During my time at Iowa State, I have heard plenty of colorful phrases to describe members of the Government of the Student Body. All of these can be summed up in the following sentence: “GSB is just a group of power-hungry, would-be petty politicians and resume-padding sociopaths who stroke their own egos by making themselves feel important and not giving a damn about their fellow students.”

That’s the clean version. And perhaps a bit unfair. But if even one part of this stereotype is remotely true, then we are very fortunate to have GSB in place to contain the efforts of these individuals.

The purpose of GSB is to nullify the actions of empire-builders who could be a threat to the common welfare and individual rights within the Ames and ISU community. GSB is a system to maintain order. Yet this same system hinders GSB from effectively tackling issues such as rising tuition, student housing and Campustown. We see evidence of this in GSB’s own constitution, its legislation, the “background” services GSB provides and GSB’s seemingly inability to affect positive lasting change for the student body.

According to GSB’s website, GSB patterns itself “just like the United States Government” with executive, legislative and judicial branches. Members of GSB might have great plans and ideas, but these are inhibited by a system of checks and balances found in GSB’s constitution. Not to mention that the democratic process requires much argument and persuasion, which often fails to reach a consensus.

Nearly all of GSB’s legislation has nothing to do with the lofty ideals described in my last column. GSB legislation, for the most part, consists of two things: funding organizations with student activity fees and what I call “restructuring.” GSB often restructures itself by the election of senators, the appointment of committee members and changing its bylaws. In 2011, about 168 pieces of legislation were considered in GSB.

These break down as follows: 96 bills dealt with funding — or about 57 percent — 58 dealt with restructuring — or about 35 percent — and around 14 dealt with miscellaneous issues — about 8 percent. Miscellaneous issues include topics like lighting in Campustown, congratulating the Cyclones or welcoming new ISU President Steven Leath. Given all of these things, most GSB members are too busy to address many important problems confronting students.

GSB spends a little more than a third of its time in meetings restructuring itself. Most of the focus is on the appointment and election of new members. The annual elections are part of this process. But there is, however, a high turnover rate within GSB outside the regular elections. And the number of bills can be misleading as to the exact number of changes made. Some bills dealt with the appointment of two or more people. Furthermore, in 2011, GSB changed chapters 1-17 of its bylaws, with chapters one through four being changed twice. With this kind of turnover in both rules and members, GSB does not have the means to effectively represent the student body.

GSB is also too busy funding organizations with student activity fees. GSB received almost $1.7 million in revenue for the 2011 fiscal year and just more than $1.9 million for the 2012 fiscal year. Now, I know that not all of the money gets spent from one year to the next, so GSB can easily have almost $2 million.

This is a small amount when compared to Iowa State’s budget. Yet it’s enough to keep GSB members occupied while making them feel important. Unfortunately for student organizations, this means petitioning GSB for money — if you’ve ever had to go through this tedious process, I feel for you.

Yet despite these criticisms, GSB does passively fund services that often remain out of the spotlight, like partially funding the Daily and CyRide. This is why students get both for free — because they’ve already paid with student fees.

Finally, even more systems are in place to keep GSB limited in power and answerable to the university. Just like with every student organization on campus, GSB must comply with the Student Organization Recognition Policy.

Violating any aspect of this policy might be grounds for GSB being put on probation. If the violation is not fixed, GSB could become unrecognized by the university. This almost happened back in 2008.

GSB had to add a referendum question to the GSB elections to change its constitution to meet the Student Organization Recognition Policy requirements. I’ve always wondered what would have happened if that referendum had been voted down.

GSB is relatively powerless to address the issues that really matter to students: rising tuition, housing conditions, Campustown and so on. GSB is too busy funding organizations and restructuring itself. And that’s how it’s supposed to work. For those who think differently or are angered by this reality, I offer in my next column a special treat: a five-step plan to dissolve GSB.