The point of discussing or “complaining” here is to bring up needed changes in a public forum (here is one; sadly, SU meetings are very much NOT public since no non-SU students go). Students do DO things for these changes. Student Union just does not have a system that facilitates their doing so, and it should. Jeff Nelson spent a lot of energy last year to re-work the system to change how SU works–but he ended up pushing for a system that adds more bureaucracy without actually addressing the problems that existed before. And SU reps all went along with it because it was Jeff’s thing, and God forbid someone stand up and say, “Why are we doing this? It’s not re-focusing us on efficiency, equity, quality, or anything.” It’s the “go with the flow” attitude of SU that makes it ineffective.

That being said. Why do people spend so much time complaining? Either do something about or dont. Its pretty simple. All this complaining seems to be a pointless waste of time and energy.

I’m pretty sure SU has one of the worse group retention rates (or at least, on of the most publicized ones) because of the amount of time people have to put in it, not because it has “failure” and “fascism”- and really, did you actually just call SU FASCIST? that’s intelligent. anyway, all the other people resigned because of time problems and personal issues- trevor was the only one who resigned because he wasn’t happy with SU.

i think that, overall, we are making this far too overdramatic. in the end, SU is just a bunch of students that are trying to help the school. some do it by advocating on senate, others by helping figure out how to allocate a huge budget to many deserving clubs. articles like this, as well as most of the crap that comes from StudLife, makes it sound like SU is a huge ship that is hitting an iceberg. in reality, an exec resigned. BIG WHOOP. there are tons of other people working on other cool crap, who aren’t “fascist” or “failing”.

and to the idea that SU is self-selecting? I think it’s more the fact that most people wouldn’t care enough to get involved in SU, so those who do care stay involved for a while. I mean, there are Senate elections going on in the next few weeks…did any of you apply? Did I? No, I have a lot of other things to do, and I’m sure you do too. however, I respect all of those, both those who are previous SU members as those who are “outsiders” (and believe it or not, if you actually READ THINGS, they do run!), who took the time to apply/run.

… as most evident by his belief in checks and balances in SU. There are virtually none. Example? SU Treasury allocates its own budget to itself (and did you think that SUp All Night was worth the bucks?). Those checks and balances that do exist seem mostly to keep the same things in place and to resist change.

Really the point that I wanted to make in this forum, however unclear I’ve made it through all my banter, is that people who are bashing Trevor are completely foreign to the workings of SU. I am not surprised by him being misquoted in StudLife (isn’t everybody?… seriously) – but I am even less surprised by what his quote was supposed to be, according to Patrick Seaworth. Whether it was the bureaucracy that Trevor cited or the supposed “checks and balances” cited by the last commenter, the bottom line with Student Union is that the officials are a more or less self-selecting crowd who do not really want to challenge the system. They are there to buy into it. I do think the majority of them feel responsible to represent the student body… but they just aren’t good at it. My guess is that most SU reps were SU reps before they became deeply involved members of student groups (if they did at all), and so despite their best efforts, they are still seeing things from SU’s point of view and not genuinely from the perspective of the average student or average student group member. (And I am not speaking about ALL SU reps… I am just making an unfairly sweeping generalization about the group.)

SU probably has the worst retention rate of any student group on campus. This year, they’re dropping like flies over there. Anyone who is antagonizing individuals in favor of SU is at the very least failing to recognize the failure (and fascism?) of an organization that will shove on unwavering even when its own are falling under its wheels. SU reps serve in thankless, thankless jobs – and for what? If not to change students’ experiences at WashU for the better, then literally for nothing. From my perspective, Trevor’s resignation was smart not only to free himself to effect change on campus but also to publicize the painful shortcomings of the SU system.

mattea had some concerns with SU, yeah. from what I heard, he wanted to get some reforms passed, and both senate and treasury did not pass all of them. that’s not BUREAUCRACY, people, that’s called checks and balances. I think the fact that 50+ voting students did not like this one exec’s ideas and were able to vote it down is a good thing, not a bad one.

so everyone, please, chill out, and if you have an actual problem, try to DO something about it instead of complaining like children. and seriously, if you haven’t noticed, there are tons of people you can email about any of your questions, like the senators everyone is assigned, the speakers of treasury/senate, or hell, even jeff nelson would probably respond to you. lol

What would this accomplish? Besides immediately depositing a few hundred dollars each year back in your checking account, it would challenge SU’s very foundations. The Undergraduate Activities Fee, when collected from every undergraduate student, adds up to create SU’s entire 2 million dollar-plus budget. By declining to pay the activities fee, students could cause a serious drop in SU revenues. Fearful of seeing their budget shrink even further, the next semester, SU leaders would have no choice but to reform the system until it appears worthy of funding.

In my two terms in SU I saw countless examples of SU’s resistance to extra-institutional change. Working within the existing structure by changing election rules, electing new leaders, etc. won’t be effective — what is needed is a jolt to the structure strong enough to shake free the inefficiencies. Declining the Undergraduate Activities Fee would provide this jolt and force SU to be far more responsive to its constituents. If it isn’t, it will cease to have them.

no, what he said was, ‘i am not being let complete the things that i want to complete due to the internal errors in structure present within the student union and the bureaucracy that the union creates and perpetuates to the detriment of the students, and i’m not willing to continue that cycle of inefficient and dishonest representation to the students i intended to represent.’

way to slam a guy on his way out the door though.

best,
ps

There’s been talk about having debates during elections to really know where candidates stand which I think is a great idea. Stop letting elections go unopposed or we will continue having the same broken system. It sounds cheesy, but change IS possible, if we pinpoint those who are causing the broken system and run against them.

Keep coming to Senate and Treasury meetings and voicing your opinions. It really helps. It makes people uncomfortable and makes them rethink their ideals.

More over, it is often difficult to come into the office to ask questions or to speak with someone. The student workers dont know anything about the internal workings of SU, I’ll ask them questions and they have no idea how to respond. And the business managers are so overworked that they are either never there or there is a line to speak to them.

Tara also mentioned precedence, and I agree that people in SU have these invisible set of rules that they apply to some of their decisions. They based most of these precedents off of the senior representatives decisions and only mirror what they do.

Why would any1 want to be on exec? They have no power, they arent paid, people disregard their comments/statements, they sit in meetings for hours and are expected not to say much about the proceedings, and they are overseen by people in the administration (OSA).

ummm. doesnt sound fun to me… i much rather be dancing in diwali, in CS40 or tutoring kids in eoto.

My experience with SU is that its officials are not in fact entirely open to change, perhaps if for no other reason than that to do anything in SU, there’s a huge process you have to go through, and other things get in the way of it, and, well, I guess people get lazy.

If anything, it’s “funny” (read: sad) how I have spoken with many reps in SU who completely agree with me. Especially about which student groups get too much money. But they (or their peers) repeatedly vote one way just to get shit passed. Such complacency should be totally unacceptable. But it is accepted because most SU officers are elected to their seat on less than a percent of the vote or because they ran unopposed. They therefore don’t really feel the obligation to represent their constituents as they should (or they do, and it is completely misguided). SU talks about jumpstarting student activism all the time but fails to understand that students will respond to ground-level action and not lofty State of the Union addresses and just more and more talk.

Oh yeah, and I am IN Student Union, as both a student group member and as an SU committee member. So… my experience is not limited to a few conversations. I am speaking to a pretty comprehensive experience, from inside and outside. I hope that other students who are not familiar with the inner workings of SU do get more involved – or at least more informed – so that more folks understand exactly the types of issues I am addressing here. If more students knew what was going on, I am sure they’d demand change.