SGB concerned about representation

The issue of who represents Pitt’s student body is being contested, according to Student… The issue of who represents Pitt’s student body is being contested, according to Student Government Board. The board is concerned about the advisory council created by Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and Dean of Students Jack Daniel. But Daniel said he’s not trying to step on anyone’s toes.

According to SGB member Liz Culliton, a memo, which will likely be released some time next week, is currently being written that will address in detail “exactly how we feel” about the Dean’s Student Advisory Council. Daniel assembled the DSAC in October to advise him on “a wide array of issues” and provide those students with “an ongoing communication forum.”

Several SGB members have expressed concerns that the council, which first addressed issues involving governance status, was taking too much responsibility usually reserved for SGB. Recently, they have addressed issues such as reform of the Student Organization Resource Center and who, if anyone, will assume responsibility for the Homecoming king and queen races.

“The whole board is united on this issue,” Culliton said.

SGB President Kevin Washo Jr. echoed concerns that he was disturbed with the council’s growing influence.

“I don’t have issues with other students being involved in decision making,” Washo said. “What I have issues with is the administration going to the advisory council for advice on issues when they should be coming to student government.”

Washo serves on the council, which is comprised of the leaders of several student organizations, including all governance-level groups, as well as the College of General Studies Student Government and SGB. Daniel billed the DSAC as “a partnership for progress” in the memo that charged the group Oct. 2, 2002.

Daniel said that, with Washo on the council, he was surprised and disappointed to hear about the concerns.

“I’m not trying to usurp responsibility from anybody,” he said. “The committee is only advising me on things I ask them.”

Daniel added that the council did not exist to make changes.

SGB member Andrea DeChellis said SGB is less concerned with specific issues than the overall “general consistency, leadership and respect for student group autonomy.” She added that the memo will incorporate input from student groups.

“We’ve already approached several of the groups involved in DSAC who are in support of our basic statement,” she said.

Culliton said Daniel is being “very exclusionary,” pointing out that some nongovernance groups are represented on the council, such as Campus Women’s Organization and Rainbow Alliance, but others are not. She also pointed out that the council, which is scheduling meetings with Chancellor Mark Nordenberg and Provost James Maher, has gone beyond discussing governance and government status and into other issues.

“Half of the issues shouldn’t have been discussed,” she said.

Groups applying for governance or government status under the current policies must first apply to SGB, who issues a recommendation to Daniel. Daniel must then use his own criteria to either approve or deny the group’s status. Governance groups – there are now eight at Pitt – are able to apply for more money from SGB allocations. Reform of the current system has been discussed since last year, when Asian Student Alliance became the first group to be granted governance status in decades.

Concerned SGB members pointed to Homecoming king and queen as an example of a place where they felt the council had no place. Omicron Delta Kappa, who has sponsored the race in recent years, has recently said that they no longer want to take responsibility for the event.

Daniel said he had not asked the DSAC for any concrete suggestions; instead he formed a subcommittee to answer basic issues such as “what kind of core values should be reflected” in the race and in whose “locus of responsibility” it should be. He added that he did not know SGB was interested in handling the event’s transition.

“No one stopped them from doing that,” he said. “If student government wants to handle and resolve what they’re doing with Homecoming … they’ve got it.”

Blue and Gold Society has expressed interest in taking charge of the race, according to Daniel.

“I’m not trying to decide that,” he said. “I’m just trying to facilitate.”

DeChellis responded by saying that Homecoming was not the point, but that the concerns stemmed from an overall feeling of exclusion.

“At best, it’s inconsistent,” she said. “At worst, student organizations have had administration give other groups the opportunity to dictate their role.”

Washo emphasized that student government, not the leaders of student organizations, were elected to represent the student body and were being excluded from that job.

“In the end, the people students voted for are not being made in the loop,” he said. “If you don’t have the student government fighting for you … where’s the centralized voice?”

Daniel said he was disappointed that anyone with concerns did not approach him or Student Life director Birney Harrigan.

“I would wish that they would have discussed that with Associate Dean Harrigan,” he said, adding that the one group that had contacted him, CGS’ student government, had met with several administrators including the chancellor and had reached a resolution and were taking “positive steps forward.”

Washo said he has communicated with administrators about some of his concerns, which included the fact that the DSAC has been asked to consider certain aspects of SGB’s operation.

“I’ve talked to them about the frustration aspect,” he said, saying that SGB is planning an internal audit of allocations. “I think we check ourselves.”

Washo also expressed concern that the changes being made in Student Life were not taking student government’s input into account.

“I think it’s very sad that the resources we had at one time have been slashed and burned,” he said, adding “do you have to have your hand in everything?”

Pitt Program Council Executive Board director Jocelyn Gamble, a member of the DSAC, confirmed that the council has been asked to address the SGB allocations process, as well as governance and government groups, but said she didn’t think the council should make the decisions.

“That should be up to SGB to change those criteria,” she said. “It shouldn’t be that the administration tells student organizations what to do.”

Gamble said she feels the DSAC is a “platform for leaders of student organizations to voice their concerns” and that it is an important outlet for student leaders to talk to administrators because contact with them is often difficult and SGB is usually accessible.

She added, though, that she understood SGB’s concerns.

Washo and DeChellis both alluded to the fact that the Student Advisory Council is a good idea that could be better operated under the leadership of SGB.

“Perhaps the biggest mistake of student government is that we missed the opportunity to form an advisory committee on our own,” DeChellis said. “And that is precisely what we aim to do now.”

Washo said he was disappointed, also, in not being informed of the appointment of Black Action Society adviser Michelle Scott Taylor to the position of assistant to the dean, but that he had faith in Taylor’s experience.

“I would have like to be informed,” he said. “Where’s the partnership for progress?”

Daniel said the promotion was not official, but just a working title to reflect additional responsibilities given to Taylor.