Fee Question...

[stebo]

Edited - answered already. Thanks folks.

Edited September 23, 2008 by stebo

[woody82986]

I may be wrong, and probably am, but I believe that the SGA restructured in 2003 and wrote a new constitution and by-laws (after the last vote). I ran for student body president last year so I should know, but I don't think there is much the SGA can do with this if the vote fails as I interpret the SGA constitution and by laws. They can pass a resolution supporting the fee as an organization, that much I do know. I'm more than sure Jeff Kline can figure out a way to sneak around whatever is the written gospel for the SGA. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm just glad he would be able to do it for something I support. Of course, I might be totally wrong about this, but I take a more literal, narrow and conservative view on the SGA and it's governing documents.

[UNTflyer]

By law, the Legislature needs a vote from the student body OR the student government.

But we don't want to go the route of overriding the student vote, and I don't think we would need to.

[JesseMartin]

Exactly...the Const. and Bylaws are irrelevant...unless, of course, a civic-minded individual were to get SGA to include a bylaw saying that they wouldn't override the choice of the voting student body.

SGA doesn't have to ask the students, they can just do it. In 2002, they should have, because it's better to feel like you weren't asked than to find that your vote (literally) didn't matter to your elected leaders (who planned to do it if the vote failed far in advance of the election back then).

Also, if there is no SGA, then the students can have an ad-hoc committee formed in order to handle the issue if they do not want to fund an election. The odd part of that is that they'd have to pay for an election to elect the committee to handle the issue that would otherwise go to election. In lieu of this and many other student opinion/voice matters, the admin can appoint those students they feel should make the decision for the students.

Texas Legislature at its finest.

Proof that you're still better off with an SGA, since you can always remove or vote out your reps and execs. Without one, the admin picks your "voice" for you.

[ADLER]

Actually, and I may be in the minority for this, I don't think that an issue that will not affect students until more than 4 calendar years should be voted on by the student body. Please note that this does not include the current fee which will probably be enacted before that time.

That way you can have the most informed students (SGA representatives) deciding issues which would be in the best long-term interest of the university without having all these knee-jerk reactions and spontaneous fees added to existing students. Prospective students can then make their college selections fully informed of all the costs while the university could still afford to construct all the amenities necessary to create a top tier destination university.

Edited September 23, 2008 by ADLER

[JesseMartin]

I agree in situations such as this, especially if there is a "fee to begin in 20XX" addendum. The admin swore we would have to charge students the Rec Center fee the semester after the vote, so people paying for it might never use it. I basically said, "Okay, give me what you've got and I'll do my own research", because I didn't think the fee referendum would pass if that was the case. Lo and behold, the next day, it was magically possible to only charge after it opened. In such cases, it makes sense for the SGA to vote on it, since it won't affect most of the students anyway.

The biggest problem I have is telling people that their vote will decide the outcome, and then saying, "never mind, you didn't vote the way I wanted, so I'm overriding you." Since that had been the plan all along, why bother?

[TIgreen01]

By law, the Legislature needs a vote from the student body OR the student government.

But we don't want to go the route of overriding the student vote, and I don't think we would need to.

Why would we need to even risk having to override it if we don't have to have a student body vote in the first place? Or is the order of operation to FIRST hold a vote of the entire student body? This doesn't make sense...

[FireFightnJoey]

Actually, and I may be in the minority for this, I don't think that an issue that will not affect students until more than 4 calendar years should be voted on by the student body. Please note that this does not include the current fee which will probably be enacted before that time.

That way you can have the most informed students (SGA representatives) deciding issues which would be in the best long-term interest of the university without having all these knee-jerk reactions and spontaneous fees added to existing students. Prospective students can then make their college selections fully informed of all the costs while the university could still afford to construct all the amenities necessary to create a top tier destination university.

Hopefully the SGA and Admin are selling this point to the students and making it very visible. Also might be why there seems to be less oposition this time around.

[Censored by Laurie]

Wow this is a stupid thread.

Really? Thats interesting because I think there may be more pertinent examples for such a statement.

[JesseMartin]

Actually, I think it's more "everybody vs. the 2002 SGA".

And there is no order in which the votes need to take place. SGA could have voted at its first meeting if they didn't want to put it to a student vote. That's what made 2002 so stupid. They decided before the student vote was an issue that they'd override it if it didn't go their way (in the Exec Board, then convinced the Senators). All of those people have long since graduated. Hence, most peoples' hopes that recent and current student leaders have learned from the mistakes of the previous ones.

[stebo]

You know - I have to agree with you. I am going to erase the original topic. Good heads up.

[TIgreen01]

Pretty good examples.

In this case I meant that a thread like this is stupid because it shouldn't exist here. I can't understand why people insist on posting threads that give students more reasons to be against the stadium idea.

This thread also further enhances that us vs. them mentality that went a long way to defeat the last vote.

Ok, I can see how my post could be taken the wrong way. I still think that the approach here is all wrong, but won't debate it here anymore.

[Green Mean]

Pretty good examples.

In this case I meant that a thread like this is stupid because it shouldn't exist here. I can't understand why people insist on posting threads that give students more reasons to be against the stadium idea.

This thread also further enhances that us vs. them mentality that went a long way to defeat the last vote.

No dinky thread on this board is going to sway the stadium vote in a particular way. If the stadium vote does not pass its because the students that care to vote dont have a hoot about football, athletics, and/or a new stadium. Not to mention the athletic department will once again add another dropped ball to the program. This thread was not stupid.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Green Mean

[UNT_playmaker]

The vote will go through and pass, huge support from students and greeks on campus. I have a friend who is in the student senate and he is resigning the day after the stadium vote so that he can ensure everything goes as planned. SGA will probably override the vote if need be. They are going to get this done, finally.

[untgirl04]

The vote will go through and pass, huge support from students and greeks on campus. I have a friend who is in the student senate and he is resigning the day after the stadium vote so that he can ensure everything goes as planned. SGA will probably override the vote if need be. They are going to get this done, finally.

Wait, what? Usually I refrain from posting on this, but that is just STUPID if you typed that correctly. Let me get this straight: You have a friend in SGA who is resigning the day after the stadium vote because.....why? That makes absolutely no sense, and if he really is focused on fairly representing his constituents (which should have been the reason he ran in the first place), then why would he resign?

Your post (and your friend) give me tired head.

[UNTflyer]

As much as I have worked on this stadium, I do not want the SGA to override the student vote. We want to do this with the support of the students, and I believe we have it.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

As much as I have worked on this stadium, I do not want the SGA to override the student vote. We want to do this with the support of the students, and I believe we have it.

I am going to assume that the Athletics Department will send at least all of our scholarship athletes to vote "in favor" of the stadium correct?

[JesseMartin]

When properly motivated, athletes (with or without scholarships, and also from club sports) sometimes turn out in droves to vote. Not sure what the number is now, but around the end of the nineties we figured there were around 350 or so athletes involved in interscholastic competition at different levels. When the average election turnout is usually between 1000 and 3000, getting all of the athletes to vote in a bloc is a big sway.

[TIgreen01]

Wait, what? Usually I refrain from posting on this, but that is just STUPID if you typed that correctly. Let me get this straight: You have a friend in SGA who is resigning the day after the stadium vote because.....why? That makes absolutely no sense, and if he really is focused on fairly representing his constituents (which should have been the reason he ran in the first place), then why would he resign?

Your post (and your friend) give me tired head.

I have to agree. If we're hoping to give the anti-stadium crowd ammunition, Playmaker just hit a homerun with that last post. Can we get that crap removed asap?!

[JesseMartin]

Maybe he doesn't want to be blamed in case the SGA decides to try an override. If that's the case, let him know that the provious problem resulted in ONLY the Senators voting in FAVOR of the override being removed...and not even all of them, since some of the copies of the petitions had erroneously had pages left off of them. Either way...no override, still represent your peeps. Override vote, cast your vote in favor of upholding the students' choice. Then you're safe either way.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

Maybe he doesn't want to be blamed in case the SGA decides to try an override. If that's the case, let him know that the provious problem resulted in ONLY the Senators voting in FAVOR of the override being removed...and not even all of them, since some of the copies of the petitions had erroneously had pages left off of them. Either way...no override, still represent your peeps. Override vote, cast your vote in favor of upholding the students' choice. Then you're safe either way.

That is kind of what I am thinking. I would think the AD would get the athletes to go out and vote if they think it could be close.

[untgirl04]

That is kind of what I am thinking. I would think the AD would get the athletes to go out and vote if they think it could be close.

Even if they don't think it's close, the AD should still encourage the athletes to vote. While the stadium should have other uses and many others can enjoy it, it will a building designed specifically for them, and if they don't care enough to make their opinion known on the matter, maybe they should take a good look at why they're playing the sport. (Not saying they feel that way, just saying they should vote one way or another.)