The FinApp Committee meant this miserly counter-’offer’ as a rebuke of SAC for having refused to adopt some of GUSA’s six reforms for advisory boards—”in recognition that the Commission is in good standing with some, but not all, of the reform proposals,” in the words of the FinApp committee. But if the committee hoped its penny-pinching would coerce SAC into adopting the remaining reforms, for the moment, they’re going to be disappointed. In an e-mail to SAC club leaders sent today, SAC Chair Ethel Amponsah (NHS ‘11) tells clubs to brace themselves for the limitations the meager GUSA allocation will place on SAC allocation, even as it dips into its reserves.

“I would like to note that SAC has complied with 4 out of the 6 recommendations in an effort to compromise with the Committee,” she wrote. “The draft budget reduces SAC’s allocation budget by about 15%. Please consider how this will effect your organizational budget as this reduction will be felt across all SAC groups …. FinApp would like to mandate that SAC use the excess funds for its allocation budget. However, that is not sustainable as within two years the excess funds would be depleted and SAC would still receive insufficient funds from FinApp.”

SAC’s reserves, she said, are currently at $215,000, and the Office of Student Affairs has suggested that it should maintain reserves of at least $150,000.

In response to Amponsah’s claims, Chair of the FinApp Committee Nick Troiano (COL ‘11) said that SAC had only made good faith efforts towards completing three of the six reforms GUSA would like it to make. They are still not disclosing how their individual members vote on allocations, he said, they do not yet have a plan to spend down their reserves, and they do not have a method for picking their leadership that is accountable to the student body.

Read more, plus Amponsah’s full message after the jump, and a statement from members of the FinApp Committee after the jump.

“The real issue is that SAC groups should not be affected by our decreased allocation,” he said. “The excessive reserves SAC has kept is a result of their hoarding student activity fee money–it is wrong for them now to turn around and go on a spending spree and, at the same time, decrease the amount they allocate to groups.”

Troiano said that if they spend a combination of money from their reserves and money allocated from GUSA on their clubs, they can sustain themselves for at least four or five more years. Before their reserves hit the recommended level, GUSA should be able to increase the Student Activities Fee allocations to the advisory boards. But that doesn’t address the issue of the reforms.

“Speaking for myself, I will not support more than the draft allocation if they don’t make a good faith effort on the remaining three reforms,” Troiano said.

—

Amponsah’s e-mail to SAC clubs:

Hello student organization leaders,

I hope you had a relaxing Spring Break. Please review the following important information:

Decreased Allocation Budget

After the Finance and Appropriations Committee’s (FinApp) Budget Summit on 2/28, SAC has learned that the draft budget allocates $12,500 to SAC, less than half of what was requested. For the past two years, SAC has received $35,000 (08-09) and $25,000 (07-08) from the Student Activities Fee for its allocation budget. The marked decrease in funds will undoubtedly limit what SAC is able to fund. I am told that the decrease in funds is a result of SAC’s stance on FinApp’s 6 recommendations for advisory boards. I would like to note that SAC has complied with 4 out of the 6 recommendations in an effort to compromise with the Committee.

The draft budget reduces SAC’s allocation budget by about 15%. Please consider how this will effect your organizational budget as this reduction will be felt across all SAC groups. Additionally, we have just learned that securing a DPS officer next year will now cost nearly double this academic year’s price. With these factors along with rising space costs, new organizations, and a desire for more elaborate programming, the Commission will have to decrease allocations. We are considering a decrease in Standard Operating Budgets and are reviewing all allocations made. We value your input in this process and have created a survey about how your organization uses its Standard Operating Budget. We will also send out a general survey about your overall experience with SAC in the coming weeks.

Lastly, SAC has learned from the Office of Student Affairs that it should maintain its reserve funds at $150,000. Currently, the Commission has $215,000 in its reserve as per the former recommendation from Financial Affairs. FinApp would like to mandate that SAC use the excess funds for its allocation budget. However, that is not sustainable as within two years the excess funds would be depleted and SAC would still receive insufficient funds from FinApp. Instead, the Commission would like to use the funds to address some of your expressed concerns and needs such as space renovations and increased storage. Within our upcoming general survey, there will be an opportunity to express your opinions about how the funds should be used. I also encourage you to speak with your Commissioners, or e-mail me directly at sac@georgetown.edu with suggestions.

As always, thank you for your understanding.

All the best,

Ethel Amponsah

The FinApp Committee’s statement about SAC:

The GUSA Finance & Appropriations (FinApp) Committee draft Student Activities Fee Budget proposes allocating $12,500 to the Student Activities Commission (SAC), which is less than its request for $37,500. SAC’s allocation will be substantially increased once the Commission agrees to adhere to the 6-point funding reform plan.

Currently, SAC adequately complies with only three points of the plan. SAC maintains an appeals process for clubs denied funding, allows clubs reasonable control over funds they raise, and has begun a pilot program aimed at expanding the annual budgets of its organizations.

Unfortunately, SAC remains noncompliant with the three other points of the plan. First, SAC does not hold fully open meetings where the individual votes of commissioners are public. Second, SAC’s commissioners are neither elected nor accountable to the organizations they represent. Instead, SAC’s commissioners follow a secret application process that allows for the continued reappointment of its members. Third, SAC, like other advisory boards, has reserves far greater than recommended by the Vice President’s Office, however SAC does not have a plan to reduce its excess reserves. SAC’s current reserve is $215,000 while it should only be $150,000. That means SAC is holding $65,000 that could be allocated to clubs in need of support.

The GUSA FinApp Committee will allocate more student money to SAC once it agrees to open meetings where commissioner’s votes are made public, agrees to an election or confirmation process for its commissioners, and determines a realistic plan to reduce its reserves. SAC’s funding is contingent on these three simple and reasonable reforms with which every other advisory board is working to comply.

It is false that any decreased Student Activities Fee allocation to SAC for FY10 will limit funds for clubs. SAC is requesting $37,500 for FY10, however it currently holds $65,000 in excessive reserve money. Any decreased allocation to SAC can be recovered by its substantial reserves. There is no reason why any club should receive less funding when SAC holds thousands of excess dollars in reserve. In addition, all SAC clubs have access to the GUSA Fund where they will find support.

Student Activities Fee money is limited and should be spent responsibly by advisory boards that operate in a transparent, accountable, and efficient manner. SAC should be applauded for the effort they’ve shown on their budget pilot program and I’m very hopeful that SAC can show the same warmth for our other desired reforms. The GUSA Finance & Appropriations Committee looks forward to working with SAC this week in resolving this matter so that clubs can have the funding they need for the coming school year.

When you see a sophomore girl selling towels in Red Square next month to raise money for a charity, know this: she could have been in movies.

But lifelong surfer Emi Koch (COL ‘12) turned down that opportunity years ago to start an international non-profit to support opportunities for impoverished children instead. Now, she’s head of Beyond the Surface, International, a group that raises money to support centers where underprivileged children in Peru, South Africa, and India can learn to surf—a positive activity, Koch said, for children in poor communities where there usually aren’t alternatives.

“In Western society, we’re so used to have a Boy Scout group a Girl Scout group, or a volleyball club,” she said, “but there they don’t really have anything like that, so this gives them more self-empowerment and more self-confidence.”

In Peru, the first center that Koch’s non-profit sponsored, the center Beyond the Surface sponsors works with providing children with an activity after school. The second center is located in South Africa, where Koch said it serves as more of a rehabilitation clinic. Sniffing glue has become a popular drug addiction among the children in the community where the center is located, she said, and the surfing serves as a tool for rehabilitation. The third center, located in India, is dedicated to keeping kids out of violent street gangs. The center tries to get children off the streets by replacing their gang with a home in the life of surfing.

Koch didn’t always have non-profit work in her sights. She grew up in San Diego, California, where she began surfing at two and eventually surfed every day before and after school and as early as 6 a.m. on weekends. Her determination to surf professionally someday led her to work with a modeling agency. Eventually, her work as a model got her a shot to act in the movie Soul Surfer as Bethany Hamilton, the surfer who lost her left arm during a shark attack.

But after realizing that her dream of being a famous professional surfer might come true, Koch began to develop a very different perspective on her goals.

“It just became very superficial,” Koch said, after discussing her modeling deal, “Like I was just promoting myself. I wasn’t doing anything else for anybody—just for me.”

That really hit home, she said, when she started learning more about international poverty in high school. She turned down the deal for Soul Surfer, which is now in production with a different surfer starring as Hamilton. And then while volunteering in a Nepalese monastery one summer, she learned about Skate-a-Stan, an organization that provides skateboards for orphans in Afghanistan and gives them the opportunity for a meaningful hobby after school.

Once she got home, the idea for Beyond the Surface was born. She has been fundraising ever since, through her website and in person—last Tuesday, she found out that following a meeting she had over winter break with top members of Billabong, the surfwear company, Billabong is going to pay for her to take a trip to Peru and provide the kids there with free Billabong wetsuits and other items.

Koch says that although the country directors are the ones actually working in the centers, she plans on getting more involved internationally once she has graduated. Right now, she’s just focused on providing the best support she can from the United States.

“If the world was comprised of 100 people, only one person would have access to a computer and the opportunity to go to college,” she said she learned while she was in high school, “and from that point it was a total shift … I have the opportunity to go to college. I kind of owe it to those 99 other people to do something for them.”

Today, we’re running an accounting of the nine remaining restaurants whose two most recent food establishment inspection reports we acquired through a February Freedom of Information Act request. 

We found that Wisey’s, the Starbucks and the Cosi in the Leavey Center, Booey’s, Tuscany Cafe, the former Philly Pizza, and Midnight Mug were listed on at least one report as “medium-risk” establishments, mostly due to non-critical violations. Only two establishments, Vital Vittles and Hoya Snaxa, were never listed as risky establishments.

In total, they garnered 9 critical and 16 non-critical violations. Again, six critical violations that cannot be corrected on site result in the closure of the restaurant. Owners are usually given five days to rectify critical violations and 45  for non-critical violations or they risk closure.

COSI

An August inspection of the Cosi in the Leavey Center found three critical violations. The establishment was cited for needing to clean food contact surfaces and its “warewashing, sanitizing, frequency methods.”

“Resurface, clean, and sanitize cutting boards” for sandwich preparation areas and other cutting boards, the report said. “Adjust hot water on hand sinks in rear and prep area so [temperatures] reach 110 degrees; repair hot water gauge on dish machine.”

An inspection five days later confirmed that Cosi had corrected all of the violations, and a notice it had been given after the previous report was abated.

TUSCANY CAFE

An August inspection found that Tuscany Cafe had one critical and two non-critical violation. Several food storage units were missing thermometers, many food items were not labeled and dated, and employees were cited for personal cleanliness, although the only written note about employees was that they were seen not wearing either hats or hair restraints when handling food. The establishment was given five and 45 days’ notice to make corrections.

A subsequent inspection 20 days later found no violations and abated the five and 45 days’ notices, but still listed Tuscany as a medium-risk establishment, which is not uncommon for an inspection following up on a notice to correct violations.

The Corp, Wisey’s, and how gross Philly Pizza was, after the jump!

PHILLY PIZZA

Maybe it’s a good thing that Philly Pizza was shut down by the City. Although it was only ever given medium-risk status for its violations, a July 21 inspection found two critical violations and four non-critical violations. Another inspection one week later found that the same two critical violations had persisted.

On July 21, Philly Pizza owners were cited for poor pest control methods. Specifically, they could not produce a contract with a pest control service. Many of its food items were not properly dated, several refrigeration units were missing internal thermometers that would indicate if food risked spoilage, To Go pizza boxes were not being stored properly, and the owners could not produce a contract with a grease removal service, either.

On July 28, with a five and 45 day notice pending, an inspection found that the owners of Philly Pizza still could not produce a contract for either pest control or grease removal services. That afternoon, an inspector gave management until 6 p.m. that day to fax the licenses to the Health and Regulations Licensing Administration. The same inspection found that a refrigeration unit was storing sandwich components at 72 degrees, nearly 30 degrees above the maximum temperature.

Our FOIA request did not turn up a more recent inspection report, so we can only guess that Philly Pizza successfully remedied their violations, since it remained open.

THE CORP

The three establishments we looked into that are run by The Corp netted one critical violation, which was corrected on-site, and three non-critical violations.

• An April inspection of Midnight Mug resulted in one critical violation—employees were not wearing hair restraints. The violation was corrected on site and the inspector had no objections to renewal of their license. A September inspection cited Midnight Mug for having unclean equipment and food contact surfaces, a non-critical violation.
• An April inspection of Vital Vittles found no violations. A September inspection, however, cited Vittles for not having thermometers in all of their cold storage appliances to prevent spoilage and for needing to clean their freezers more thoroughly, both non-critical violations.
• Both the April and September inspections of Hoya Snaxa found no violations.

WISEY’S

A March, 2009 inspection found that employees at Wisey’s were not wearing hair nets or hair ties, had not properly sealed a basement door against rodents, did not have the proper number of sinks available (it was storing dishes in one sink), and did not have a test kit for sanitizing solution. All violations were corrected on site.

BOOEY’S

Our FOIA request turned up only one inspection report for Booey’s—an inspection filed in March 2009 that found no violations but abated a notice given in January.

“Gasket of freezer replaced; thermometers provided at all refrigeration units; … notice abated,” the inspection reads.

STARBUCKS

An October inspection of the Starbucks in the Leavey Center found three non-critical violations.

“Provide thermometer at reach-in refrigerator box,” the report instructs. “Clean counter surface, get rid of debris and dipped milk; Clean floor.”

An August inspection found no violations.

Carter Lavin wants to see the town-gown feud settled once and for all.

Russell Ballard couldn’t wait for campus to be all the way up and running again.

Vox had no idea that MSFS Professor Tony Arend was such a 3EB fan.

Brendan Griffiths felt all eyes on him and his snack choices in Lau.

And Kristen Janiszewski and Jennifer Colgan saw halcyon signs of Spring when they returned to Georgetown.

This year, Georgetown won $11,000 from corporate sponsors for the Washington, D.C. chapter of Teach For America, the most in the tournament’s history according to the MSB news website. They topped their $8,500 take from last year.

U4 is the longest-running league of its kind in the country. It took place over Valentine’s day weekend this year among 24 teams from 17 schools. The University of Chicago Booth School of Business took first, and Georgetown finished in the top six.

Vox

And its reopening with enough amenities to make you think you’ve wandered into a Barnes & Noble, maybe a mall. The new, 24-hour Safeway store will include a Starbucks bar, an indoor and outdoor seating area with a fireplace, WiFi, and HD televisions, a sushi bar, a gelato bar, and a dry cleaner’s.

Safeway is also boasting that this will be its ‘greenest’ store in the District, and it will seek LEED certification when it opens. LEED certification is awarded by the U. S. Green Building Council, a non-profit organization which bills the award as the “nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings.”

Safeway will continue its free delivery to Georgetown area codes for orders over $50 until it reopens. The code for free groceries is “FREE642.”

In the first, the suspect succeeded in gaining entry to a student’s residence.

“[T]he resident stated that he discovered the first floor of his home ransacked,” the PSA reads. “It is unknown if any items were missing.”

In the second, the suspect fled when a student discovered him trying to get into her house. From the same PSA:

“A student reported that she was awakened by an unkown male attempting to gain entry through a rear door. When the student turned on the porch light, the suspect fled the scene through the backyard and out the fence gate.”

Officers from the Metropolitan Police Department responded to the scene and is handling both investigations.

The student in the second incident, the attempted burglary, described the suspect as a tall male wearing a white shirt.

What’d we find? Well for starters, you’d better lay off the Epicurean sushi.

The 13 restaurants we looked at netted 30 critical violations and 29 non-critical violations of the health code. Four establishments, Leo’s, Epicurean & Co., The Tombs, and Bangkok Bistro were listed on at least one report as “high-risk” establishments. All of them had critical violations and were given five days to correct their violations or else their licenses would not be renewed.

These four establishments accounted for 20 of the critical violations and 14 of the non-critical violations in all 26 inspections reports. Six critical violations that cannot be corrected on site result in the automatic closure of the food establishment. Owners are usually given five days to rectify critical violations and forty-five for non-critical violations or they risk closure.

Because of the volume of information our FOIA requests turned up, we’ve divided the results into two posts. Tomorrow, we’ll give you the details on the restaurants that were identified as a medium risk or had clean bills of health. And today, we’ll run an accounting of the high-risk establishments, including startling information on Dean & Deluca that the Washington Examiner turned up in their review of health code violators.

EPICUREAN & CO.

Epicurean & Co., shown above, was the biggest violator, and was the only restaurant listed as a “high risk” violator on both of the inspection reports Vox obtained. In late August of 2009, Epicurean earned five critical and four non-critical violations, all of which were corrected on site. They included:

• Food was not properly “segregated, separated, [or] protected.” At the sushi station, eggs were stored in a way where they might contaminate other foods.
• The restaurant was cited for unclean and unsanitized food contact surfaces.
• The restaurant’s food marking and disposal methods were cited.
• Food and non-critical surfaces were not properly maintained.

Earlier in the year, in February, Epicurean had fared even worse, and inspectors discovered 13 critical health code violations, only nine of which were corrected on site.

Epicurean was given five days’ notice to correct the remaining four critical violations. According to the assessment form, if six critical violations that cannot be corrected on site during the inspection are found, the result is the “automatic closure and suspension of [the] food establishment.” The critical violations included:

• An employee was observed improperly washing his hands. He washed them with his rubber gloves on.
• A sushi chef was observed handling raw salmon with bare hands.
• The restaurant was not accurately keeping records of parasite destruction for its sushi products.
• The restaurant was cited for unclean and unsanitized surfaces. Cutting boards were found to have unsmooth surfaces that could trap food particles or bacteria.
• Food was not properly “segregated, separated, [or] protected.” Raw shrimp was found being stored above vegetables in the refrigerator, and partially cooked salmon was found being stored about fully cooked spare ribs and rice.
• The restaurant was cited for improper “warewashing sanitization, and frequency methods,” which includes silverware. The final rinse temperature of the dishwasher was not hot enough.
• Hot and cold foods were stored at improper temperatures. This appears to have affected dozens of foods, including salmon and several other types of fish, beef, chicken, and many other cuts of meat, and raw vegetables.
• The restaurant’s food marking and disposal methods were cited. Chicken, tomato slices, and lettuce were unmarked.
• There was no consumer food advisory for raw or undercooked food displayed at the sushi bar or on menus.

Epicurean also accrued seven non-critical violations, five of which were corrected on site. They were given 45 days’ notice to correct these, which included:

• Unclean floors between cooking units.
• Lack of handwashing signs on display at sinks.
• A sushi chef wearing a bracelet.
• A case of lids and trays being stored on the sushi bar floor.
• Employees appeared to have been cited for their personal cleanliness.

LEO J. O’DONOVAN DINING HALL

In August, about a week before the first students began to arrive at campus, Leo’s was cited for one critical violation and two non-critical violations. For the critical violation, which was corrected on site, the inspector found that there was no sneezeguard over the bread in the self-serve area.

The non-critical violations had to do with cleanliness of serving areas.

“Clean all shelving, areas around and under all work stations, all buffet display units and all [equipment] services at upper and lower food service areas, main kitchen and all sub-kitchen areas, … and storage areas daily when needed to remove dust and dried food particles,” the report instructs. “Clean floors where needed [throughout] facilities (on all levels), in corners and under, around, and behind all [equipment].”

A subsequent health inspection report found no violations.

BANGKOK BISTRO

The FOIA officer who responded to Vox’s request only returned one health inspection for Bangkok Bistro, an October 2008 inspection report. But it suggested that Bangkok had recently been cited for critical violations, as it indicated that Bangkok had been given five days’ notice to correct them or risk closure.

“Five days’ notice abated,” the report reads. “Old refrigerator has been replaced with new one; old cutting boards has been replaced with new one [sic]; cleaned inside ice machines; foods are below 45 degrees.”

THE TOMBS

In September, The Tombs was given a critical violation for not having “food contact surfaces cleaned and sanitized,” specifically, a “dipping well” in the kitchen, but the one violation alone was enough for inspectors to finger the restaurant as a high-risk establishment. A March inspection found one non-critical violation; there was not enough light over the stove.

DEAN & DELUCA

Bonus violator! The Washington Examiner did a citywide survey that covered hundreds of restaurants that were inspected in the last three months and found that Georgetown’s own Dean & Deluca was in the top 10 violators (out of 1,900 restaurants with violations between November 1, 2009 and February 1, 2010) in the District, with seven critical violations.

Voice news will have more on Thursday. Tune in tomorrow to find out how Wisey’s, Booey’s, Tuscany, and Corp establishments fared on their most recent health inspections!

Photo of Epicurean & Co. by Jackson Perry.

“Relocating the hospital to another site on the University campus accessed from Canal Road would avoid these objectionable impacts and also create a large space for the construction of new student housing.”

Subsequent student commenters were not pleased, and responses ranged from this:

“What an idiot. She actually suggesting moving the hospital? I had thought the association was comprised of slightly cranky but generally reasonable non-student residents, but not actual extremists. The author is a true fool.”

To this:

“Jennifer Altemus deserves every bad thing that ever happens to her in her life.”

But Altemus’s suggestion that the University move the Hospital did not come out of nowhere. Vox is guessing that her comments derive from the fact that plans to build an entirely new Hospital facility really are part of Georgetown’s 2010 Campus Plan. Only, construction of a new facility isn’t going to free up any room for more student housing, because the current Hospital facilities don’t seem to be going anywhere.

Read more after the jump, plus some seriously nasty e-mails between a Georgetown alum and the CAG Vice President about the Hospital

Spokesperson for the University Hospital Marianne Worley contacted employees of MedStar, the non-profit company that owns the facilities, to get the details about the hospital element of the Ten Year Plan. In an e-mail, she wrote that MedStar had agreed to the University proposal that they build “an additional facility” on the current hospital parking lot and the site of the Kober Cogan Building, which would be torn down.

Above, a technical drawing from the November draft of the 2010 Campus Plan (pdf) shows where the new construction would take place—on the parking lot in from of Darnall Hall.

So it looks like Altemus was half-right in her recollection of the University’s plans, although I’m sure neighbors will be disappointed to learn that for now, Georgetown is just constructing more buildings, and not tearing down old ones.

A few weeks later, though, Altemus’s suggestions caused a thread of downright choleric e-mails between Georgetown alum Joseph Corcoran and Altemus’s Vice President at CAG, Gianluca Pivato.

It started with an e-mail from Corcoran, the alum:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I recently moved from the Georgetown neighborhood in Washington to London. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in the area, though agree with your organization’s assessment that some students, particularly on weekend nights, are often disrespectful of their community.

However, I was shocked to read the following from your leadership in a recent public letter:

“Relocating the hospital to another site on the University campus accessed fiom Canal Road would avoid these objectionable impacts and also create a large space for the construction of new student housing.”

The hospital in question is Georgetown University Hospital. Never have I read something so ill informed, so blatantly hostile and so utterly, utterly idiotic as the above statement. Do you mean to suggest that a hospital that serves the greater Washington area and is known as the best hospital sans Johns Hopkins in the metropolitan area should move altogether? Any fool who lives in Georgetown realizes there is no where for such a structure to be built, unless you advocate moving it into the Georgetown neighborhood.

I must say that your organization has taken a deeply irresponsible route in making such a laughably absurd question. To think a massive hospital should move to make way for dorms! Please fire whatever pitifully ignorant soul wrote this letter. He or she is an embarrassment to Georgetown.

Regards,

J.M. Corcoran III

Gianluca Pivato, the Vice-President of CAG, responded, “The ‘pitiful ignorant’ you are referring to is the board of directors of MedStar (the owner of Georgetown) [sic] and the board of trustees of Georgetown University.” He went on to argue that there were two potential options for the Hospital’s future—MedStar could renovate its current facilities over 10 years, or build an entirely new facility at once—and that Altemus had been arguing in favor of wholesale construction of a new facility, although he said that a whole new facility would result in the demolition of the old facilities, which it won’t.

“CAG has absolutely nothing to do with this. We simply stated that we would prefer MedStar’s proposal to a 10 year construction project. I believe your apologies are due in short order,” he wrote.

Corcoran promptly responded that a new facility wouldn’t result in a new land gain.

“I have always found it amusing that short term residents of the university’s neighborhood for over 200 years should be so myopic,” he wrote. “Indeed, you are the pitiful ignorant. And for that, I really do apologize.”

Pivato responded:

“Joseph, fuck off. You are senile or ill.”

At this point, Joseph Corcoran looped Vox Populi into their e-mail thread, and made Pivato aware that he had done so, writing:

“While I do not respect you and your opinions, and have made that perfectly clear, I think your tone somewhat irresponsible. As a former student and resident, I hope the university and CAG find better representatives in these matters than yourself. Your conduct and CAG’s in this matter is regrettable.”

Pivato replied-all to Vox and Corcoran:

“There is nothing wrong in telling you to fuck off. Really. You are using a fake identity to gratuitously insult residents, CAG, GU, and MedStar. If you were not the coward you are you would use your real identity.”

Shit. Vox now thinks the odds that the 2010 Campus Plan will not wind up in four years’ of litigation like the 2000 Campus Plan are exceedingly low. With tempers like those, we don’t stand a Philly Pizza’s chance in Georgetown.

Updated 2:37 p.m.: Corcoran did not respond to an e-mail sent a few weeks ago asking if he was using a false identity, as Pivato accused.

Don’t Be Hatin’

“Hate Free Georgetown”—a week of events intended to bring different groups on campus together in response to bias related incidents this past Fall, will run March 15 through March 20 and is sponsored by a variety of campus groups, including GUGS, Hoya Blue, The Corp, Groove Theory, GU Pride, nomadictheatre, and campus a capella groups.

Events include a “Dance Day” on Monday from 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. in Red Square, GUGS burgers in Red Square from 12 p.m. – 3 p.m. on Thursday, a “Field day” on Healy lawn on Friday from 2 p.m. – 4 p.m. with games like capture the flag and tag, and a “Performance Festival” Saturday from 5 p.m. – 7 p.m. in McNeir auditorium featuring nomadictheatre and a capella performances, and student-written scenes about non-violence.

HFG will be tabling in Red Square Monday from 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. where students can sign pledges of support and get HFG Georgetown buttons, allowing entry into the events later in the week. See the full list of HFG events.

The Business of Happiness

Join President DeGioia and Washington, D.C. business leaders Monday at 4:30 p.m for a panel discussion on the “Double-Bottom Line”—the concept that success in business is driven by both fiscal results and a positive impact to people and society. Panelists include Ted Leonsis, former AOL vice chairman and author of The Business of Happiness; Tom Adams, founder and CEO of Rosetta Stone; Donald Graham, chairman of the Washington Post Company; Sheila Johnson, co-founder of BET; and Joseph Robert, chairman and CEO of J.E. Robert Companies, Inc.

The event will be held in the Lohrfink Auditorium in the Rafik B. Harari Building. Space is limited and students should RSVP to attend. For those unable to attend, the MSB will also have a webcast of the event.