“Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking– stop telling you what to do?” –aa.org

“Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking– stop telling you what to do?” –aa.org

“Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking– stop telling you what to do?” –aa.org

The trustee committees are the most crucial forum for this advocacy. Last year, there were serious security concerns at CMC events. There was no money to divert to security efforts, because budgets were already being stretched (almost every club and organization received significantly less funding than they requested). As a result, the executive officers sought, lobbied for, and successfully enacted a small increase in the student fee. Almost every cent of the increase went to increased security efforts. The rest alleviated an already-stretched budget for student groups and activities. To me, this is a classic example of the student government fulfilling its Guardian Ethic. Student events were not safe, and the student went through the proper channels, fought against resistance, and enacted policy to resolve the situation.

Let’s also not forget the new no-loan financial aid policy; student government officers sat on both trustee committees that approved the policy change, and all of them stood resolutely behind the proposal.

When there were concerns about housing (a battle that still goes on), the five students on the Student Affairs trustee committee passionately and articulately voiced constituent opinions. The longest-serving member of the committee (who has since passed away) applauded the students, remarking that he had never witnessed such vocal and fervent student advocates.

When Madrigal was canceled, student government officers called together the powers-that-be, pushed, prodded, insisted, and eventually succeeded in keeping the tradition alive; without ASCMC, Madrigal would have died.

These are just a few of the examples of ASCMC’s advocacy from the last couple years. Few of them received any public attention, even in the tiny, gossip-spreading atmosphere of CMC. Why? Because it’s the job of the student government to advocate for students — not to brag about it. Perhaps ASCMC should be better about informing constituents of its activities, but it’s difficult. Remember that these representatives are also full-time students, that they leave campus over the same breaks as you, and that they have only a couple of years (sometimes only one year) to enact policies.

The trustee committees are the most crucial forum for this advocacy. Last year, there were serious security concerns at CMC events. There was no money to divert to security efforts, because budgets were already being stretched (almost every club and organization received significantly less funding than they requested). As a result, the executive officers sought, lobbied for, and successfully enacted a small increase in the student fee. Almost every cent of the increase went to increased security efforts. The rest alleviated an already-stretched budget for student groups and activities. To me, this is a classic example of the student government fulfilling its Guardian Ethic. Student events were not safe, and the student went through the proper channels, fought against resistance, and enacted policy to resolve the situation.

Let’s also not forget the new no-loan financial aid policy; student government officers sat on both trustee committees that approved the policy change, and all of them stood resolutely behind the proposal.

When there were concerns about housing (a battle that still goes on), the five students on the Student Affairs trustee committee passionately and articulately voiced constituent opinions. The longest-serving member of the committee (who has since passed away) applauded the students, remarking that he had never witnessed such vocal and fervent student advocates.

When Madrigal was canceled, student government officers called together the powers-that-be, pushed, prodded, insisted, and eventually succeeded in keeping the tradition alive; without ASCMC, Madrigal would have died.

These are just a few of the examples of ASCMC’s advocacy from the last couple years. Few of them received any public attention, even in the tiny, gossip-spreading atmosphere of CMC. Why? Because it’s the job of the student government to advocate for students — not to brag about it. Perhaps ASCMC should be better about informing constituents of its activities, but it’s difficult. Remember that these representatives are also full-time students, that they leave campus over the same breaks as you, and that they have only a couple of years (sometimes only one year) to enact policies.

The trustee committees are the most crucial forum for this advocacy. Last year, there were serious security concerns at CMC events. There was no money to divert to security efforts, because budgets were already being stretched (almost every club and organization received significantly less funding than they requested). As a result, the executive officers sought, lobbied for, and successfully enacted a small increase in the student fee. Almost every cent of the increase went to increased security efforts. The rest alleviated an already-stretched budget for student groups and activities. To me, this is a classic example of the student government fulfilling its Guardian Ethic. Student events were not safe, and the student went through the proper channels, fought against resistance, and enacted policy to resolve the situation.

Let’s also not forget the new no-loan financial aid policy; student government officers sat on both trustee committees that approved the policy change, and all of them stood resolutely behind the proposal.

When there were concerns about housing (a battle that still goes on), the five students on the Student Affairs trustee committee passionately and articulately voiced constituent opinions. The longest-serving member of the committee (who has since passed away) applauded the students, remarking that he had never witnessed such vocal and fervent student advocates.

When Madrigal was canceled, student government officers called together the powers-that-be, pushed, prodded, insisted, and eventually succeeded in keeping the tradition alive; without ASCMC, Madrigal would have died.

These are just a few of the examples of ASCMC’s advocacy from the last couple years. Few of them received any public attention, even in the tiny, gossip-spreading atmosphere of CMC. Why? Because it’s the job of the student government to advocate for students — not to brag about it. Perhaps ASCMC should be better about informing constituents of its activities, but it’s difficult. Remember that these representatives are also full-time students, that they leave campus over the same breaks as you, and that they have only a couple of years (sometimes only one year) to enact policies.

Another, issue is the election process, someone suggested a presidential debates like at many other colleges around the country. Our elections process limits the amount of words one can post on the forum, allows candidates 2 minutes to describe their plans, allows candidates to spend $40 to promote their campaign and prevents the use of email, facebook etc. The point is, there is no incentive for a candidate to talk about anything substantive. At a school this small, it is like convincing a mob to love you rather than discussing issues.

Party Planning is important and it accounted for in the document. In fact, 5 out of the 7 (DAC, SLC, SAC, and Class Presidents) elected positions are directly evolved with putting together social events as their primary functions. The CO Chair is charged with manging roughly 25% of the budget which goes to clubs and so forth. Then there are a couple big items like yearbook, concerts (no included in general parties), and madrigals etc.

My critique, is that ASCMC has become to narrow focused about what social events mean and they do not flex their muscle when it comes to campus issues. That is because students DO NOT tend to to see ASCMC as vehicle to lobby the administration and because ASCMC (and its officers) do little to promote that capacity. For example, the DAC can be about TNC but also about throwing a dorm room competition, shed light on dorm issues, or have a professor speak to a dorm causally every semester, this used to be a tradition. ASCMC would respond with, well if dorm presidents wanted to they could make that happen, well how do they know they could do that. The same argument comes to club leaders, many clubs do not spend their money, ASCMC cuts funding and says well it is their fault. But did ASCMC do enough to make the system easy to understand.

Just some thoughts.

Another, issue is the election process, someone suggested a presidential debates like at many other colleges around the country. Our elections process limits the amount of words one can post on the forum, allows candidates 2 minutes to describe their plans, allows candidates to spend $40 to promote their campaign and prevents the use of email, facebook etc. The point is, there is no incentive for a candidate to talk about anything substantive. At a school this small, it is like convincing a mob to love you rather than discussing issues.

Party Planning is important and it accounted for in the document. In fact, 5 out of the 7 (DAC, SLC, SAC, and Class Presidents) elected positions are directly evolved with putting together social events as their primary functions. The CO Chair is charged with manging roughly 25% of the budget which goes to clubs and so forth. Then there are a couple big items like yearbook, concerts (no included in general parties), and madrigals etc.

My critique, is that ASCMC has become to narrow focused about what social events mean and they do not flex their muscle when it comes to campus issues. That is because students DO NOT tend to to see ASCMC as vehicle to lobby the administration and because ASCMC (and its officers) do little to promote that capacity. For example, the DAC can be about TNC but also about throwing a dorm room competition, shed light on dorm issues, or have a professor speak to a dorm causally every semester, this used to be a tradition. ASCMC would respond with, well if dorm presidents wanted to they could make that happen, well how do they know they could do that. The same argument comes to club leaders, many clubs do not spend their money, ASCMC cuts funding and says well it is their fault. But did ASCMC do enough to make the system easy to understand.

Just some thoughts.

Another, issue is the election process, someone suggested a presidential debates like at many other colleges around the country. Our elections process limits the amount of words one can post on the forum, allows candidates 2 minutes to describe their plans, allows candidates to spend $40 to promote their campaign and prevents the use of email, facebook etc. The point is, there is no incentive for a candidate to talk about anything substantive. At a school this small, it is like convincing a mob to love you rather than discussing issues.

Party Planning is important and it accounted for in the document. In fact, 5 out of the 7 (DAC, SLC, SAC, and Class Presidents) elected positions are directly evolved with putting together social events as their primary functions. The CO Chair is charged with manging roughly 25% of the budget which goes to clubs and so forth. Then there are a couple big items like yearbook, concerts (no included in general parties), and madrigals etc.

My critique, is that ASCMC has become to narrow focused about what social events mean and they do not flex their muscle when it comes to campus issues. That is because students DO NOT tend to to see ASCMC as vehicle to lobby the administration and because ASCMC (and its officers) do little to promote that capacity. For example, the DAC can be about TNC but also about throwing a dorm room competition, shed light on dorm issues, or have a professor speak to a dorm causally every semester, this used to be a tradition. ASCMC would respond with, well if dorm presidents wanted to they could make that happen, well how do they know they could do that. The same argument comes to club leaders, many clubs do not spend their money, ASCMC cuts funding and says well it is their fault. But did ASCMC do enough to make the system easy to understand.

Just some thoughts.