: If you asked every student at Tech’s campus this question, “Knowing that the 21- and 22-year-old executive officers in the SGA can spend up to $200,000 or more of your tuition at their own discretion for whatever they feel necessary (including their own frivolous banquets and trips), do you think the rules should change to allow at least one check on executive spending?”

You would probably find that out of all the students asked, the only ones to answer no would be you and the people sitting in the SGA office right now.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

12 comments

Kyle Crowl
Tue Feb 9 2010 21:42
Of course I am the petty one. I not once called a single senator or executive officer out on anything but instead focused on the merits of the bill. The first attack out of you senator “anonymous” is the very definition of petty. Have I lost two elections? Yes. I did not win and I don’t claim to have won. I do, however, claim to have some experience with the SGA and in my opinion a vote against this bill was absurd. As someone familiar with how SGA works I took my right to express my opinion to the paper and they chose to publish that opinion. I encourage you to do the same if you feel strongly about it.

I did “listen up” but I do not understand on what basis you are arguing:

1. Senators are selected by a popular vote as well as the President and the other Executive officers. I would know this because as you so eloquently pointed out I am very familiar with that process. The only difference is the executive officers have a debate that about 15 people on average attend. Yet in your mind they are qualified to make monetary decisions and senators are not even though they were elected in a very similar process?

2. I am not sure what you believe SGA to be, but I always believed it to be an organization that fights for student voices over the administration. I don’t believe SGA has the same power as President Bailey. I do truly hope as a senator for SGA you don not want President Bailey and every other official to make decisions without the voice of the student senate being involved. Furthermore, the bill spoke of the SGA budget, not of the university as a whole. Keeping this in mind, senators would only be making decisions on that specific department’s budget not for the whole university such as President Bailey.

3. As a senator I hope you are familiar with the budget process for student organizations. If senators are not trained nor qualified to make budgeting decisions for $200,000 of SGA office money, are they really qualified to decide how to allocate $350,000 in student fees to organizations? I think so, but obviously you do not. Perhaps you should introduce a bill to hand this process over to the administration that, according to you, is much more qualified for the role.

These are my arguments to yours senator. I try to argue and not attack, but you chose to attack me personally, calling me out for wanting to be in the spotlight. Obviously this is no way to have a conversation about the direction of our university and SGA, but unfortunately you chose to handle it in this manner.

I do not feel like I was searching for the spotlight. And even if I was, I would rather be standing in the spotlight fighting for something I believe in than hiding in the shadows as someone who snidely and purposely attacks someone for doing so without revealing their name. Everything I have said bares my name because when standing for something you do not conceal your identity under the name of “anonymous.” If you want to criticize or argue I would be more than willing to talk, but if you want to attack my motives have the nerve to disclose your name and stand behind your own accusations. I would love to have a conversation with you about your assumptions or anyone else about this issue. Please feel free to e-mail me at kyle.crowl@ttu.edu and a meeting can be arranged.

By the way I did check my facts…..…. The BILL FAILED! Obviously you read the paper’s article that said it was tabled, but missed their retraction saying it actually failed. I thought you would know this because as a senator arguing for its failure you must have been at Senate paying attention.

Red Raider
Tue Feb 9 2010 17:26
Thank you senator anonymous as well. I'm glad to know that you check the facts and attend your senate meetings. The bill was failed not tabled like the paper had previously published. Also, here is some food for thought.... the current SGA President and Internal VP do not have business or accounting backgrounds. The last President to have a business background was three years ago. So based on your logic that only business and accounting majors should deal with budgets, our 2/3 of our executive officers are UNQUALIFIED to be in office. I'm glad to know that most 13 or so members on the Budget and Finance committee also are unqualified to disperse student fee money.

Since you are elected to be a LEADER, wouldn't you think that if you are unqualified to do a job or look at something and it is in the student's best interest that you would go and make yourself qualified to our job properly? If not, then I would think that you are being lazy.

Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 15:55
Dear Anonymous Senator,

I am glad to know that YOU are not educated enough to look at a budget. That is unfortunate for you. I am sorry you must be falling asleep in your classes, or possibly not even opening your eyes to see the real world that moves around you.

It does not take Einstein to know that you can get a banquet hall cheaper, flowers for less, a pep rally less expensive, and cut out unnecessary binders and gifts.

But you are right...we FOR SURE need accountants looking at this budget. Definitely no need for lowly students...

Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 14:51
First off, good job Kyle for finally getting into the spotlight. A handful of failed SGA elections and finally you get to make your “impact,” not matter how petty it may be.

I am a senator, so listen up. I DO NOT have the knowledge, skill or know-how to oversee a budget. As a college student not majoring in anything related to accounting or business- what gives me this right to make decisions on a budget? Oh wait.... I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT! I am not lazy (quite the opposite), I’m just realistic.

Furthermore, senators who are selected by popular vote and no debate (which is not a legitimate way to choose someone who is managing money), are not qualified to make monetary decisions. Giving senators the power to approve or disprove essential expenditures is not right.
Do you, Mr. Crowl, think you have the same power as Guy Bailey? That is what this bill would be doing-in a very roundabout way-giving students the power to make decisions we have no right making. This university knows what they are doing, and I trust them. My trust in this university is more important than a “check” that wouldn’t do anything.

By the way… the bill was tabled-good job knowing the facts.

Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 00:38
I think this vote would be different in another year, and another Chancellor.
loyal reader of the DT
Mon Feb 8 2010 17:57
No Joke...I do not understand why the executive officers are taking this so personally---I wonder if this was brought up when they used to be senators if they would feel the same way.

From what I can see with all these posts on this article and the first article...it sounds too me that the executive officers have little faith in the legislative body they used to be so "passionate" about---sad.

All over a simple check. what a way to go out guys---great legacy...

Bystander
Mon Feb 8 2010 14:26
Glad someone (Mr. Crowl) has the courage to do what is right instead of what is popular and stick up for students, who happen to be the people SGA supposedly represents..novel concept. Maybe SGA should try acting like a respectable and fair organization instead of a social organization. Conflict creates action and action is what SGA needs, not habits, cliques, and hypocrisy.
RaiderRed
Mon Feb 8 2010 14:03
Anonymous, explain to me how paid staff members in Student Affairs and Enrollment is a check on the executive branch of the SGA. If all of the proper checks and balances are in place, why are we electing students to sit in the Student Senate? By your logic, we should only elect three executive officers, give them over $200,000 and trust that they spend it wisely.
Kyle Crowl
Mon Feb 8 2010 13:19
The only "check" right now is a check by the administration through Student Affairs and Enrollment. I would like to see a student "check," not one by the administration. The only other check is by a committee with a student representative who happens to be appointed by the executive.

So the only checks on the budget are by non-students and a presidential appointee. That is not checks and balances that is student's voices not being heard. I happen to find student's voices not being heard to be very relevant!!

Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 12:21
Mr. Crowl brings up some good points...but its a good thing the SGA is also a Department within Student Affairs and Enrollment Management (which already has several checks and balances in place) or else this whole thing might actually have some relevance!
Anonymous
Sun Feb 7 2010 23:21
Agreed!!
Red Raider
Sun Feb 7 2010 19:37
I would have to agree with Kyle Crowl. The SGA officers and Senators are elected to serve the students in whatever way possible, and if they cannot do this job they should resign. I would rather have a checks and balances system on excessive spend than an increase in student fees or tuition. It is not a personal attack on anyone in office, the bill just serves as an opportunity to make sure proper projects are being conducted and money is not spent on useless things such as banquets and excessive trips.






log out