Point of Clarification

Current and newly-elected campus leaders from across ASU met at the AE England Building Sunday to set priorities for next year, learn some background on student government and try to begin thinking on a University-wide level.

Newly-reelected President of the Downtown campus Joseph Grossman discusses what he believes are the most important priorities for student government next year with the other ASU presidents. (Madeline Pado/DD)

Because the governments have a limited window to get work done – 140 days during the year, according to the government advisors – representatives and advisors hoped this early meeting would be a good opportunity to get everyone on the same page.

There were around 50 people in attendance from all four campuses and GPSA. This was the second time ever ASU students governments have met as a group, but the first where they were attempting to set university-wide goals.

Before trying to set their priorities, the representatives heard from government advisors about the history of ASU governments, how it fits in with the Arizona Board of Regents and the importance of working as a collective group.

Afterwards, the assembly split into groups, first five random groups and later seven groups by affiliation – student Senates for each campus and the GPSA assembly, campus vice presidents and campus presidents.

They discussed what they thought were the most important issues for students next year.

The priority that received the most votes for being a primary focus for student governments next year was financial aid. Every affiliate had it among their top three priorities and it appeared to receive the most votes overall.

Also commonly chosen priorities included battling issues at the legislature and trying to build academic servies on campus, including tutoring.

The number one priority representatives from the Downtown Senate was building spirit, pride and tradition on campus. The Senate members in attendance were Cronkite Sen. Malcolm Brinkley and College of Public Programs Sens. Joey Amonett and Cecilio Porras.

After the votes, West President Josh Tucker, Tempe President Jacob Goulding, Grossman, GPSA President Kelley Stewart and GPSA Vice of External Affairs Rhian Stotts talked about their experiences from the past year and what they see as important issues in the future.

Reviews of the 3-hour event were generally positive and the governments are looking to make this meeting an annual occurrence.

American Humanics’ request for nearly $4,000 from USGD at the Senate’s final meeting of year turned out to be one of the most contentious funding debates senators faced during their terms.

Director of Finance Sam Tongue, near, has guided USGD through budget concerns this year and has managed to keep around $10,000 for next year's rollover fund. (Madeline Pado/DD)

The Senate eventually allocated the nonprofit program $611.82, only 16 percent of the organization’s original request.

Robert’s Rules of Order were largely ignored during the debate, with senators and executive board members speaking over each other.

Vice President of Services David Bakardjiev, who chaired Friday’s meeting, didn’t try to regain control of the Senate until near the end of the discusion.

Michael Homan, local affairs director and member of America Humanics, was unusually talkative during the discussions, often jumping in to explain the organization’s perspective. He represented the organization at the BAC meeting Wednesday.

Homan didn’t see any problem with him trying to influence the discusion from outside the Senate, saying afterwards that senators often sponsor requests from organizations they are a part of and his situation isn’t any different.

The Senate spent the majority of the meeting on this request.

These kind of discussions have been largely absent from Senate meetings this year, in large part due to the importance put on Budget Allocations Committee meetings.

In past years, the BAC meetings were simply a paperwork checkpoint. This year, most of the discussion as to the importance of each funding request

Student government members contended that the funding debate mainly occurred at the Senate meeting because several members of the Budget Allocations Committee were absent during the Wednesday meeting.

Director of Finance Sam Tongue said USGD will likely have a little under $10,000 remaining in student fee money from this year’s budget of $246,000.

The reason the Senate couldn’t simply give American Humanics all the money they want since it’s the last meeting of the year is any extra money USGD has goes into a rollover fund they can use next year.

“Just because there’s extra money at the end doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to use it,” Tongue said. “That’s never been our strategy.”

By Domenico Nicosia

The second USGD presidential debate will be held Friday afternoon, hosted by the Downtown Devil and moderated by publisher Dan Neligh. In light of the upcoming event, there are certain factors of the first debate that need review.

Certain physical gestures in some cases held equal weight as the candidates’ experience and campaign goals.

Downtown student government President Joseph Grossman used the stage well during the USGD sponsored debate March 27, but held the microphone as if he was prepared for a rap battle. (Madeline Pado/DD)

Some actions raised etiquette yellow cards for both incumbent president Joseph Grossman and presidential hopeful Erika Green.

Let me begin by saying that I am, by no means, a professional and have no formal training in the analysis of body language. That being said, a tendency to be hypercritical and an unintentional attention to detail may have proved valuable in my viewing of this debate.

Owning the arena:
A sense of physical presence is just as important as verbal eloquence, especially in a public setting in front of a live audience.

Candidates should know this. It appeared Grossman did early in the debate.

He asserted his dominance over the debate by insisting on standing as he responded to questions, claiming that this was the way things were done last time.

The tactic seemed to work.

Green appeared more at ease in the confines of her brown plush chair. When she stood, her stance was more or less rigid and she lacked hand gestures that have the potential to hone in on a point. The effect left her looking somewhat uncomfortable and nervous.

Green had the potential to be a powerful speaker but didn’t quite use her stage presence to her advantage, leaving the playing field wide open.

Grossman capitalized on his strength: speaking.

He had an aggressive hold on the territory as he paced the stage and spoke animatedly.

Respecting the formalities:
Multiple times, Grossman was reminded by the moderator, Director of Administration Rudy Rivas, to remain within the two-minute response limit.

On various occasions, when the moderator would direct a question at Grossman, he, in turn, offered the first response to Green.

Sure, “ladies first” is a polite gesture, but if a candidate is called on to respond to a specific question, it is an unspoken courtesy that the candidate respect the moderator’s wishes.

Having alleged to have spent so much time at the capitol lobbying, we would assume Grossman had learned to respect the proceedings.

Or handle a microphone for that matter.

Presidential candidate Erika Green had good posture most of the debate, but started slouching as the night wore on. President Joseph Grossman went the other direction, beginning the night apparently inattentive, but perking up later on. (Madeline Pado/DD)

Cupping the microphone as if you were ready to verbalize a rap ballad rather than explain how to lower the cost of textbooks is not proper. President Grossman, I’mma let you finish, but in this setting you are a politician. You shouldn’t grip the microphone on the debate floor the same way you might grip your hairbrush while belting out your jam in the shower.

Spine straight, shoulders back:
What Green lacked in speaking performance, she made up for in attentiveness.

Prim and proper posture. Legs angled off to one side of the chair, feet crossed at the ankles. Green would have left Sunday school without a single bruised knuckle.

However, her form began to slip near the end of the debate. Green’s attention appeared to wander and she took advantage of the arm rest.

Grossman went the opposite direction.

He appeared slightly blasé at the beginning with his weight shifted to one side and head resting in the palm of his hand.

Perhaps acting as if your opponent does not exist as they speak is a strategy. Grossman plainly said that he did not even know who Green was before the election began.

Being frank is fine, but if this was true, would that not be more reason to make note of her ideas and goals?

Finally toward the end of the debate, Grossman appeared to perk up and began to take interest in what Green had to say.

Overall, it is apparent that both candidates house their strengths and weaknesses in different realms.

Perhaps the candidates were slightly caught off guard? It was, after all, Green’s first presidential debate. Grossman also explained that after months of working 70 hours per week, he had physical breakdown a week earlier.

Hopefully round two of the debate will keep the candidates upright in their chairs for the entirety of the event.

USGD President Joseph Grossman spoke heavily about how much he has done to help students this year while at the Arizona Capitol. (Madeline Pado/DD)

The first Downtown student government debate this election season was Tuesday, and both executive tickets took shots at each other, primarily over the other ticket’s experience or lack thereof.

While she doesn’t have experience in ASU student government, Presidential candidate Erika Green said she has enough experience from working with the Arizona Students’ Association to start making a difference. And what she and her ticket lack in knowledge, they make up for in new ideas.

On the other hand, USGD President Joseph Grossman said his experience this year will allow him to start fighting for students immediately, while Green would take “a semester and a half” to be brought up to speed. Grossman also said he has a close relationship with many movers and shakers at the Arizona Capitol and around ASU, so he immediately knows who to go to for a problem.

Sounding a little familiar?

Last year, experience was also key issue during debates. Then-presidential candidates Grossman, Director of Parliamentary Procedures Andres Cano and Diana Inzunza said they had enough experience to get the job done.

Cano’s experience was legislatively based. He had been a Freshman Senator and recently returned from an internship in Washington D.C. working with legislators.

Grossman said he was prepared for the job because of his contacts with lobbyists and legislators at the Capitol.

Inzunza had some experience in student government in high school, but was billed as the candidate who would bring a freshness of ideas to the campus.

Last year, Grossman won with 53 percent of the vote, Cano came in second with 39 percent and Inzunza only brought in 8 percent.

Point(s) of Information

• Several members of the 2011 Downtown student government were in the audience Tuesday night: President Christian Vasquez, Director of Public Relations Beth Wischnia and Downtown Arizona Students’ Association Director Abby Wischnia.

• The format of the debate wasn’t particularly friendly toward back-and-forth discourse between the candidates unless they asked to speak, which Grossman often did. Toward the end, the format became looser, which is when the candidates began getting a little testy.

• Grossman had a Rick Perry-esque moment during the first question when he forgot the third point of his platform. His platform is the same as it was last year. It took him more than five seconds to remember after several exasperated sighs. This blunder was surprising considering how seemingly prepared he was for the rest of the debate.

• Both Grossman and current Vice President of Policy David Bakardjiev had very different debates this year compared to last year. Last year, Grossman was remembered for yelling at the audience, while Bakardjiev’s workout clothes, gallon-jug of water and stumbling comments stuck in the crowd’s mind. To both of their credit, they apparently paid attention to voters from 2011. Bakardjiev came in a shirt and tie and maintained his points well, and while Grossman got noticeably louder during portions of the debate, he never crossed the threshold of yelling.

• The posture and body language of the two presidential candidates were very different throughout the debate. A later post will look into this.

Point of Personal Privilege

One of my favorite parts of the debate didn’t involve the candidates. Standing in the back, it was often more entertaining to listen to the points and then watch the reactions of students sitting near me.

Some particularly intriguing reactions were from Barrett, the Honors College Sen. Jessica Boehm.

Boehm’s self-described grimaces often occurred while Grossman discussed his working relationship with the other members of USGD, specifically the senators.

Grossman’s comments ranged from his need to micromanage many initiatives USGD starts to how much he individually has done in uniting the four ASU campuses.

Boehm is the co-chair of the Universal Committee and has worked heavily throughout the semester on the universal constitution.

“When people take credit for things I do, it rubs me the wrong way,” Boehm said after the debate.

Since I was in the back, I didn’t see the reactions of any other senators, but several times during the debate USGD members would clap after Grossman’s answer to a question. This prompted a scolding from Director of Administration Rudy Rivas, who was moderating the debate.

With only a few days left to apply, few students have submitted to run in this spring’s Downtown student government election.

The election committee decided to not release the number of students who have applied to run in April's election. The names will be released March 12. (Connor Radnovich/DD)

While Director of Administration Rudy Rivas wouldn’t say how many students have applied specifically, he did say only a couple applications have been received for Senate positions and “not many” applications are in for the executive tickets.

Rivas said the election committee decided they wouldn’t release the exact number of people who applied until they release the names as well.

They will release the names of who is running on March 12.

The election committee, Rivas said, is withholding how many student have applied because it didn’t want students basing their decision of whether to run on how many or few students were running.

“If you want to run, you should run, not if there is only one other person running,” Rivas said.

Rivas said the election committee expects some students to finish their applications this weekend and turn it in on the application deadline, March 5.

The Downtown Senate finally seems to have an accurate figure for how much money they have to allocate the rest of the semester after weeks of incorrect estimations by ASU administration and the student government.

Director of Finance Sam Tongue said USGD has around $30,000 remaining to allocate this semester after weeks of incorrect estimations. (Kristin Fankhauser/DD)

Factoring in the $4,675.08 it distributed to four organizations at Friday’s Senate meeting, USGD has around $30,000 remaining this semester, said Director of Finance Sam Tongue.

This semester’s funding problems began in mid-January when James Rund, senior vice president of Educational Outreach and Student Services, told the ASU student governments they would not be receiving as much student fee money as they originally expected.

Rund told Downtown President Joseph Grossman to expect up to $19,100 less than previously estimated, leaving USGD with a little less than $20,000.

Tongue began reviewing the USGD accounts after hearing of the funding drop looking for more money, but discovered several expenses that had not been authorized by this year’s Senate.

At the Feb. 1 Budget Allocations Committee meeting, Tongue announced the Senate had less than $10,000 left.

But, after talking with ASU administrators, Tongue learned these funds were coming from a rollover fund from last year and were not using funds from this year’s budget.

This scare did caused USGD to freeze funding at the Feb. 3 Senate meeting.

Since that meeting, allocated funds and a $5,000 overestimation by USGD has brought the remaining funds to $30,000.

Tongue said the most recent overestimation was due to problems with addition.

The Downtown student government took a stance at the Feb. 3 Senate meeting against the proposed guns on campus bill currently making its way through the Arizona legislature.

The Downtown student government decided to oppose the new guns on campus bill going through the Arizona senate. (Stephanie Snyder/DD)

The Senate’s debate over the bill was a condensed version of a national discussion that is repeated any time a “guns on campus” bill pops up.

The Senate decided on a vote of 10-1 that they would not support SB 1474, with the one no vote coming from Senate Leader Zack Lindsay.

The bill would prohibit universities from enforcing any law that restricts carrying a gun on campus. ASU President Michael Crow released a statement on January 31 strongly coming out against the bill.

USGD decided it was important for the Downtown students to have a position on the bill as well.

Lindsay was the most vocal in support of the guns on campus bill, saying having a gun would help students protect themselves if a person started shooting while students were in class.

In response, senators said it would probably be just as dangerous to have several people shooting while trying to defend themselves as having just one person with a gun.

One of the biggest issues for senators who were against the bill was the impact guns on campus would have on the university learning environment.

“There’s going to be a lot of untrained individuals carrying (concealed) weapons in a learning environment, and that’s not what a learning environment’s meant to be,” said College of Public Programs Sen. Cecilio Porras.

It is necessary for people who want to carry concealed weapons to take a training course. However, senators were not impressed by the extent of the course, saying there needed to be more training involved with getting a concealed weapons permit.

In the end, most senators decided to vote for what their constituency would want, and they said most students don’t want guns on campus.

The applications for students to become candidates in the 2012 ASU student government elections aren’t online yet, but some Downtown senators have already decided if they’re going to run for office in April.

So far, half of the Senate’s 12 members have said they will likely not to run in this year’s election.

Half of the Senate has decided not to run this year, and most of the remaining senators haven't decided what they want to do yet. (Jessica Zook/DD)

– Zack Lindsay, senate leader and College of Nursing and Health Innovation senator – Even though Lindsay has had a great experience in USGD this year, he is unsure whether he will run for the Senate again. He is worried about having a heavy workload next year.

– Dani Sandler, College of Nursing and Health Innovation senator – Sandler is a member of the election committee, and therefore cannot run for office.

– Stephanie Avalos, Freshmen senator – There is still a lot Avalos would like to do in student government, but she hasn’t made her final decision yet. She is currently leaning toward running.

– Amanda Manz, Freshmen senator – Likely juggling two jobs, a full class schedule and a choir position, Manz will not be running for office in April. Despite having fun in USGD, she said she needs to start focussing on activities directly related to her health sciences major.

– Rachel Cassinat, School of Nutrition and Health Promotion senator – Cassinat is not planning on participating in April’s election because she will be running for President of Student Nutrition Council. She would like to focus on that leadership role next year.

– Eneida Shqalsi, School of Nutrition and Health Promotion senator – Shqalsi might run, but it depends on whether she is chosen to be a Community Assistant next year.

– Torunn Sinclair, Walter Cronkite School senator – Sinclair said she is definitely not running for the Senate next year.

– Malcolm Brinkley, Walter Cronkite School senator – Brinkley is leaning toward running for office in April, and that decision is not likely to change.

– Joey Amonett, College of Public Programs senator – Amonett is interested in an appointed Executive Board position and currently doesn’t plan on running for the Senate. But, he hasn’t made his mind up definitely.

– Cecilio Porras, College of Public Programs senator – After a great experience in USGD, Porras said he “would feel remiss to not run again.” He will be defending his seat in April.

– Katy Graves, Barrett, the Honors College senator – Graves is a member of the election committee, and therefore cannot run for office.

– Jessica Boehm, Barrett, the Honors College senator – Boehm is a co-chair of the new universal committee and still has many initiatives she wants to start and some that still need to be finished. But, she still hasn’t decided to run yet.

So, for those of you keeping count, three senators said they are unsure about whether to run, one is leaning toward running, two will probably run and likely six can’t or won’t be on the ballot in April.

At the Budget Allocations Committee meeting Wednesday, committee members debated if they should allow student fee money to continue to be used to fund stipends for the Downtown Programing and Activities Board and  Campus Recreation.

The members discussed proposing a new BAC bylaw that will not allow any organization to use student fee money for member stipends. The proposal will go before the Senate on Friday.

The Budget Allocations Committee meets Wednesdays at 5 p.m. to discuss student organization funding requests that usually go before the Senate later in the week. (Evie Carpenter/DD)

Campus Rec and PAB are the only major student organizations on campus whose members get stipends from student fee money. Historically, they have been allowed to use money this way because they are the largest and most complex organizations on campus and their programs reach a large number of students.

The point of a student fee program is for all students to pay into a fund that will ultimately benefit all students.

Some BAC members felt student fee money shouldn’t be used for stipends because, by definition, that money is only going to a few students.

Members of the committee will likely propose a bylaw that reads: “No stipends will be funded through student fee money until active progress has been made by ASU administration to solve the issue outside USI (University Student Initiatives) money.”

The BAC also discussed other changes to their bylaws, including officially limiting how much money can be allocated for promotional items, trips and t-shirts.

Downtown Devil reporter Jessica Zook contributed to this report.

At the Downtown student government Senate meeting Friday, senators discussed how to ratify the Universal Constitution on the Downtown campus.

Senate Leader Zack Lindsay speaks during Friday's Senate meeting. (Madeline Pado/DD)

Senate Leader Zack Lindsay proposed the constitution go before the students in a referendum, allowing students to decide for themselves if they want the new constitution.

Co-chair of the Universal Committee Jessica Boehm said the West and Polytechnic campuses were already on-board with presenting the constitution as a referendum.

A referendum will also allow the Senate to implement the Universal Constitution as soon as they want following its passage.

The campuses (mainly West, Polytechnic and Downtown) have been working on the constitution since the summer in the president’s council and small groups.

Final edits to the constitution were made Thursday night at an unofficial meeting.

There were only two funding requests at Friday’s meeting. One was from the Radio Television Digital News Association for $3,050 to go to the APTRA conference.

Senate members were concerned about giving the organization funding because they had not sent a member to any of the required Inter-Club Council meetings this semester.

In the end, the Senate decided to fund RTDNA $400 to allow one member to go to the conference, but stipulated that the president could not be that member.

The other funding request was from Active Minds for $305 for posters, water and granola bars.

The Downtown student government now has $47,304.53 left in their budget to allocate for the rest of the year.