1. History Lesson

    The reason why the SGB was moved from the Chaplain’s Office to Student Affairs:

    "there need to be more layers of bureaucracy to insulate PrezBo from shitstorms like the Minuteman fiasco".

    Also, the ABC is tightly linked with the administration-run SDA? Cause you can't get approval for spending without both groups signing off. How would the different moving parts of Student Affairs division mesh with this SGB merger?



  2. ummmm  

    learn your stuff. there are five governing boards, not just two.

  3. Anonymous

    Link to My Groups still needs the http:// prefix. Holla, copy editors.

  4. bjw2119  

    SGB is independently chartered in the University Statutes, and technically reports to the University Senate, although it is advised by the Office of Civic Action and Engagement under Student Affairs. Interestingly, OCAE also advises the Interschool Governing Board (for grad student groups spanning multiple grad schools and having some undergrads), which also reports to the University Senate. ABC is a creation of the 3 Columbia undergraduate student councils and is subordinate to them per the ABC Constitution, and reports to Student Development and Activities (not Barnard, who only funds ABC groups on an individual basis), which is an administrative office under CC/SEAS Student Affairs). SDA is an administrative office, as opposed to a (partially) elected governing body like the Senate. SDA also retains ultimate authority in decisions like whether or not to approve a new ABC student group, while the SGB operates essentially autonomously. Finally, the SGB has the sole authority to discipline its member groups.

    Were ABC to continue to pursue some sort of merger with SGB, the SGB's member groups would likely be loathe to give up their status as an entity autonomous from, though advised by, administrative bureaucracies, and would probably occur by the SGB de facto recognizing all ABC groups after changes to SGB's constitution, who would then gain the priviliges resulting from SGB's autonomy.

    The problem with the merger in practice is that you would have a governing board of 250 or so groups, which would make the duties of the SGB Representatives of the groups far more cumbersome or would require more Representatives to handle the additional portfolios of groups. Then the problem becomes trying to efficiently run a board of 4 offices and something like 15 Reps, up from 4 officers and 7 reps. People would probably want internal administrative structures like committees for handling different aspects of running things, and you'd end up creating the same student-generated bureaucracy that characterizes ABC today, except that you'd have subjected another 90 or so groups to that same bureaucracy.

    On a more experiential level, that would make it really hard for the SGB to promote any sort of shared community amongst its groups, which is easier to do now with groups unified by their value-centric missions and the relatively small hierarchy of the SGB (one Executive Board with 11 people, one General Body with a member from each of the SGB groups).

    All in all, a much more complicated task than it would appear on paper...

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.