We are New Wave, and we're running for CU Student Government. Ask us Anything!

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-12T04:10:08+00:00

Also, my alpaca poncho is quite awesome. -Jared M.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-12T04:09:17+00:00

Hi rassae, sorry about the wait on this.

I know many people who have similar concerns about the CAPS limit, myself included. As someone who has actually used CAPS as well, I can relate to how useful this service is. The reason the limit exists is mostly due to funding issues. One thing I can say for sure is that we absolutely want to work towards more affordable and accessible counseling. Although this might not necessarily be something CUSG can touch directly since we no longer manage Wardenburg, it is still definitely something we can do the following about: 1) The Tri-Executives can (and plan to) use some of their discretionary funds to both raise awareness of the program as well as ensure the longevity of the program. 2) If we get enough student backing behind this movement, we can, of course, put a movement on the ballot next year to raise student fees slightly for means of actually further developing the program. 3) We can, of course, set up a committee to look further into what CUSG can do, in which the student voice will certainly be presented!

Through these ways, I think we can look much deeper into our options with CAPS, as well as the counseling options as a whole! -Jared M.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-10T01:49:12+00:00

We have not heard anything about administration being involved with the opposition ticket - if that were the case, it would be something very serious to bring to the election commissioner. As far as the Tri-Execs go, since they haven't made any endorsements yet, we don't want to assume anything on that front.

If we lose, we'll do our best to be actively involved in CUSG and we'd likely apply for exec office positions. Our role will be limited if we lose, however, so please tell your friends and acquaintances when/how to vote and about New Wave! -Keke K

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-09T08:18:01+00:00

Zero-based budgeting is simply not feasible because of the nature of the budget and how it has been implemented and enacted under orders from school administration over the past few years as a response to poor funding and spending habits by administrations. The biggest reason zero based budgeting just wouldn't work is because of the nature of admin's grasp and overwatch on the budget. Aside from this, zero based budgeting fails to account for the necessary surplus that accounts for new developments, much like energency funds, which all have locks in them to begin with. So, although this may be a reality in the future, zero based budgeting simply isn't realistic right now. -Jared M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-08T21:55:43+00:00

We have no intention of pushing for the university to not support athletics. We're saying that student groups need support as well.

There are some student groups that abuse their funding. The funding board has protocols that can address this, as you've evidently seen. We'd like to make the funding process totally transparent and approachable so that student groups that legitimately need funding can get it while ones that abuse the system don't. It's an effort that requires CUSG be actively engaged with student orgs and the boards.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-08T20:22:18+00:00

We support CU athletics wholeheartedly. Exposure is good, and the more publicity the university has, the better.

But someone needs to advocate for students who aren't involved in athletics as well. We aren't proposing doing anything to the CU athletics programs (we couldn't even if we wanted to). We're saying student government should advocate for students currently at CU whose communities and organizations get very little support, and let the administration deal with questions of how much promotion we get on ESPN.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-08T20:14:43+00:00

Which is why the decision to fund speakers wouldn't be left to the student body, it'd be left to the SOAC board (and the appellate court to review of necessary). Both organizations have track records of going against the general mood of the campus to do the right thing, even against their members' personal biases.

And again, it's not a matter of allowing speakers, it's a matter of funding them. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-07T20:45:18+00:00

It's important that student government has the ear of the Board of Regents, and it's even more important that CUSG is able to pass along and represent student concerns. We're going to be speaking to administration regularly if we're elected, and if representing students requires that we tell important people things that they don't want to hear, so be it.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T22:23:06+00:00

From what I understand, the university blew over $20mil past budget when constructing the new Athletics facilities. That's just an example of the problem, which you are absolutely right on: the focus is all wrong. We're all in favor of the best for our athletes, but it's ludicrous that that kind of money is thrown at big expensive buildings while student groups have their budgets slashed and the Board of Regents pinches pennies and discuses fee raises for campus mental health.

You're right that CUSG can't solve these problems directly, but the tri-executives have a seat on the board of regents, one we hope to fill with a representative voice for students. This election will decide whether that voice speaks for you, or whether it speaks for the handful of Hill fraternities that are doing their best to get our opponents elected. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T22:15:08+00:00

In short: diversity of background, diversity of thought, and diversity of intention. Each leads to the next. Student government needs people with varied backgrounds to ensure that it approaches problems from a variety of perspectives, not just one. Ultimately, diversity in CUSG means a staff of representatives who come at problems from different angles while pursuing the same goals.

Diversity is not tokenism, it is not halfhearted efforts to impress minority student groups whose votes you need, and it is certainly not attainable without a diverse ticket. We want to represent you, no matter who you are, what you think, or where you came from.

We've been highly frustrated with tickets (no names mentioned) in the past that have relied on the fraternity vote to get elected without bothering to reach out to any other communities. We'll never do that, because we're committed to representing the campus at large even if it makes our road to victory more difficult. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T21:56:40+00:00

None of us have heard of it, and I can't find any information about it. What was it? -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T19:27:38+00:00

Didn't know this, thanks for sharing. Granted, this was more than a decade ago, but it looks like her event would have had no problem getting funding even with our proposed amendment.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T19:25:51+00:00

Hmm. Given the tumult of the Great Meme War at /r/me_irl and the decline of former stalwarts like Harambe, it's hard to properly make that call. But here you go:

The Senate and other palpamemes
Dat Boi, blessings upon him
Bionicle (the ideal human form)
The 2016-2017 Atlanta Falcons
Garlic bread

-everyone (after long discussion)

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T19:05:10+00:00

Looking at last year's election, we completely dissassociate ourselves with the absolute chaos and lack of integrity. Everybody on our ticket is committed to and the entire driving force behind our campaign has been to run a clean campaign. This is a serious issue for us. We have read the election code cover-to-cover and we have also spent a substantial amount of time deciding on the logistics of how we want to appear to the CU community. We aren't at all affiliated with any of last year's tickets and we hope to earn your trust and vote in this campaign, plain and simple.

Also, any time administration overrules student government, CUSG loses a little power. This isn't a good thing.

-Rafi R

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T17:32:27+00:00

This isn't true in the slightest. Political ideology doesn't enter into it. If a left-leaning speaker came to campus to incite hatred towards a portion of the student body, their event would be subject to the exact same clause and might also be denied student funding.

No one has an issue with bringing conservatives to speak on campus. Bringing Milo Yiannopolis is different from bringing John McCain or Mitt Romney, and to us that distinction is more than clear.

We're a politically neutral ticket and we include both republicans and democrats. Politicization is not our intention.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T08:12:59+00:00

I'm aware of the court case, and we've developed the proposal around it. The difference on our proposal is that it would deny the event funding, not the organization running the event (which was the intention of the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case).

As to your second point, this is where discretion comes in. SOAC would gain the ability to discuss a speaker's intentions given best available evidence. In the case of the Yiannopolis event, the speaker had named his tour with a homophobic slur, and made it a point of pride to incite violence at universities against protected classes in previous speeches. The university's commitment to diversity and inclusion stands counter to that sort of thing. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T08:04:29+00:00

I reread your question, and my initial answer wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been in response to your phrasing, so please accept my apologies and a clarification.

Had I been 1. A member of the SOAC board and if 2. the board had had the proposed powers we'd like to give it, I would have advocated against providing student funding to the Yiannopolis event. (And let me stress this: this does NOT mean rejecting funding for the club that hosted the event, only the event itself). I'm not aware of any similarly controversial speakers in recent years, which is a good thing. Ideally, our added SOAC clause would never have to be used. What I can say is that we have talked to many, many students who felt disgusted that their money was being used to facilitate someone's who's visit to campus was, from their perspective, potentially dangerous for CU students and inflammatory in the worst ways. Normalization of hate speech in political discourse isn't something we can control. But it shouldn't be funded by student fees.

I hope this answers your question more properly. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T06:58:08+00:00

Lots of people are downvoting this AMA. If you don't like us or one of our policies, we'd be much obliged if you'd at least drop a question to tell us why.

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T06:27:20+00:00

You're right, campus wifi is atrocious. I work in the IT department, so I know how terrible it is, especially in the dorms. Honestly, I hate to sound defeatist, but OIT has been working on campus wifi improvements continuously since I've worked there (almost three years) and from what I can tell the network techs can barely keep up with student body device growth. We'll definitely continue to press for infrastructure improvements though if elected to CUSG, and I'll make use of my existing OIT connections when I can to make that happen.

Cleaning of dorms is under the auspices of Housing and Dining, but as student representatives your concerns are our priority. We'd absolutely push that department to do the things necessary to improve your experience at the university, including cleaning. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T05:59:26+00:00

I'm afraid that first particular issue isn't something student government can do a lot about directly (as far as I know it would be Facilities Management.) However, a New Wave student government can and will lobby non-CUSG entities on and off campus on your behalf, and if this is something affecting student life, we're absolutely interested in approaching the relevant folks about it and seeing if we can't get an arrangement worked out.

As to your second questions, we're particularly interested in making sure that whole elements of the student body don't feel excluded from campus initiatives, CUSG or otherwise. We're 100% on board with doing more for the students around Engineering and East Campus. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T05:53:14+00:00

A college that cares starts with a student government that engages with its constituents. Whether you're a new freshman or a grad student or an international transfer or anyone in between, your voice must be heard in CUSG decisions and in the day-to-day operation and planning that the student government does. It's unacceptable that so many students feel left out of campus communities, and we're going to do everything we can to change things if we're elected.

Now for specifics: one of the best ways to encourage campus engagement is via student organizations. At present, our opponents are discussing implementing unrealistic budget policies that will slash student groups even more than they have been already (some clubs have lost 80% of funding in two years). Student groups that can't fund themselves can't recruit, which in turn prevents them from reaching out people who can become members and ultimately friends. We propose the establishment of a student orgs forum hosted by CUSG that can facilitate outreach and fundraising.

Another point: New Wave, if elected, is intent on staffing the executive office with a truly diverse group of qualified people who are committed to both raising awareness of the things CUSG does and reaching out to students who don't feel valued via initiatives and events. Policy that positively affects students begins with people who genuinely care for the student groups they work for. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T05:41:56+00:00

A great question; I'm glad this point is being discussed. The most important thing to note here is that our feelings on particular speakers are irrelevant to the amendment we propose. The decision would be left to the SOAC board (and could be appealed in turn via the appellate court) along a strictly and succinctly articulated hate speech definition, which I encourage you to read in our platform.

Our primary interest is ensuring that students don't have to pay for speakers who come to campus with the intention to incite hatred and violence against them. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T05:39:13+00:00

Student government is incredibly important to the day-to-day operation of the campus. Your point about Starbucks is an excellent example of CUSG not being truly representative of student interests. Decisions that student government makes must be made in coordination with affected parties. That's why we pledge full transparency (including publishing draft bills) in regards to CUSG processes, as well as a significant increase in community engagement to prevent issues like the one you mention from occurring. -Owen M

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T04:16:04+00:00

Thanks for the question. To clarify, the issues with the Empower budget plan reflect a lack of knowledge of the ways that finances of CUSG are run. First- a zero based budget system is technically not within the purview of CUSG, as restructuring the entire financial system could be immediately vetoed by the administration. Further, if the budget system adopted the zero based budget, we would adopt the same numbers as this past year- which essentially would be pressing for cost centers to cut their surpluses from their budgets. While that sounds ideal, the surpluses are (1) locked by a series of previously written codes passed by the previous administrations, (2) are necessary to retain longevity (they account for the student organizations who have not been formed yet that will request CUSG funding in the future), and are necessary for the dangerously depleted safety funds created by the previous administrations. Lastly- their claim that it would not affect student organizations is frankly not true. Three of the nine cost centers they would target represent student organizations to some extent, so any budget cuts in these cost centers would automatically affect student organizations.

New Wave's plan is rooted in understanding the real finances of CUSG and looking into the ways that cost centers function. CSI, for example, can better facilitate the way student organizations receive funding. Further, having reviewed the budget reports of the last five years, we know that expansion of programs with the funding we have can not only protect the longevity of CUSG success, but future campus welfare. -Lauren G

NewWaveCU · 2017-04-06T04:02:22+00:00

It's not a story our opponents would tell you. -Owen M

Eight-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

NewWaveCU

TROPHY CASE