The Conclusion to Goldstein-Gate

As some of you remember, earlier in the semester there was some controversy about Jen Goldstein, a student court judge who it was discovered was also serving as a Program Board eboard member. James Bonneau, former (and potential future) JEC investigator was brought on to conduct an independent investigation. Here are his findings, presented unabridged and unedited:

-------------------------------------------------------

Findings of SA Special Investigation

      On October 12^th, I was appointed by Vice President for Judicial and Legislative Affairs Jordan Chapman to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Ms. Goldstein's appointment and confirmation as the Student Court Chief Justice, her appointment as the Program Board Political Activities Chair, as well as those members of the SA Senate and Executive who were aware of her conflict of interest.

      The following findings were the result of the sworn statements and questioning of numerous members of the SA Senate and Executive.

Timeline of Events

• Mar. 29^th – Ms. Goldstein applies to be Justice on the Student Court.
• Apr. 7^th – Ms. Goldstein applies to be the Program Board Political Activities Chair.
• Apr. 18^th – Ms. Goldstein is nominated to the Student Court by former SA President Aswani.
• Apr. 21st – Ms. Goldstein is confirmed as a Justice on Student Court by acclimation.
• Early Sept. – Senator Komo is the first Senator to become aware of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict and notifies Senator Baker.
• Late Sept. – Senator Baker notifies the rest of the Senate leadership including Senators Ashida, Walsh, and Executive Vice President Lifton. Chief of Staff Curran is also notified.
• Early Oct. – Mr. Curran notifies President Bindelglass of conflict.
• Oct. 9^th – Ms. Goldstein resigns her Program Board position.

      Neither Ms. Goldstein nor Program Board Chair Tiffany Meehan could provide the official date that Ms. Goldstein became Political Affairs Chair. This date is one of significance due to the possibility that if Ms. Goldstein accepted the position before her confirmation as Chief Justice, she was not eligible to be confirmed in the first place. Therefore, depending on that date, Ms. Goldstein may or may not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate.
      Despite learning of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict of interest in mid-September of the 2009-2010 Academic Year, none of the Senate leadership, including Senators Baker, Ashida, Walsh, or Komo, as well Executive Vice President Lifton, acted to rectify the situation.
      It is apparent from several statements, that Senator Komo seemed in favor of the status quo because of his personal friendship with Ms. Goldstein.

      Both Senator Baker and Ms. Goldstein seemed to justify her conflict of interest by relying on a provision of the SA Charter that doesn’t permit the SA to discriminate based on an individuals’ membership in other student organizations. However, VPLJA Chapman argued that the Charter is moot in regards to whether a student could be a part of the leadership of another organization. This investigation cannot say definitely which interpretation is correct. The Board of Trustees it the only body with the jurisdiction to interpret the SA Charter.
      None of the aforementioned actors appeared to be concerned with the “technical” violation until several Senators began discussing impeachment proceeding against Senator Dobson. The situation was further compounded when Senator Marenna sued the Senate leadership after his suspension. Their concern stemmed from whether or not Ms. Goldstein (who would preside over the impeachment proceeding and the lawsuit) was eligible to serving on the Court.
      For better or for worse, President Bindelglass seemed largely unaware of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict of interest until notified by Chief of Staff Curran in early October. However, upon learning of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict, Ms. Bindelglass took the position Ms. Goldstein should resign regardless of whether or not the Charter permitted her to serve in both capacities.
      Based on this investigation, there seems to be a board sense of unwillingness to take action, despite the apparent violation of standard operating procedure. While some would note that Mr. Brand Kroeger openly served simultaneously as both the Chairman of the College Republicans and as a Justice on the Student Court, that is not a justification. Failure to enforce rules in the past is no excuse to not enforce the rules in the present.  The failure to act was not one of coincidence or chance, but one of deliberate knowledge.
      On the whole, it would appear the SA, particularly the Senate, follows their own rules when it best suites them, and disregards or reinterprets them when it does not. That said however, none of the members of the Senate or Executive at any time appeared to act with any malicious intent or intent to harm the student body.

      Pleasantly,

      James Bonneau

      Special Investigator

Attention whore

I'll be on WRGW's News In Depth on Sunday at noonish. Listen here if the desire strikes you. I'll be talking about the recent referendum, and maybe some other stuff, who knows.

If you've never listened in before, News in Depth is really a fantastic show with amusing hosts who run down the weeks news on campus and around the country with wit and insight.

Official Thank You Post

By this time, you know the Constitutional referendum failed. The students spoke by a 200 vote margin.

Thank you for putting up with all the posts about this. Barring any dying gasps and / or lawsuits, it's all finally over.

Today's the day!

Vote NO

NO

NO

http://my.gwu.edu/mod/elections/

WRGW Says: VOTE NO

A solid editorial here.

It focuses more on the no-one-cares angle, and says that a NO vote is the best way to send the right message to SA leaders: You work for us, so work on something we care about.

Choice passage:

Even more alarming, we believe that if the proposed SA Constitution is ratified, it only serves to mask the inaction of both the SA Senate and SA executive branch this semester and gives the SA an undeserving “vote of approval.” The SA has no notable advocacy achievements this semester.  There is no grand vision and agenda emanating from either the Senate or President Julie Bindelglass.  The passing of the Constitution will only give the illusion the SA is making progress, when in reality the new SA Constitution is a simple reshuffling of positions and titles, with no credible or drastic restructuring taking place which will allow the SA to function differently.

The Case Against the New Constitution

Perhaps unsurprisingly for a document conceived and written by SA senators and insiders, the new Constitution does a fantastic job at increasing the Senate's ability to feel self important while accomplishing nothing. The major changes in this constitution are steps backwards, away from accountability and advocacy, and towards irrelevancy and incoherency.

The backwards thinking starts with the most major of the changes; the de-democratization of the Senate leadership and then creation of a meaningless vice president. Currently, the chair of the Senate is elected by the student body. This allows the chair to be someone independent of the Senate, and able to exercise oversight on the body. The new constitution proposes to change this position from one elected by the students to one chosen by senators; in other words, they want to take someone who is accountable to the students and make him accountable only to their fellow SA tools. This is backwards.

Further, the new constitution gives the senate power to dictate exact terms to the executive branch's student advocates, also known as the vice presidents. These vice presidents, who advocate on a wide variety of issues, are often the most productive and effective advocates that the SA produces, usually doing far more than any senator. Therefore, in order to ensure that these advocates are dragged down to the levels of inefficiency achieved by the senate, the new constitution will allow the senate to dictate their advocacy schedule at the beginning of the year and impeach them for not following it. This is a serious hamper on student advocate's ability to adapt to new challenges and do their jobs for the betterment of all students.

Additionally, the new constitution contains a wide variety of useless and convoluted changes. Adding a new freshman assembly which has no power as well as increasing the size of the student court are meaningless gestures which do nothing for students. Creating new and useless positions is this constitution's bread and butter, the new figurehead vice president key among them.

Vote no on the new constitution to tell your senators: Stop dicking around. There are real issues that students need addressed, and this addresses none of them.

Real Vote Date

This Thursday, the 3rd. Officially.

99% sure.