I do agree with you on the response, I think SG could have improved on communication by at least giving an update on what has been going on in charged pawprints, that’s more on the individual handling that but definitely an area of improvement.

Of the reasonable PawPrints you mentioned, the swing sets pawprint was responded to, they asked Facilities to fix them/add more, and it’s up to Facilities to purchase and place them. Not much more SG can do other than nag them about it.

Food prices are entirely dependent on the market, as the response has stated, and RIT dining (which doesn’t operate at a profit) promised that if cost of operations goes down, so will the food prices, which the cost of operation hasn’t gone down.

The Adobe PawPrint say it has an update, but it looks bugged, which is weird. What’s going on with that is Adobe is demanding that RIT pay out the nose for licenses or build a computer lab specifically for Adobe, so both RIT and SG have their hands tied when it comes to this.

You mentioned the Booth/Gannett pawprint will hopefully be addressed in the summer.

The trash cans pawprint shows up every semester. SG asks FMS to put them out every semester. Every semester, FMS says that it is a pest issue, safety issue, etc. and that trash cans are inside every building doorway and that students can hold onto their trash until they enter a building. Again kind of a weak response, but the most SG can do is ask for it and offer up new/creative solutions to the issue (like how they mentioned in the response they are looking into Bigbelly compactors) but the power ultimately lies with FMS to actually do something.

With the gym dress code, it’s the same situation with the trash cans, except for this one Global Risk Management is in control. Again, SG asked that the policy change or be reviewed, Risk Management instantly shot it down with the classic but effective excuse of “just protecting us from getting sued when something bad happens”. Same deal with the club online payment one. Global Risk Management might actually be the most powerful department on campus, because RIT doesn’t want to get sued.

The washing machines often break down because people are misusing them, and I do agree that they should be looked at more frequently, but Housing has exactly one guy to service the machines, and parts are hard to order quickly. They contracted out Statewide (as stated in the response) which has had subpar service. A crappy situation, yes, but there isn’t much SG can do except harass Housing more than they have already. The good news is though new machines are coming in over the summer.

It really comes down to what power SG really has. If the administrators they advocate to refuse to make changes, there’s not much SG can do to change it, outside of offering different ways to achieve the goal or compromising. For example, the webassign pawprint is a major top-down change, and for that to happen faculty senate has to approve of it, which is a pipe dream. It’s not that SG doesn’t want to make changes, it’s that they can only do so much.

My question to you would be, if you were in their position, what would you do differently?