When I was first elected senator of the class of 2009 two and a half years ago, I served under an executive president whose actions weren’t anything to write home about. At the time, I sat near the quiet freshman VMA senator who would one day become the legendary Scott Fisher.

Upon the beginning of his first term in 2007, Scott made great claims about his interests for the organization, hoping to restructure it to be a more productive entity. As the year progressed, however, these promises were broken as the organization acted only as a piggy bank for student clubs and did not work toward any particular issue. It was ironic SGA called itself an organization; “disorganized” was the best adjective to describe it. Another election quickly approached and I addressed my greatest concern with Scott: Will the organization work more cohesively next year? After a lot of talking, he promised success. Unfortunately, I can only sadly report a pattern of broken promises.

After Scott was re-elected, I began to recognize the same disorganization and misuse of power. In the fall of 2008, the SGA executive treasurer ignored her responsibilities by losing several financial documents and ignoring the questions of student groups. During this confusion, Scott never released any official statement to the leaders of organizations appeasing their concerns.

Scott did not address the concerns of organization leaders, but focused instead on another issue: gender-neutral housing. When Scott first presented the topic, it shocked many members of SGA, not because it was controversial, but rather because it was presented after student surveys were conducted without any prior input by the rest of the organization.

The same issue occurred when Scott presented his thoughts for the creation of two new positions for the board. After a lengthy discussion, SGA voted to forego the creation of the positions until further review, but during the following meeting, Scott approached the group with a student petition pushing the legislation-collected without the consent of the SGA and bypassing a formal vote. Most recently, SGA members learned only by reading The Beacon that Scott presented a letter signed “SGA President” proposing a tuition freeze to the Board of Trustees. This proposal was never presented to any SGA member.

Each of Scott’s campaign were intended to be, in my opinion, in the best interest of the student body. The issue at hand was that SGA was not working as an organization but rather just as one single individual. The point of a body of elected officials is to present varying opinions on one subject to work toward the best decision. By acting as an individual, Scott has consistently done a disservice to the student body.

i- Alli Bizon

Senior

Communication sciences and disorders major

The writer is senator of the class of 2009./i